Your Best Estimate is Fine. Or is It?

IF 0.5 4区 数学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Journal of Official Statistics Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.2478/jos-2022-0047
Jerry Timbrook, Kristen Olson, Jolene D Smyth
{"title":"Your Best Estimate is Fine. Or is It?","authors":"Jerry Timbrook, Kristen Olson, Jolene D Smyth","doi":"10.2478/jos-2022-0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Providing an exact answer to open-ended numeric questions can be a burdensome task for respondents. Researchers often assume that adding an invitation to estimate (e.g., “Your best estimate is fine”) to these questions reduces cognitive burden, and in turn, reduces rates of undesirable response behaviors like item nonresponse, nonsubstantive answers, and answers that must be processed into a final response (e.g., qualified answers like “about 12” and ranges). Yet there is little research investigating this claim. Additionally, explicitly inviting estimation may lead respondents to round their answers, which may affect survey estimates. In this study, we investigate the effect of adding an invitation to estimate to 22 open-ended numeric questions in a mail survey and three questions in a separate telephone survey. Generally, we find that explicitly inviting estimation does not significantly change rates of item nonresponse, rounding, or qualified/range answers in either mode, though it does slightly reduce nonsubstantive answers for mail respondents. In the telephone survey, an invitation to estimate results in fewer conversational turns and shorter response times. Our results indicate that an invitation to estimate may simplify the interaction between interviewers and respondents in telephone surveys, and neither hurts nor helps data quality in mail surveys.","PeriodicalId":51092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Official Statistics","volume":"38 1","pages":"1097 - 1123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Official Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","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

Abstract

Abstract Providing an exact answer to open-ended numeric questions can be a burdensome task for respondents. Researchers often assume that adding an invitation to estimate (e.g., “Your best estimate is fine”) to these questions reduces cognitive burden, and in turn, reduces rates of undesirable response behaviors like item nonresponse, nonsubstantive answers, and answers that must be processed into a final response (e.g., qualified answers like “about 12” and ranges). Yet there is little research investigating this claim. Additionally, explicitly inviting estimation may lead respondents to round their answers, which may affect survey estimates. In this study, we investigate the effect of adding an invitation to estimate to 22 open-ended numeric questions in a mail survey and three questions in a separate telephone survey. Generally, we find that explicitly inviting estimation does not significantly change rates of item nonresponse, rounding, or qualified/range answers in either mode, though it does slightly reduce nonsubstantive answers for mail respondents. In the telephone survey, an invitation to estimate results in fewer conversational turns and shorter response times. Our results indicate that an invitation to estimate may simplify the interaction between interviewers and respondents in telephone surveys, and neither hurts nor helps data quality in mail surveys.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
您的最佳估价很好。还是它?
摘要为开放式数字问题提供准确答案对受访者来说可能是一项繁重的任务。研究人员通常认为,在这些问题中添加评估邀请(例如,“你的最佳评估很好”)可以减轻认知负担,进而降低不良反应行为的发生率,如项目无反应、非实质性回答以及必须处理成最终回答的答案(例如,合格答案,如“大约12”和范围)。然而,很少有研究对这一说法进行调查。此外,明确邀请评估可能会导致受访者对他们的答案进行四舍五入,这可能会影响调查估计。在这项研究中,我们调查了在邮件调查中向22个开放式数字问题和在单独的电话调查中向3个问题添加评估邀请的影响。一般来说,我们发现,在任何一种模式下,明确邀请估计都不会显著改变项目无回复、四舍五入或合格/范围回答的比率,尽管它确实略微减少了邮件受访者的非实质回答。在电话调查中,邀请对方进行评估会减少谈话次数,缩短回复时间。我们的研究结果表明,邀请评估可以简化电话调查中面试官和受访者之间的互动,既不会损害也不会有助于邮件调查中的数据质量。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Official Statistics
Journal of Official Statistics STATISTICS & PROBABILITY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
39
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JOS is an international quarterly published by Statistics Sweden. We publish research articles in the area of survey and statistical methodology and policy matters facing national statistical offices and other producers of statistics. The intended readers are researchers or practicians at statistical agencies or in universities and private organizations dealing with problems which concern aspects of production of official statistics.
期刊最新文献
Reliable event rates for disease mapping. Application of Sampling Variance Smoothing Methods for Small Area Proportion Estimation Answering Current Challenges of and Changes in Producing Official Time Use Statistics Using the Data Collection Platform MOTUS Small Area with Multiply Imputed Survey Data Temporally Consistent Present Population from Mobile Network Signaling Data for Official Statistics
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1