Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis
This paper describes a five-step procedure for meta-analysis. Especially important was the contacting of authors of prior papers. This was done primarily to improve the accuracy of the coding; it also helped to identify unpublished research and to supply missing information. Application of the five-step procedure to the issue of return postage in mail surveys yielded significantly more papers and produced more definitive conclusions than those derived from traditional reviews. This meta-analysis indicated that business reply postage is seldom costeffective because first class postage yields an additional 9% return. Business reply rates were lower than for other first class postage in each of the 20 comparisons.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- J. Scott Armstrong, 1979.
"Advocacy and Objectivity in Science,"
INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 423-428, May.
- JS Armstrong, 2005. "Advocacy and Objectivity in Science," General Economics and Teaching 0502060, EconWPA.
- Kerin, Roger A. & Harvey, Michael G., 1976. "Methodological considerations in corporate mail surveys: A research note," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 277-281, August. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502041. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.