Methods of Data Collection and Mode of Administration

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Effect of mode: MeasurementAnswers to survey questions - Responsepatterns (Jordan et al. 1980:218)Mean Scores on ResponsePattern CountsPhone PersonalAgreement 13.9 12.5Evasiveness .6 .5Extremeness 2.5 1.9Effect of mode: MeasurementAnswers to survey questions - Social desirability• Lower visibility on telephone may lower pressure for desirable answers• Less intimacy, desire to conform• Fewer characteristics of interviewer can be seen as relevant• Lower visibility on telephone may increase perception of possible threat• Interviewer cannot display credentials• Status of interview as interview may remain ambiguousCompared to telephone interviews, answers to rating scaleswith "vague quantifiers" in self-administered instrumentsappear to be (review in Dillman and Tarnai 1988):less extremeshow fewer category order effectsEffect of mode: MeasurementAnswers to survey questions - Social desirabilityof face-to-face vs phoneTheory of mode effects for in-person data collection(Tourangeau and Smith 1998)Hochstim (1967)Locander et al.(1976)Sykes and Collins(1988:306)Sykes and Collins(1988: 312)de Leeuw and vander Zouwen (1988)apparent ranking:personal,telephone, mailsimilar to eachotherpattern of more SDin personal ingeneral surveymore SD inpersonal for Qsabout alcoholSD lower inpersonal
Mode Effects and Reports of Illicit Drug Use: Proportions of RespondentsReporting Drug Use Relative to SAQ (Tourangeau and Smith 1998, Table 22.1)Mode Effects and Reports of Illicit Drug Use: Proportions ofRespondents Reporting Drug Use Relative to SAQ (Tourangeau andSmith 1998, Table 22.1)Time FrameStudy Year Mode vs Mode Drug PastMonthPastYearLifetimeAquilino (1994) In-person SAQ Cocaine 0.67 0.75 0.88Marijuana 0.83 .0.77 0.98Telephone SAQ Cocaine 1.00 1.00 0.76Marijuana 0.67 0.62 0.96AquilinoandLoSciutoGfroererandHughesSchober etal.Turner,Lessler,andDevore(1990) Telephone SAQ – Cocaine 0.83 0.85 1.10WhitesMarijuana 1.00 0.96 1.00Telephone SAQ – Cocaine 0.60 0.82 0.82BlacksMarijuana 0.41 0.72 0.80(1992) Telephone SAQ Cocaine 0.49 0.70Marijuana 0.65 0.75(1992) In-person SAQ Cocaine 0.60 0.75 0.89Marijuana 0.75 0.83 0.99(1992) In-person SAQ Cocaine 0.42 0.68 0.94Marijuana 0.62 0.77 0.95• In Aquilino’s study, ratioof proportion of Rsreporting cocaine use byphone to proportion of Rsreporting by SAQ is .67• Ratios under 1 indicatelower reporting in modeother than SAQ• No ratio is greater than 1• Ratios tend to besmallest for most recenttime frame and closer to1 for lifetimeMean number of adult lifetime sex partners reported bymen and women, 1989 GSS (Smith 1992, Table 7)Males Females Males:FemalesUnadjusted 13.00 3.24 4.06:1Adjusted for 12.05 3.03 3.98:1nonresponseAdjusted forextreme values9.36 3.02 3.10:1• In a closed population, reports of men and women should yield the sameestimates of number of sexual partners.• Estimates based on men's reports are higher than estimates based onwomen's reports.• Results suggest that techniques that decrease men's reports or increasewomen's reports improve reporting.Mean reported sex partners by mode of interview (ACASIExperiment, Tourangeau and Smith 1996, Table 3)ModePastYearPast 5YearsLifetimeACASI 2.26 4.52 7.05CASI 1.87 2.99 5.75CAPI 2.14 3.44 5.51• Effect of mode is significant for lifetime reports and marginally significantfor 5-year reports.• ACASI yields higher reports than CASI for lifetime and 5-year reports.• Cell sizes range from 86 to 104. Significance tests based on logged data.Typology of Web SurveysWeb surveys withgeneral invitationsNo0. Entertainment polls1. Unrestricted self-selectedsurveysNon-probability surveysProbability-based surveysNo2: Volunteer opt-in panels?: Surveys of spam listsList of participants invitedto the survey?Yes, prior to datacollectionWeb surveys withindividual invitationsProbability sample?YesYes, generated duringdata collectionIntercept surveys3. Pop-up surveys3. Selective banner ads4: List-based samples5: Web option in mixed-mode surveys6: Pre-recruited lists of Internet users7: Pre-recruited panels of full populationSource: based on Lozar Manfreda’s (2001) revision of Couper (2001)48
Page 1 and 2: IntroductionMethods of Data Collect
Page 3 and 4: Choosing method of data collection:
Page 5 and 6: Comparison of address-based samplin
Page 7 and 8: Choice of mode: Measurement process
Page 9 and 10: Choice of mode: Costs• Staff• C
Page 11 and 12: Sample and nonsample addresses by m
Page 13: Effect of mode: Comments about item
Page 17 and 18: Summary: Advantages of face-to-face

Methods of Data Collection and Mode of Administration

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?