IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/34599.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Evaluation of Biases in Wellbeing Estimates Using Interviewers Versus Online Data Collection in the Global Flourishing Study

Author

Listed:
  • David G. Blanchflower
  • Alex Bryson
  • Alan J. Cui

Abstract

Survey mode is a critical consideration in well-being research using the 22 country Global Flourishing Study (GFS). We find marked differences in responses to well-being questions if they are obtained via a telephone interviewer (CATI) or online (CAWI). In fifteen countries in the GFS both survey modes are used. In seven of the most advanced countries, only CAWI is used. Well-being responses are markedly different across survey modes within countries using both modes and compared to countries only using CAWI. On average, CATI tends to produce higher well-being scores. Failure to account for these sampling differences biases results. This is the case in twenty-three prior studies that used the GFS and took no account of survey mode. We examine each of these studies and show the findings differ by survey mode. Combined with the presence of other unobservable country-level confounders, the differences between survey modes substantively weakens the internal validity of cross-country comparisons and random effects meta-analysis conducted with the GFS.

Suggested Citation

  • David G. Blanchflower & Alex Bryson & Alan J. Cui, 2025. "An Evaluation of Biases in Wellbeing Estimates Using Interviewers Versus Online Data Collection in the Global Flourishing Study," NBER Working Papers 34599, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:34599
    Note: CH LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w34599.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General

    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:nbr:nberwo:34599. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.