Proxy Survey Cost Indicators in Interviewer-Administered Surveys: Are they Actually Correlated with Costs?

IF 1.6 4区 数学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
James Wagner, Lena Centeno, Richard Dulaney, Brad Edwards, Z Tuba Suzer-Gurtekin, Stephanie Coffey
{"title":"Proxy Survey Cost Indicators in Interviewer-Administered Surveys: Are they Actually Correlated with Costs?","authors":"James Wagner, Lena Centeno, Richard Dulaney, Brad Edwards, Z Tuba Suzer-Gurtekin, Stephanie Coffey","doi":"10.1093/jssam/smad028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Survey design decisions are—by their very nature—tradeoffs between costs and errors. However, measuring costs is often difficult. Furthermore, surveys are growing more complex. Many surveys require that cost information be available to make decisions during data collection. These complexities create new challenges for monitoring and understanding survey costs. Often, survey cost information lags behind reporting of paradata. Furthermore, in some situations, the measurement of costs at the case level is difficult. Given the time lag in reporting cost information and the difficulty of assigning costs directly to cases, survey designers and managers have frequently turned to proxy indicators for cost. These proxy measures are often based upon level-of-effort paradata. An example of such a proxy cost indicator is the number of attempts per interview. Unfortunately, little is known about how accurately these proxy indicators actually mirror the true costs of the survey. In this article, we examine a set of these proxy indicators across several surveys with different designs, including different modes of interview. We examine the strength of correlation between these indicators and two different measures of costs—the total project cost and total interviewer hours. This article provides some initial evidence about the quality of these proxies as surrogates for the true costs using data from several different surveys with interviewer-administered modes (telephone, face to face) across three organizations (University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, Westat, US Census Bureau). We find that some indicators (total attempts, total contacts, total completes, sample size) are correlated (average correlation ∼0.60) with total costs across several surveys. These same indicators are strongly correlated (average correlation ∼0.82) with total interviewer hours. For survey components, three indicators (total attempts, sample size, and total miles) are strongly correlated with both total costs (average correlation ∼0.77) and with total interviewer hours (average correlation ∼0.86).","PeriodicalId":17146,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Survey design decisions are—by their very nature—tradeoffs between costs and errors. However, measuring costs is often difficult. Furthermore, surveys are growing more complex. Many surveys require that cost information be available to make decisions during data collection. These complexities create new challenges for monitoring and understanding survey costs. Often, survey cost information lags behind reporting of paradata. Furthermore, in some situations, the measurement of costs at the case level is difficult. Given the time lag in reporting cost information and the difficulty of assigning costs directly to cases, survey designers and managers have frequently turned to proxy indicators for cost. These proxy measures are often based upon level-of-effort paradata. An example of such a proxy cost indicator is the number of attempts per interview. Unfortunately, little is known about how accurately these proxy indicators actually mirror the true costs of the survey. In this article, we examine a set of these proxy indicators across several surveys with different designs, including different modes of interview. We examine the strength of correlation between these indicators and two different measures of costs—the total project cost and total interviewer hours. This article provides some initial evidence about the quality of these proxies as surrogates for the true costs using data from several different surveys with interviewer-administered modes (telephone, face to face) across three organizations (University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, Westat, US Census Bureau). We find that some indicators (total attempts, total contacts, total completes, sample size) are correlated (average correlation ∼0.60) with total costs across several surveys. These same indicators are strongly correlated (average correlation ∼0.82) with total interviewer hours. For survey components, three indicators (total attempts, sample size, and total miles) are strongly correlated with both total costs (average correlation ∼0.77) and with total interviewer hours (average correlation ∼0.86).
访谈者管理调查中的代理调查成本指标:它们实际上与成本相关吗?
调查设计决策本质上是成本和错误之间的权衡。然而,衡量成本往往是困难的。此外,调查正变得越来越复杂。许多调查要求在数据收集过程中获得成本信息,以便做出决策。这些复杂性为监测和了解调查成本带来了新的挑战。通常,调查成本信息滞后于数据报告。此外,在某些情况下,个案层面的成本衡量是困难的。考虑到报告成本资料的时间滞后和将成本直接分配给个案的困难,调查的设计者和管理人员经常转向成本的代理指标。这些代理度量通常是基于工作水平的。这种代理成本指标的一个例子是每次面试的尝试次数。不幸的是,人们对这些代理指标在多大程度上准确地反映了调查的真实成本知之甚少。在本文中,我们通过几个不同设计的调查(包括不同的访谈模式)来研究一组代理指标。我们检验了这些指标和两种不同的成本衡量标准——项目总成本和总面试时间之间的相关性。本文通过三个组织(密歇根大学调查研究中心、韦斯特大学、美国人口普查局)采用访谈者管理模式(电话、面对面)进行的几次不同调查的数据,提供了一些关于这些代理作为真实成本替代品的质量的初步证据。我们发现一些指标(总尝试次数、总接触次数、总完成次数、样本量)与几次调查中的总成本相关(平均相关系数为0.60)。这些指标与总面试时间有很强的相关性(平均相关系数0.82)。对于调查组成部分,三个指标(总尝试次数、样本量和总里程)与总成本(平均相关系数~ 0.77)和总采访者时间(平均相关系数~ 0.86)密切相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, sponsored by AAPOR and the American Statistical Association, began publishing in 2013. Its objective is to publish cutting edge scholarly articles on statistical and methodological issues for sample surveys, censuses, administrative record systems, and other related data. It aims to be the flagship journal for research on survey statistics and methodology. Topics of interest include survey sample design, statistical inference, nonresponse, measurement error, the effects of modes of data collection, paradata and responsive survey design, combining data from multiple sources, record linkage, disclosure limitation, and other issues in survey statistics and methodology. The journal publishes both theoretical and applied papers, provided the theory is motivated by an important applied problem and the applied papers report on research that contributes generalizable knowledge to the field. Review papers are also welcomed. Papers on a broad range of surveys are encouraged, including (but not limited to) surveys concerning business, economics, marketing research, social science, environment, epidemiology, biostatistics and official statistics. The journal has three sections. The Survey Statistics section presents papers on innovative sampling procedures, imputation, weighting, measures of uncertainty, small area inference, new methods of analysis, and other statistical issues related to surveys. The Survey Methodology section presents papers that focus on methodological research, including methodological experiments, methods of data collection and use of paradata. The Applications section contains papers involving innovative applications of methods and providing practical contributions and guidance, and/or significant new findings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信