IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v36y2020i1p117-136n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Interviewer Evaluations Predict Short-Term and Long-Term Participation in Telephone Panels?

Author

Listed:
  • Lipps Oliver
  • Voorpostel Marieke

    (FORS c/o University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.)

Abstract

Interviewers often assess after the interview the respondent’s ability and reluctance to participate. Prior research has shown that this evaluation is associated with next-wave response behavior in face-to-face surveys. Our study adds to this research by looking at this association in telephone surveys, where an interviewer typically has less information on which to base an assessment. We looked at next-wave participation, non-contact and refusal, as well as longer-term participation patterns. We found that interviewers were better able to anticipate refusal than non-contact relative to participation, especially in the next wave, but also in the longer term. Our findings confirm that interviewer evaluations – in particular of the respondent’s reluctance to participate – can help predict response at later waves, also after controlling for commonly used predictors of survey nonresponse. In addition to helping to predict nonresponse in the short term, interviewer evaluations provide useful information for a long-term perspective as well, which may be used to improve nonresponse adjustment and in responsive designs in longitudinal surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Lipps Oliver & Voorpostel Marieke, 2020. "Can Interviewer Evaluations Predict Short-Term and Long-Term Participation in Telephone Panels?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(1), pages 117-136, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:117-136:n:6
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2020-0006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2020-0006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2004. "Sample Attrition in the HILDA Survey," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 7(2), pages 293-308, June.
    2. C. Casas-Cordero & F. Kreuter & Y. Wang & S. Babey, 2013. "Assessing the measurement error properties of interviewer observations of neighbourhood characteristics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 227-249, January.
    3. Matthias Schonlau & Nicole Watson & Martin Kroh, 2010. "Household Survey Panels: How Much Do Following Rules Affect Sample Size?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 347, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Robert M. Groves & Steven G. Heeringa, 2006. "Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 439-457, July.
    5. Noah Uhrig, S.C., 2008. "The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel Study," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-05, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lagorio, Carlos, 2016. "Call and response: modelling longitudinal contact and cooperation using Wave 1 call records data," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2016-01, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Annamaria Bianchi & Silvia Biffignandi, 2019. "Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 931-957, February.
    3. Stephanie Eckman & Frauke Kreuter, 2013. "Undercoverage Rates and Undercoverage Bias in Traditional Housing Unit Listing," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 264-293, August.
    4. Brady T. West & Dan Li, 2019. "Sources of Variance in the Accuracy of Interviewer Observations," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(3), pages 485-533, August.
    5. Kaminska Olena & Lynn Peter, 2017. "The Implications of Alternative Allocation Criteria in Adaptive Design for Panel Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 781-799, September.
    6. Ronald R. Rindfuss & Minja K. Choe & Noriko O. Tsuya & Larry L. Bumpass & Emi Tamaki, 2015. "Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(26), pages 797-828.
    7. Aude Bernard & Martin Bell & Elin Charles-Edwards, 2016. "Internal migration age patterns and the transition to adulthood: Australia and Great Britain compared," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 123-146, June.
    8. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.
    9. Martin Kroh, 2011. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2010)," Data Documentation 59, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Chun Asaph Young & Schouten Barry & Wagner James, 2017. "JOS Special Issue on Responsive and Adaptive Survey Design: Looking Back to See Forward – Editorial: In Memory of Professor Stephen E. Fienberg, 1942–2016," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 571-577, September.
    11. Reza C. Daniels, 2012. "A Framework for Investigating Micro Data Quality, with Application to South African Labour Market Household Surveys," SALDRU Working Papers 90, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    12. Reist, Benjamin M. & Rodhouse, Joseph B. & Ball, Shane T. & Young, Linda J., 2019. "Subsampling of Nonrespondents in the 2017 Census of Agriculture," NASS Research Reports 322826, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    13. Lewis Taylor, 2017. "Univariate Tests for Phase Capacity: Tools for Identifying When to Modify a Survey’s Data Collection Protocol," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 601-624, September.
    14. Jiayun Jin & Caroline Vandenplas & Geert Loosveldt, 2019. "The Evaluation of Statistical Process Control Methods to Monitor Interview Duration During Survey Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, June.
    15. Binder, Martin & Coad, Alex, 2013. "“I'm afraid I have bad news for you…” Estimating the impact of different health impairments on subjective well-being," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-167.
    16. Andy Peytchev, 2013. "Consequences of Survey Nonresponse," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 88-111, January.
    17. Roger Tourangeau & J. Michael Brick & Sharon Lohr & Jane Li, 2017. "Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 203-223, January.
    18. Coulson, N. Edward & Grieco, Paul L.E., 2013. "Mobility and mortgages: Evidence from the PSID," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-7.
    19. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    20. repec:iab:iabfda:201307(en is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Roberts Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E. & Vandenplas Caroline, 2020. "A Validation of R-Indicators as a Measure of the Risk of Bias using Data from a Nonresponse Follow-Up Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:117-136:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.