James Wagner, Lena Centeno, Richard Dulaney, Brad Edwards, Z Tuba Suzer-Gurtekin, Stephanie Coffey
{"title":"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?","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":"{\"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}","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}
Proxy Survey Cost Indicators in Interviewer-Administered Surveys: Are they Actually Correlated with Costs?
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).
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.