IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v35y2007i3p410-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Joint Effect of Topic Interest and Follow-Up Procedures on the Response in a Mail Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Henk Roose

    (Ghent University, Belgium)

  • John Lievens

    (Ghent University, Belgium)

  • Hans Waege

    (Ghent University, Belgium)

Abstract

Leverage-saliency theory provides a seminal basis for research on the differential effects of response-facilitating techniques in surveys. In this article, a quasi-experimental design is applied to analyze the effect of follow-up procedures, taking into account the sample persons’ interest in the survey topic. The authors use multilevel logistic regression to map response on a mail questionnaire in the second step of a two-step data collection procedure. It is found that—after controlling for the effects of sociodemographic and performance-related covariates—the effect of follow-up procedures is larger for those less interested in the survey topic. As such, these findings are an empirical confirmation of the leverage-saliency theory. Some implications for survey research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Henk Roose & John Lievens & Hans Waege, 2007. "The Joint Effect of Topic Interest and Follow-Up Procedures on the Response in a Mail Questionnaire," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(3), pages 410-428, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:35:y:2007:i:3:p:410-428
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124106290447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124106290447
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124106290447?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. Peter Lynn, 2003. "PEDAKSI: Methodology for Collecting Data about Survey Non-Respondents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 239-261, August.
    2. Albaum, Gerald S. & Evangelista, Felicitas & Medina, Nila, 1998. "Role of Response Behavior Theory in Survey Research: A Cross-National Study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 115-125, June.
    3. Brendan Burchell & Catherine Marsh, 1992. "The effect of questionnaire length on survey response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 233-244, August.
    4. Mick Couper & Robert Groves, 1996. "Social environmental impacts on survey cooperation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 173-188, May.
    5. Henk Roose & Hans Waege & Filip Agneessens, 2003. "Respondent Related Correlates of Response Behaviour in Audience Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 411-434, November.
    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. Hannah Bongartz & Nicole Rübsamen & Heike Raupach-Rosin & Manas K. Akmatov & Rafael T. Mikolajczyk, 2017. "Why do people participate in health-related studies?," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 62(9), pages 1059-1062, December.

    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. Tom W. Smith & Jibum Kim, 2013. "An Assessment of the Multi-level Integrated Database Approach," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 185-221, January.
    2. Robert Voogt & Hetty Van Kempen, 2002. "Nonresponse Bias and Stimulus Effects in the Dutch National Election Study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 325-345, November.
    3. Steven J. Tepper, 1998. "Making Sense of the Numbers: Estimating Arts Participation in America," Working Papers 57, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies..
    4. Gvantsa Sekhniashvili & Zoltán Bujdosó, 2023. "Developing a Wine Tourism Destination Image Measurement Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Naomi Moy & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2018. "How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Agnieszka Chidlow & Pervez N. Ghauri, 2014. "What incentives are being used by International Business Researchers in Their Surveys? A Review," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1086, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    7. Olga Maslovskaya & Peter Lugtig, 2022. "Representativeness in six waves of CROss‐National Online Survey (CRONOS) panel," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 851-871, July.
    8. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Weighting for non-monotonic response pattern in longitudinal surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-34, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    9. Zhu, Wenlong & Mou, Jian & Benyoucef, Morad, 2019. "Exploring purchase intention in cross-border E-commerce: A three stage model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 320-330.
    10. Brüggen, Elisabeth & Dholakia, Utpal M., 2010. "Determinants of Participation and Response Effort in Web Panel Surveys," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 239-250.
    11. Rolf Becker, 2022. "The effects of a special sequential mixed-mode design, and reminders, on panellists’ participation in a probability-based panel study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 259-284, February.
    12. F. Kreuter & K. Olson & J. Wagner & T. Yan & T. M. Ezzati‐Rice & C. Casas‐Cordero & M. Lemay & A. Peytchev & R. M. Groves & T. E. Raghunathan, 2010. "Using proxy measures and other correlates of survey outcomes to adjust for non‐response: examples from multiple surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(2), pages 389-407, April.
    13. Rogozin, Dnitriy M. & Ipatova, Anna, 2015. "Quality Control of Social Surveys," Published Papers 020915, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    14. Emanuela Sala & Jonathan Burton & Gundi Knies, 2012. "Correlates of Obtaining Informed Consent to Data Linkage," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(3), pages 414-439, August.
    15. Kristen Olson, 2013. "Paradata for Nonresponse Adjustment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 142-170, January.
    16. Doreen Zillmann & Andreas Schmitz & Jan Skopek & Hans-Peter Blossfeld, 2014. "Survey topic and unit nonresponse," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 2069-2088, July.
    17. Ane Kirstine Aare & Hanne Cooreman & Cristina Virto Garayoa & Esther Sótil Arrieta & Natalia Bellostas & Fleur Marchand & Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen, 2020. "Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    18. Vyrskaya, Marina & Ipatova, Anna & Kartavtsev, Vladimir, 2017. "The Effect of Standardization in Personal and Telephone Interviews," Working Papers 041724, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    19. Prigge, Jana-Kristin & Dietz, Beatrix & Homburg, Christian & Hoyer, Wayne D. & Burton, Jennifer L., 2015. "Patient empowerment: A cross-disease exploration of antecedents and consequences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 375-386.
    20. Tomaž Kolar & Iztok Kolar, 2008. "What Respondents Really Expect From Researchers," Evaluation Review, , vol. 32(4), pages 363-391, August.

    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:sae:somere:v:35:y:2007:i:3:p:410-428. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.