A. Jäckle, Jonathan Burton, M. Couper, Thomas F. Crossley, Sandra Walzenbach
{"title":"调查同意行政数据联动:五项措辞与格式实验","authors":"A. Jäckle, Jonathan Burton, M. Couper, Thomas F. Crossley, Sandra Walzenbach","doi":"10.1093/jssam/smad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n To maximize the value of the data while minimizing respondent burden, survey data are increasingly linked to administrative records. Record linkage often requires the informed consent of survey respondents and failure to obtain consent reduces sample size and may lead to selection bias. Relatively little is known about how best to word and format consent requests in surveys. We conducted a series of experiments in a probability household panel and an online access panel to understand how various features of the design of the consent request can affect informed consent. We experimentally varied: (i) the readability of the consent request, (ii) placement of the consent request in the survey, (iii) consent as default versus the standard opt-in consent question, (iv) offering additional information, and (v) a priming treatment focusing on trust in the data holder. For each experiment, we examine the effects of the treatments on consent rates, objective understanding of the consent request (measured with knowledge test questions), subjective understanding (how well the respondent felt they understood the request), confidence in their decision, response times, and whether they read any of the additional information materials. We find that the default wording and offering additional information do not increase consent rates. Improving the readability of the consent question increases objective understanding but does not increase the consent rate. However, asking for consent early in the survey and priming respondents to consider their trust in the administrative data holder both increase consent rates without negatively affecting understanding of the request.","PeriodicalId":17146,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey Consent to Administrative Data Linkage: Five Experiments on Wording and Format\",\"authors\":\"A. Jäckle, Jonathan Burton, M. Couper, Thomas F. Crossley, Sandra Walzenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jssam/smad019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n To maximize the value of the data while minimizing respondent burden, survey data are increasingly linked to administrative records. Record linkage often requires the informed consent of survey respondents and failure to obtain consent reduces sample size and may lead to selection bias. Relatively little is known about how best to word and format consent requests in surveys. We conducted a series of experiments in a probability household panel and an online access panel to understand how various features of the design of the consent request can affect informed consent. We experimentally varied: (i) the readability of the consent request, (ii) placement of the consent request in the survey, (iii) consent as default versus the standard opt-in consent question, (iv) offering additional information, and (v) a priming treatment focusing on trust in the data holder. For each experiment, we examine the effects of the treatments on consent rates, objective understanding of the consent request (measured with knowledge test questions), subjective understanding (how well the respondent felt they understood the request), confidence in their decision, response times, and whether they read any of the additional information materials. We find that the default wording and offering additional information do not increase consent rates. Improving the readability of the consent question increases objective understanding but does not increase the consent rate. However, asking for consent early in the survey and priming respondents to consider their trust in the administrative data holder both increase consent rates without negatively affecting understanding of the request.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad019\",\"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":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad019","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}
Survey Consent to Administrative Data Linkage: Five Experiments on Wording and Format
To maximize the value of the data while minimizing respondent burden, survey data are increasingly linked to administrative records. Record linkage often requires the informed consent of survey respondents and failure to obtain consent reduces sample size and may lead to selection bias. Relatively little is known about how best to word and format consent requests in surveys. We conducted a series of experiments in a probability household panel and an online access panel to understand how various features of the design of the consent request can affect informed consent. We experimentally varied: (i) the readability of the consent request, (ii) placement of the consent request in the survey, (iii) consent as default versus the standard opt-in consent question, (iv) offering additional information, and (v) a priming treatment focusing on trust in the data holder. For each experiment, we examine the effects of the treatments on consent rates, objective understanding of the consent request (measured with knowledge test questions), subjective understanding (how well the respondent felt they understood the request), confidence in their decision, response times, and whether they read any of the additional information materials. We find that the default wording and offering additional information do not increase consent rates. Improving the readability of the consent question increases objective understanding but does not increase the consent rate. However, asking for consent early in the survey and priming respondents to consider their trust in the administrative data holder both increase consent rates without negatively affecting understanding of the request.
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.