IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v36y2020i3p561-588n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement of Interviewer Workload within the Survey and an Exploration of Workload Effects on Interviewers’ Field Efforts and Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Wuyts Celine
  • Loosveldt Geert

    (Centre for Sociological Research, Catholic University of Leuven, Parkstraat 45 - bus 3601, 3000Leuven, Belgium.)

Abstract

Interviewer characteristics are usually assumed fixed over the fieldwork period. The number of sample units that require the interviewers’ attention, however, can vary strongly over the fieldwork period. Different workload levels produce different constraints on the time interviewers have available to contact, recruit and interview each target respondent, and may also induce different motivational effects on interviewers’ behavior as they perform their different tasks. In this article we show that fine-grained, time-varying operationalizations of project-specific workload can be useful to explain differences in interviewers’ field efforts and achieved response outcomes over the fieldwork period. We derive project-specific workload for each interviewer on each day of fieldwork in two rounds of the European Social Survey in Belgium from contact history and assignment paradata. Project-specific workload is measured as (1) the number of sample units which have been and remain assigned on any day t (assigned case workload), and (2) the number of sample units for which interviewer activity has started and not yet ceased on any day t (active case workload). Capturing temporal variation in interviewers’ workloads in a direct way, the time-varying operationalizations, are better predictors than are the interviewer-level operationalizations of typical (active or potential) workload that are derived from them, as well as the traditional total-count workload operationalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Wuyts Celine & Loosveldt Geert, 2020. "Measurement of Interviewer Workload within the Survey and an Exploration of Workload Effects on Interviewers’ Field Efforts and Performance," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 561-588, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:36:y:2020:i:3:p:561-588:n:6
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2020-0029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0029
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2020-0029?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. Tom Fangyun Tan & Serguei Netessine, 2014. "When Does the Devil Make Work? An Empirical Study of the Impact of Workload on Worker Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1574-1593, June.
    2. Annelies G. Blom, 2012. "Explaining cross‐country differences in survey contact rates: application of decomposition methods," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(1), pages 217-242, January.
    3. Annelies G. Blom & Edith D. de Leeuw & Joop J. Hox, 2010. "Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse," MEA discussion paper series 10202, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    4. Nicoletti, Cheti & Buck, Nick, 2004. "Explaining interviewee contact and co-operation in the British and German Household Panels," ISER Working Paper Series 2004-06, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    5. 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. Wagner James & Olson Kristen, 2018. "An Analysis of Interviewer Travel and Field Outcomes in Two Field Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 211-237, March.
    2. Sarah Miller & David Amirault & Laurent Martin, 2017. "What’s Up with Unit Non-Response in the Bank of Canada’s Business Outlook Survey? The Effect of Staff Tenure," Discussion Papers 17-11, Bank of Canada.
    3. Mirko Kremer & Francis de Véricourt, 2022. "Mismanaging diagnostic accuracy under congestion," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-22-01, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    4. Noble, Stephanie M. & Lee, Kang Bok & Zaretzki, Russell & Autry, Chad, 2017. "Coupon clipping by impoverished consumers: Linking demographics, basket size, and coupon redemption rates," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 553-571.
    5. Sezer Ülkü & Chris Hydock & Shiliang Cui, 2022. "Social Queues (Cues): Impact of Others’ Waiting in Line on One’s Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7958-7976, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Timothy Gubler & Ian Larkin & Lamar Pierce, 2018. "Doing Well by Making Well: The Impact of Corporate Wellness Programs on Employee Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 4967-4987, November.
    8. Delasay, Mohammad & Ingolfsson, Armann & Kolfal, Bora & Schultz, Kenneth, 2019. "Load effect on service times," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 673-686.
    9. Odysseas Kanavetas & Barış Balcıog̃lu, 2022. "The “Sensitive” Markovian queueing system and its application for a call center problem," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 317(2), pages 651-664, October.
    10. Jiuh‐Biing Sheu & Tsan‐Ming Choi, 2023. "Can we work more safely and healthily with robot partners? A human‐friendly robot–human‐coordinated order fulfillment scheme," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 794-812, March.
    11. Rebecca Vassallo & Gabriele Durrant & Peter Smith, 2017. "Separating interviewer and area effects by using a cross-classified multilevel logistic model: simulation findings and implications for survey designs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(2), pages 531-550, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Brox, Enzo & Krieger, Tommy, 2022. "Birthplace diversity and team performance," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    14. Ruomeng Cui & Hao Ding & Feng Zhu, 2020. "Gender Inequality in Research Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Papers 2006.10194, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    15. Itai Gurvich & Kevin J. O’Leary & Lu Wang & Jan A. Van Mieghem, 2020. "Collaboration, Interruptions, and Changeover Times: Workflow Model and Empirical Study of Hospitalist Charting," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 754-774, July.
    16. Pol Boada-Collado & Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz, 2020. "Estimating and Optimizing the Impact of Inventory on Consumer Choices in a Fashion Retail Setting," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 582-597, May.
    17. Zhou, Ke & Vidyarthi, Arpana & Matchar, David & Cheung, Yin Bun & Lam, Shao Wei & Ong, Marcus, 2018. "The relationship between workload and length of stay in Singapore," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(7), pages 769-774.
    18. Hailong Cui & Sampath Rajagopalan & Amy R. Ward, 2021. "Impact of Task-Level Worker Specialization, Workload, and Product Personalization on Consumer Returns," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 346-366, March.
    19. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    20. Mark Amos, 2018. "Interviewer effects on patterns of nonresponse: Evaluating the impact on the reasons for contraceptive nonuse in the Indonesia and the Philippines DHS," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(14), pages 415-430.

    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:36:y:2020:i:3:p:561-588:n:6. 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.