机构调查中更多的澄清,更少的项目没有回应?分裂选票实验

IF 0.9 2区 社会学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
Benjamin Küfner, J. Sakshaug, Stefan Zins
{"title":"机构调查中更多的澄清,更少的项目没有回应?分裂选票实验","authors":"Benjamin Küfner, J. Sakshaug, Stefan Zins","doi":"10.18148/SRM/2021.V15I2.7809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The IAB Job Vacancy Survey of the German Institute for Employment Research collects detailed information on job search and vacancy durations for an establishment’s last successful hiring process. The duration questions themselves are burdensome for respondents to answer as they ask for precise dates of the earliest possible hiring for the vacancy, the start of the personnel search, and the decision to hire the selected applicant. Consequently, the nonresponse rates for these items have been relatively high over the years (up to 21 percent). In an effort to reduce item nonresponse, a split-ballot experiment was conducted to test the strategy of providing additional clarifying information and examples to assist respondents in answering the date questions. The results revealed a backfiring effect. Although there was evidence that respondents read the additional clarifying information, this led to even more item nonresponse and lower data quality compared to the control group. Additionally, we observed a negative spillover effect with regard to item nonresponse on a subsequent (non-treated) question. We conclude this article by discussing possible causes of these results and suggestions for further research.","PeriodicalId":46454,"journal":{"name":"Survey Research Methods","volume":"15 1","pages":"195-206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More Clarification, Less Item Nonresponse in Establishment Surveys? A Split-Ballot Experiment\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Küfner, J. Sakshaug, Stefan Zins\",\"doi\":\"10.18148/SRM/2021.V15I2.7809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The IAB Job Vacancy Survey of the German Institute for Employment Research collects detailed information on job search and vacancy durations for an establishment’s last successful hiring process. The duration questions themselves are burdensome for respondents to answer as they ask for precise dates of the earliest possible hiring for the vacancy, the start of the personnel search, and the decision to hire the selected applicant. Consequently, the nonresponse rates for these items have been relatively high over the years (up to 21 percent). In an effort to reduce item nonresponse, a split-ballot experiment was conducted to test the strategy of providing additional clarifying information and examples to assist respondents in answering the date questions. The results revealed a backfiring effect. Although there was evidence that respondents read the additional clarifying information, this led to even more item nonresponse and lower data quality compared to the control group. Additionally, we observed a negative spillover effect with regard to item nonresponse on a subsequent (non-treated) question. We conclude this article by discussing possible causes of these results and suggestions for further research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"195-206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2021.V15I2.7809\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2021.V15I2.7809","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

德国就业研究所的IAB职位空缺调查收集了机构最后一次成功招聘过程中的求职和空缺持续时间的详细信息。对于受访者来说,持续时间问题本身就很难回答,因为他们要求最早招聘职位的确切日期、人员搜索的开始以及雇用选定申请人的决定。因此,这些项目的无回复率多年来一直相对较高(高达21%)。为了减少项目无回复,进行了一项分票实验,以测试提供额外澄清信息和示例以帮助受访者回答日期问题的策略。结果显示出了适得其反的效果。尽管有证据表明受访者阅读了额外的澄清信息,但与对照组相比,这导致了更多的项目无回复和更低的数据质量。此外,我们观察到项目对后续(未处理)问题的无回应存在负面溢出效应。最后,我们讨论了这些结果的可能原因,并对进一步研究提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
More Clarification, Less Item Nonresponse in Establishment Surveys? A Split-Ballot Experiment
The IAB Job Vacancy Survey of the German Institute for Employment Research collects detailed information on job search and vacancy durations for an establishment’s last successful hiring process. The duration questions themselves are burdensome for respondents to answer as they ask for precise dates of the earliest possible hiring for the vacancy, the start of the personnel search, and the decision to hire the selected applicant. Consequently, the nonresponse rates for these items have been relatively high over the years (up to 21 percent). In an effort to reduce item nonresponse, a split-ballot experiment was conducted to test the strategy of providing additional clarifying information and examples to assist respondents in answering the date questions. The results revealed a backfiring effect. Although there was evidence that respondents read the additional clarifying information, this led to even more item nonresponse and lower data quality compared to the control group. Additionally, we observed a negative spillover effect with regard to item nonresponse on a subsequent (non-treated) question. We conclude this article by discussing possible causes of these results and suggestions for further research.
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
Survey Research Methods
Survey Research Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
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