户内选择与双框架电话调查:十一种不同选择方法的比较实验

Jenny Marlar, M. Chattopadhyay, Jeff Jones, Stephanie Marken, F. Kreuter
{"title":"户内选择与双框架电话调查:十一种不同选择方法的比较实验","authors":"Jenny Marlar, M. Chattopadhyay, Jeff Jones, Stephanie Marken, F. Kreuter","doi":"10.29115/SP-2018-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Numerous within-household selection methods have been tested in general population surveys since the advent of telephone interviewing. However, very few selection studies, if any, have been conducted with a dual frame (landline and cell phone) sample. Landline and cell phone frames are known to represent demographically different groups of respondents, and selection methods that may result in more representative demographics in a landline frame may actually skew the results when combined with the cell phone frame. This study tested 11 different within-household selection methods with approximately 11,000 landline respondents. A parallel cell phone sample was also collected with 1,000 respondents, and the frames were combined for analysis. The selection methods tested included one probability-based method, four quasi-probability methods and six nonprobability methods. The methods were evaluated on four criteria: response rates, accuracy, demographic representation and substantive results. The demographic representativeness of each method was examined for the landline frame only and for the dual (landline and cell phone) frame combination. The probability method had the lowest response rate, while the nonprobability at-home methods had the highest. Accuracy rates were lowest for the quasi-probability birthday methods. There were few demographic differences between selection methods, and no substantive differences, when combined with the cell phone sample.","PeriodicalId":74893,"journal":{"name":"Survey practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Within-Household Selection and Dual-Frame Telephone Surveys: A Comparative Experiment of Eleven Different Selection Methods\",\"authors\":\"Jenny Marlar, M. Chattopadhyay, Jeff Jones, Stephanie Marken, F. Kreuter\",\"doi\":\"10.29115/SP-2018-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Numerous within-household selection methods have been tested in general population surveys since the advent of telephone interviewing. However, very few selection studies, if any, have been conducted with a dual frame (landline and cell phone) sample. Landline and cell phone frames are known to represent demographically different groups of respondents, and selection methods that may result in more representative demographics in a landline frame may actually skew the results when combined with the cell phone frame. This study tested 11 different within-household selection methods with approximately 11,000 landline respondents. A parallel cell phone sample was also collected with 1,000 respondents, and the frames were combined for analysis. The selection methods tested included one probability-based method, four quasi-probability methods and six nonprobability methods. The methods were evaluated on four criteria: response rates, accuracy, demographic representation and substantive results. The demographic representativeness of each method was examined for the landline frame only and for the dual (landline and cell phone) frame combination. The probability method had the lowest response rate, while the nonprobability at-home methods had the highest. Accuracy rates were lowest for the quasi-probability birthday methods. There were few demographic differences between selection methods, and no substantive differences, when combined with the cell phone sample.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2018-0031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2018-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自从电话访谈出现以来,在一般人口调查中已经测试了许多家庭内部选择方法。然而,很少有选择研究,如果有的话,是用双框架(固定电话和移动电话)样本进行的。众所周知,固定电话和移动电话框架代表了人口统计学上不同的受访者群体,而在固定电话框架中可能产生更具代表性的人口统计数据的选择方法,在与移动电话框架结合使用时,实际上可能会扭曲结果。这项研究测试了11种不同的家庭内部选择方法,大约11,000名固定电话受访者。研究人员还收集了1000名受访者的平行手机样本,并将这些框架组合起来进行分析。测试的选择方法包括1种基于概率的方法、4种准概率方法和6种非概率方法。评估方法的标准有四项:反应率、准确性、人口代表性和实质性结果。每种方法的人口代表性被检查为固定电话框架和双重(固定电话和手机)框架组合。概率方法的应答率最低,而非概率在家方法的应答率最高。准概率生日方法的准确率最低。在选择方法之间几乎没有人口统计学上的差异,当结合手机样本时,没有实质性的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Within-Household Selection and Dual-Frame Telephone Surveys: A Comparative Experiment of Eleven Different Selection Methods
Numerous within-household selection methods have been tested in general population surveys since the advent of telephone interviewing. However, very few selection studies, if any, have been conducted with a dual frame (landline and cell phone) sample. Landline and cell phone frames are known to represent demographically different groups of respondents, and selection methods that may result in more representative demographics in a landline frame may actually skew the results when combined with the cell phone frame. This study tested 11 different within-household selection methods with approximately 11,000 landline respondents. A parallel cell phone sample was also collected with 1,000 respondents, and the frames were combined for analysis. The selection methods tested included one probability-based method, four quasi-probability methods and six nonprobability methods. The methods were evaluated on four criteria: response rates, accuracy, demographic representation and substantive results. The demographic representativeness of each method was examined for the landline frame only and for the dual (landline and cell phone) frame combination. The probability method had the lowest response rate, while the nonprobability at-home methods had the highest. Accuracy rates were lowest for the quasi-probability birthday methods. There were few demographic differences between selection methods, and no substantive differences, when combined with the cell phone sample.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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