Search for: All records

ObjectiveThe objective is to estimate the relative contributions of nonresponse, coverage, and measurement biases in survey estimates of voting. MethodsWe survey 3,000 Boston‐area households sampled from an address‐based frame matched, when possible, to telephone numbers. A two‐phase sampling design was used to follow up nonrespondents from phone interviews with personal interviews. All cases were then linked to voting records. ResultsNonresponse, coverage, and measurement‐biased survey estimates at varying stages of the study design. Coverage error linked to missing telephone numbers biased estimates that excluded nonphone households. Overall estimates including nonphone households and nonrespondent interviews include 25 percent relative bias equally attributable to measurement and nonresponse. ConclusionBias in voting measures is not limited to measurement bias. Researchers should also assess the potential for nonresponse and coverage biases. 

Abstract With declining response rates and challenges of using RDD sampling for telephone surveys, collecting data from address-based samples has become more attractive. Two approaches are doing telephone interviews at telephone numbers matched to addresses and asking those at sampled addresses to call into an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to answer questions. This study used in-person interviewing to evaluate the effects of nonresponse and problems matching telephone numbers when telephone and IVR were used as the initial modes of data collection. The survey questions were selected from major US federal surveys covering a variety of topics. Both nonresponse and, for telephone, inability to find matches result in important nonresponse error for nearly half the measures across all topics, even after adjustments to fit the known demographic characteristics of the residents. Producing credible estimates requires using supplemental data collection strategies to reduce error from nonresponse. 

Abstract This study investigates what role, if any, nonresponse plays in inflating survey estimates of religious behavior, using a multimode survey designed to allow estimation of nonresponse bias. A sample of 3,000 Boston-area households drawn from an address-based frame was randomly divided into two subsamples, contacted by mail, and invited to participate in a survey. The first subsample was asked to complete an interactive voice response interview. The second subsample was asked to complete a survey by telephone if a number was available for the address or by personal interview if not. Finally, random samples of nonrespondents were recontacted for a personal interview. Comparison of attendance estimates from initial interviews with nonrespondent interviews within sample segments yields minor or minimal differences that are not statistically significant. Findings suggest that the mechanism generating survey nonresponse is unlikely to be a major cause of bias in religious service attendance estimates in this study. 

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess nonresponse error in telephone health survey data based on an address‐based sample. Data SourcesTelephone and in‐person interviews in Greater Boston. Study Design/Data CollectionInterviewers attempted telephone interviews at addresses that were matched to telephone numbers using questions drawn from federal health surveys. In‐person household interviews were carried out with telephone nonrespondents and at addresses without matching telephone numbers. Principal FindingsAfter adjusting for demographic differences, only eight of 15 estimates based on the telephone interviews lay within two standard errors of the estimates when data from all three groups were included. ConclusionsFor health surveys of address‐based samples, many estimates based on telephone respondents differ from the total population in ways that cannot be corrected with simple demographic adjustments.