BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Jabkowski Piotr (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań)
Tytuł
The Effect of Using Different Types of Survey Sample on Sample Execution in the European Social Survey
Źródło
Polish Sociological Review, 2018, nr 2, s. 265-278, rys., tab., bibliogr. 43 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Badania reprezentacyjne, Metodologia badań
Sampling survey, Research methodology
Uwagi
summ., This research is supported by a grant of the National Science Centre Poland: Porównawcza analiza jakości prób sondażowych w badaniach między krajowych z wykorzystaniem wewnętrznych i zewnętrznych kryteriów oceny: inwentaryzacja projektów oraz meta-baza danych wynikowych [Comparative analysis of the quality of survey samples in the cross-national studies on the basis of external and internal criteria of representativeness: survey archivisation and meta-bases of results] within the framework of the Miniatura competition (No. 2017/01/X/HS6/01304).
Abstrakt
Existing literature on survey methodology is not particularly saturated with studies of the relationship between the type of survey sample and the quality of their fieldwork execution. This paper focuses on three main types of probability sample, i.e., address, household and individual name sample, and examines whether limited capacity for controlling the process of within-household selection of a target respondent, that is always implemented in address and household samples, results in over-selection of easy-to-reach and cooperative respondents. Based on data from the cross-country European Social Survey project, it is demonstrated that individual name samples are associated with higher quality of fieldwork execution, while address and household samples significantly decrease fieldwork quality by over-selecting individuals more prone to staying at home and more willing to take part in a survey. It is also demonstrated that well-known survey outcome rates (such as response rate, contact rate, cooperation rate and refusal rate) are of little use in detecting fieldwork irregularities. (original abstract)
Dostępne w
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie
Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Bates, N., Dahlhamer, J., Singer, E. 2008. Privacy Concerns, Too Busy, or Just Not Interested: Using Doorstep Concerns to Predict Survey Nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics 24(4): 591-612.
  2. Bethlehem, J., Cobben, F., Schouten, B. 2011. Handbook of Nonresponse in Household Surveys. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  3. Biemer, P. 2010. Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 817-848.
  4. Billiet, J., Hideko, M., Koen, B., Vehovar, V. 2009. Non-Response Bias in Cross-National Surveys: Design for Detection and Adjustment in the ESS. ASK. Research&Methods 18(1): 3-43.
  5. Billiet, J., Pleysier, S. 2007. Response Based Quality Assessment in the ESS-Round 2. An Update for 26 Countries, Version: May 7, 2007, Centre of Sociological Research, K.U. Leuven.
  6. Blom, A., Lynn, P., Jackie, A. 2008. Understanding Cross-National Differences in Unit Nonresponse: The Role of Contact Stata. ISER Working Paper Series No. 2008-01, University of Essex.
  7. Durrant, G.B., & D'Arrigo, J. 2013. Analysing Interviewer Call Record Data by Using a Multilevel Discrete Time Event History Modelling Approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 171(1): 251-269.
  8. European Social Survey. 2014a. ESS-4 2008 Documentation Report. Edition 5.3. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services for ESS ERIC.
  9. European Social Surveу. 2014b. ESS-5 2010 Documentation Report. Edition 3.2. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services for ESS ERIC.
  10. European Social Survey. 2014c. ESS-6 2012 Documentation Report. Edition 2.1. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services for ESS ERIC.
  11. European Social Survey. 2015. ESS-7 2014 Documentation Report. Edition 1.0. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, Norwegian Social Science Data Services for ESS ERIC.
  12. European Social Survey Round 4 Data. 2008. Data file edition 4.3. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway-Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
  13. European Social Survey Round 5 Data. 2010. Data file edition 3.2. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway-Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
  14. European Social Survey Round 6 Data. 2012. Data file edition 2.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway-Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
  15. European Social Survey Round 7 Data. 2014. Data file edition 1.0. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway-Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
  16. Gaziano, C. 2005. Comparative Analysis of Within-Household Respondent Selection Techniques, Public Opinion Quarterly 69(1): 124-157.
