IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v38y2022i4p1019-1050n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Burdensome Survey Questions on Data Quality in an Omnibus Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Phillips Angelica

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 734 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0342, U.S.A.)

  • Stenger Rachel

    (RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Rd, Durham, NC 27709, U.S.A.)

Abstract

In interviewer-administered omnibus surveys, burdensome questions asked early in a survey may result in lower quality responses to questions asked later in a survey. Two examples of these burdensome questions are social network questions, wherein respondents are asked about members of their personal network, and knowledge questions, wherein respondents are asked to provide a factually correct response to a question. In this study, we explore how the presence of potentially burdensome questions are associated with item nonresponse and acquiescence rates on subsequent survey questions, and whether this effect differs by respondent age and education. We use data from the 2010 General Social Survey (AAPOR RR5 ¼ 70.3%, AAPOR 2016), which experimentally varied the location of a social network module and the presence of a knowledge question module. Those who received knowledge questions had higher item nonresponse rates on subsequent questions than those who did not receive knowledge questions, but the quality of responses did not differ by the presence of social network questions. Further, respondents with different characteristics were not differentially burdened by the knowledge questions or the social network questions. We conclude that knowledge questions may be better asked near the end of omnibus surveys to preserve the response quality for subsequent questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Phillips Angelica & Stenger Rachel, 2022. "The Effect of Burdensome Survey Questions on Data Quality in an Omnibus Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(4), pages 1019-1050, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1019-1050:n:3
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2022-0044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2022-0044?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. Su-Hao Tu & Pei-Shan Liao, 2007. "Social Distance, Respondent Cooperation and Item Nonresponse in Sex Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 177-199, April.
    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. Harris, J. Andrew & van der Windt, Peter, 2023. "Empowering women or increasing response bias? Experimental evidence from Congo," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    2. Himelein,Kristen, 2015. "Interviewer effects in subjective survey questions: evidence from Timor-Leste," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7208, The World Bank.
    3. Bonaccolto-Töpfer, Marina & Briel, Stephanie, 2022. "The gender pay gap revisited: Does machine learning offer new insights?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Eugenio Paglino & Tom Emery, 2020. "Evaluating interviewer manipulation in the new round of the Generations and Gender Survey," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(50), pages 1461-1494.

    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:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1019-1050:n:3. 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.