Mail to One or Mail to All? An Experiment (Sub)Sampling Drop Point Units in a Self-Administered Address-Based Sampling Frame Survey

Taylor Lewis, Joseph McMichael, Charlotte Looby
{"title":"Mail to One or Mail to All? An Experiment (Sub)Sampling Drop Point Units in a Self-Administered Address-Based Sampling Frame Survey","authors":"Taylor Lewis, Joseph McMichael, Charlotte Looby","doi":"10.29115/sp-2023-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practitioners utilizing an address-based sampling frame for a self-administered, mail contact survey must decide on how to handle drop points, which are single delivery points or receptacles that service multiple households. A variety of strategies have been adopted, including sampling all units at the drop point or subsampling just one (or a portion) of them. This paper reports results from an experiment fielded during the 2021 Healthy Chicago Survey aimed at providing insight into whether there are any substantive differences between these approaches. We find that a subsampling strategy in which a single mailing is sent produces a roughly 3 percentage point higher response rate relative to a strategy sending multiple mailings concurrently to the drop point. While base-weighted distributions of gender and age differed enough to be statistically significant, there were no noteworthy differences across other demographics or across the base-weighted distributions of select key health outcomes measured by the survey. Taken together, these results provide some evidence that a “mail to one” drop point strategy is more efficient than a “mail to all” drop point strategy.","PeriodicalId":74893,"journal":{"name":"Survey practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2023-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practitioners utilizing an address-based sampling frame for a self-administered, mail contact survey must decide on how to handle drop points, which are single delivery points or receptacles that service multiple households. A variety of strategies have been adopted, including sampling all units at the drop point or subsampling just one (or a portion) of them. This paper reports results from an experiment fielded during the 2021 Healthy Chicago Survey aimed at providing insight into whether there are any substantive differences between these approaches. We find that a subsampling strategy in which a single mailing is sent produces a roughly 3 percentage point higher response rate relative to a strategy sending multiple mailings concurrently to the drop point. While base-weighted distributions of gender and age differed enough to be statistically significant, there were no noteworthy differences across other demographics or across the base-weighted distributions of select key health outcomes measured by the survey. Taken together, these results provide some evidence that a “mail to one” drop point strategy is more efficient than a “mail to all” drop point strategy.
发给一个人还是发给所有人?基于自管理的基于地址的采样帧调查中的实验(子)采样丢点单元
从业人员使用基于地址的抽样框架进行自我管理的邮件联系调查,必须决定如何处理投递点,即单个投递点或服务于多个家庭的容器。采用了多种策略,包括在落点对所有单位进行抽样,或只对其中一个(或一部分)进行抽样。本文报告了2021年“健康芝加哥调查”期间进行的一项实验的结果,该实验旨在深入了解这些方法之间是否存在实质性差异。我们发现,发送单个邮件的子抽样策略比同时向投递点发送多个邮件的策略产生大约3个百分点的高响应率。虽然性别和年龄的基本加权分布差异足以具有统计学意义,但其他人口统计数据之间或调查测量的选定关键健康结果的基本加权分布之间没有显著差异。综上所述,这些结果提供了一些证据,证明“邮件到一个人”的投递点策略比“邮件到所有人”的投递点策略更有效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信