IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v33y2017i4p901-919n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptive Intervention Methodology for Reduction of Respondent Contact Burden in the American Community Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Ashmead Robert
  • Slud Eric

    (U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC, 20233United States of America.)

  • Hughes Todd

    (UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 10960 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, CA 90024, United States of America)

Abstract

The notion of respondent contact burden in sample surveys is defined, and a multi-stage process to develop policies for curtailing nonresponse follow-up is described with the goal of reducing this burden on prospective survey respondents. The method depends on contact history paradata containing information about contact attempts both for respondents and for sampled nonrespondents. By analysis of past data, policies to stop case follow-up based on control variables measured in paradata can be developed by calculating propensities to respond for paradata-defined subgroups of sampled cases. Competing policies can be assessed by comparing outcomes (lost interviews, numbers of contacts, patterns of reluctant participation, or refusal to participate) as if these stopping policies had been followed in past data. Finally, embedded survey experiments may be used to assess contact-burden reduction policies when these are implemented in the field. The multi-stage method described here abstracts the stages followed in a series of research studies aimed at reducing contact burden in the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) and Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) modes of the American Community Survey (ACS), which culminated in implementation of policy changes in the ACS.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashmead Robert & Slud Eric & Hughes Todd, 2017. "Adaptive Intervention Methodology for Reduction of Respondent Contact Burden in the American Community Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(4), pages 901-919, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:4:p:901-919:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2017-0043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0043
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2017-0043?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Annemieke Luiten & Barry Schouten, 2013. "Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 169-189, January.
    4. Paul P. Biemer & Patrick Chen & Kevin Wang, 2013. "Using level-of-effort paradata in non-response adjustments with application to field surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 147-168, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Durrant Gabriele B. & Maslovskaya Olga & Smith Peter W. F., 2017. "Using Prior Wave Information and Paradata: Can They Help to Predict Response Outcomes and Call Sequence Length in a Longitudinal Study?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 801-833, September.
    3. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. van Berkel Kees & van der Doef Suzanne & Schouten Barry, 2020. "Implementing Adaptive Survey Design With an Application to the Dutch Health Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 609-629, September.
    7. Frauke Kreuter, 2013. "Facing the Nonresponse Challenge," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 23-35, January.
    8. Wagner James & West Brady T. & Elliott Michael R. & Coffey Stephanie, 2020. "Comparing the Ability of Regression Modeling and Bayesian Additive Regression Trees to Predict Costs in a Responsive Survey Design Context," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 907-931, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Vandenplas Caroline & Loosveldt Geert & Beullens Koen, 2017. "Fieldwork Monitoring for the European Social Survey: An illustration with Belgium and the Czech Republic in Round 7," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 659-686, September.
    11. Barry Schouten & Fannie Cobben & Peter Lundquist & James Wagner, 2016. "Does more balanced survey response imply less non-response bias?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(3), pages 727-748, June.
    12. Brick J. Michael, 2013. "Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 329-353, June.
    13. Tobias Gummer, 2019. "Assessing Trends and Decomposing Change in Nonresponse Bias: The Case of Bias in Cohort Distributions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(1), pages 92-115, February.
    14. Frauke Kreuter & Kristen Olson, 2011. "Multiple Auxiliary Variables in Nonresponse Adjustment," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(2), pages 311-332, May.
    15. Eltinge John L. & Biemer Paul P. & Holmberg Anders, 2013. "A Potential Framework for Integration of Architecture and Methodology to Improve Statistical Production Systems," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(1), pages 125-145, March.
    16. Mirel Lisa B. & Chowdhury Sadeq R., 2017. "Using Linked Survey Paradata to Improve Sampling Strategies in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 367-383, June.
    17. Murphy Joe & Biemer Paul & Berry Chip, 2018. "Transitioning a Survey to Self-Administration using Adaptive, Responsive, and Tailored (ART) Design Principles and Data Visualization," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 625-648, September.
    18. Hanly, Mark & Clarke, Paul & Steele, Fiona, 2016. "Sequence analysis of call record data: exploring the role of different cost settings," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64896, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. 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.
    20. McCarthy Jaki & Wagner James & Sanders Herschel Lisette, 2017. "The Impact of Targeted Data Collection on Nonresponse Bias in an Establishment Survey: A Simulation Study of Adaptive Survey Design," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 857-871, 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:33:y:2017:i:4:p:901-919:n:4. 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.