IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v184y2021i3p1052-1069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse

Author

Listed:
  • Henning Silber
  • Joss Roßmann
  • Tobias Gummer
  • Stefan Zins
  • Kai Willem Weyandt

Abstract

In this article, we examine two types of item nonresponse in a face‐to‐face population survey: ‘don’t know’ (DK) and ‘item refusal’ (REF). Based on the cognitive model of survey response, the theory of survey satisficing and previous research, we derive explanatory variables on three levels: question, respondent and interviewer characteristics. The results of our cross‐classified model show that while the two levels question and respondents’ characteristics affected both types of item nonresponse, interviewer characteristics affected only DK answers. Our results also confirm that DK and REF are substantially different item nonresponse types resulting from distinguishable disruptions of the cognitive response process. Since most results are in line with prior theoretical predictions, they suggest that survey practitioners are well‐advised by continuing to follow the large body of practical guidance derived from the theories tested here.

Suggested Citation

  • Henning Silber & Joss Roßmann & Tobias Gummer & Stefan Zins & Kai Willem Weyandt, 2021. "The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1052-1069, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:184:y:2021:i:3:p:1052-1069
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12703
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12703?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. Dickinson, John R. & Kirzner, Eric, 1985. "Questionnaire item omission as a function of within-group question position," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 71-75, February.
    2. Frank Bais & Barry Schouten & Peter Lugtig & Vera Toepoel & Judit Arends-Tòth & Salima Douhou & Natalia Kieruj & Mattijn Morren & Corrie Vis, 2019. "Can Survey Item Characteristics Relevant to Measurement Error Be Coded Reliably? A Case Study on 11 Dutch General Population Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 263-295, May.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero.
    4. Jan Pickery & Geert Loosveldt, 1998. "The Impact of Respondent and Interviewer Characteristics on the Number of “No Opinion” Answers," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 31-45, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guizzo Altube, Matías & Scartascini, Carlos, 2024. "Gender-Based Research and Interviewer Effects: Evidence for Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13475, Inter-American Development Bank.
    2. Melike Saraç, 2024. "Does respondent motivation affect item-nonresponse for split-ballot designed survey data? Comparative evidence from the European Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3791-3809, August.

    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. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2006. "Trust in surveys and the respondents' susceptibility to item nonresponse," Papers 06-06, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Stocké, Volker, 2004. "Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents' susceptibility to nonresponse," Papers 04-30, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    3. Dan Yavorsky & Elisabeth Honka & Keith Chen, 2021. "Consumer search in the U.S. auto industry: The role of dealership visits," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 1-52, March.
    4. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    5. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    6. Sebastian Heidenreich & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Bruno Flamion & Melissa Ross & Jaein Seo & Kevin Marsh, 2021. "Benefit–Risk or Risk–Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 65-74, January.
    7. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    8. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    9. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    10. Boneva, Teodora & Golin, Marta & Kaufmann, Katja Maria & Rauh, Christopher, 2022. "Beliefs about Maternal Labor Supply," IZA Discussion Papers 15788, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Webb, Edward J.D. & Hess, Stephane, 2021. "Joint modelling of choice and rating data: Theory and examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Jurgen Von Hagen & Jizhong Zhou, 2008. "The interaction between capital controls and exchange rate regimes: evidence from developing countries," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 163-185.
    14. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    15. Laura-Lucia Richter & Melvyn Weeks, 2016. "Flexible Mixed Logit with Posterior Analysis: Exploring Willingness-to-Pay for Grid Resilience," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1631, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    16. Javid, Roxana J. & Nejat, Ali, 2017. "A comprehensive model of regional electric vehicle adoption and penetration," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 30-42.
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    18. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    19. Andrea Ascani & Riccardo Crescenzi & Simona Iammarino, 2015. "Economic Institutions and the Location Strategies of European Multinationals in their Geographical Neighbourhood," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 97, European Institute, LSE.
    20. Shenhao Wang & Qingyi Wang & Jinhua Zhao, 2018. "Deep Neural Networks for Choice Analysis: Extracting Complete Economic Information for Interpretation," Papers 1812.04528, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jorssa:v:184:y:2021:i:3:p:1052-1069. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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.