IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i18p1627-1633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technique bias in measuring acts of altruism : The case of voluntary blood donation

Author

Listed:
  • Lightman, Ernie S.

Abstract

This study compared personal interviews and a postal survey, posing the same questions to two random samples independently drawn from the same population. It sought reasons why respondents began and may subsequently terminate, involvement as voluntary blood donors in Toronto, Canada. The priorities of respondents (ordinal rankings) were virtually identical in the two samples, notwith-standing a clear response rate and socio-economic differential between the modes. Differences in item response rates were compatible with explanations involving interviewer bias and question threat. The study suggested the low response rates of postal surveys may not necessarily imply relevant non-respondent bias. In certain cases at least, other aspects of technique bias may be a more important research concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Lightman, Ernie S., 1982. "Technique bias in measuring acts of altruism : The case of voluntary blood donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(18), pages 1627-1633, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:18:p:1627-1633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90293-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:18:p:1627-1633. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.