  17. Groves, R.M. 1998. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley&Sons Inc.
  18. Groves, R.M. 2006. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5): 646-675.
  19. Groves, R.M., Couper, M.P. 1998. Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  20. Hall, J., Brown, V., Nicolaas, G., Lynn, P. 2013. Extended Field Efforts to Reduce the Risk of Non-Response Bias. Have the Effects Change over Time? Can Weightings Achieve the Same Effects? Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 117: 5-23.
  21. de Heer, W. 1999. International Response Trends: Results of an International Survey. Journal of Official Statistics 15(2): 129-142.
  22. Jackie, A., Lynn, P., Sinibaldi, J., Tipping, S. 2013. The Effect of Interviewer Experience, Attitudes, Personality and Skills on Respondent Co-operation with Face-to-Face Surveys, Survey Research Methods 7(1): 1-15.
  23. Kamińska, O., Allan, L.M., Billiet, J. 2010. Satisficing Among Reluctant Respondents in a Cross-National Context. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 956-984.
  24. Kreuter, F. 2013. Improving Surveys with Paradata. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  25. Lipps, O., Kissau, K. 2012. Nonresponse in an Individual Register Sample Telephone Survey in Lucerne (Switzerland), in: S. Hader, M. Hader, M. Küne (eds.), Telephone Surveys in Europe. Research and Practice Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 177-208.
  26. Lynn, P., Clarke, P. 2002. Separating Refusal Bias and Non-Contact Bias. Evidence for UK National Surveys, Journal of the Royal Statistical Societies Series D 51(3): 319-333.
  27. Lуnn, P., Clarke, P., Martin, J., Sturgis, P. 2002. The Effect of Extended Interviewer Efforts on Nonresponse Bias, in: R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge R.J.A. Little (eds.), Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 135-147.
  28. Lynn, P., Gabler, S., Hader, S., Laaksonen, S. 2007. Methods for Achieving Equivalence of Samples in Cross-National Surveys: The European Social Survey Experience. Journal of Official Statistics 27(1): 107-124.
  29. Menold, N. 2014. The Influence of Sampling Method and Interviewers on Sample Realization in the European Social Survey, Survey Methodology 40(1): 105-123.
  30. Robins, L.N. 1963. The Reluctant Respondent, Public Opinion Quarterly 27(2): 276-286.
  31. Sakshaug, J.W., Kreuter, F. 2012. Assessing the Magnitude of Non-Consent Biases in Linked Survey and Administrative Data. Survey Research Methods 6(2): 113-122.
  32. Schouten, B., Cobben, F., Bethlehem, J. 2009. Indicators for the Representativeness of Survey Response, Survey Methodology 35(1): 101-113.
  33. Singleton Jr, R.A., Straits, B.C., Straits, M.M. 1993. Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University Press.
  34. Slauson-Blevins, K., Johnson, K.M. 2016. Doing Gender, Doing Surveys? Women's Gatekeeping and Men's Non-Participation in Multi-Actor Reproductive Surveys, Sociological Inquiry 86(3): 427-449.
  35. Smith, T.W. 1983. The Hidden 25 Percent: An Analysis of Nonresponse on the 1980 General Social Survey, Public Opinion Quarterly 47(3): 386-404.
  36. Smith, T.W. 2007. Survey Non-Response Procedures in Cross-National Perspective: The 2005 ISSP Non-Response Survey, Survey Research Methods 1(1): 45-54.
  37. Stoop, I. 2004. Surveying Nonrespondents, Field Method 16(1): 23-54.
  38. Stoop, I. 2005. The Hunt for the Last Respondent. Nonresponse in Sample Surveys. Haga: Social and Cultural Planning Office.
  39. Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., Fitzegarald, R. 2010. Improving Survey Response. Lessons Learned from the European Social Survey. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  40. Stoop, I., Devacht, S., B illiet, J., Loos veldt, G., Philip pens, M. 2003. The Development of a Uniform Contact Description Form in the ESS. Paper presented at the 14th International Workshop for Household Non-response, Leuven, 22-24 September 2003.
  41. The American Association forPublic Opinion Research. 2015. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 8th edition. AAPOR.
  42. Whelan, B.J., Sawa, G.M. 2013. Design and Methodology of the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 61(2): 265-268.
  43. Zinniel, S. 2008. Within-Unit Coverage Error, in: P. Lavrakas (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Survey Research Methods (pp. 962-963), Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1231-1413
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.26412/psr202.07
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu