当谁重要时:受访者效应与调查方式。

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1177/0193841X231221303
Rebecca Walcott, Isabelle Cohen, Denise Ferris
{"title":"当谁重要时:受访者效应与调查方式。","authors":"Rebecca Walcott, Isabelle Cohen, Denise Ferris","doi":"10.1177/0193841X231221303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When and how to survey potential respondents is often determined by budgetary and external constraints, but choice of survey modality may have enormous implications for data quality. Different survey modalities may be differentially susceptible to measurement error attributable to interviewer assignment, known as interviewer effects. In this paper, we leverage highly similar surveys, one conducted face-to-face (FTF) and the other via phone, to examine variation in interviewer effects across survey modality and question type. We find that while there are no cross-modality differences for simple questions, interviewer effects are markedly higher for sensitive questions asked over the phone. These findings are likely explained by the enhanced ability of in-person interviewers to foster rapport and engagement with respondents. We conclude with a thought experiment that illustrates the potential implications for power calculations, namely, that using FTF data to inform phone surveys may substantially underestimate the necessary sample size for sensitive questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":" ","pages":"1024-1049"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Walcott, Isabelle Cohen, Denise Ferris\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0193841X231221303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When and how to survey potential respondents is often determined by budgetary and external constraints, but choice of survey modality may have enormous implications for data quality. Different survey modalities may be differentially susceptible to measurement error attributable to interviewer assignment, known as interviewer effects. In this paper, we leverage highly similar surveys, one conducted face-to-face (FTF) and the other via phone, to examine variation in interviewer effects across survey modality and question type. We find that while there are no cross-modality differences for simple questions, interviewer effects are markedly higher for sensitive questions asked over the phone. These findings are likely explained by the enhanced ability of in-person interviewers to foster rapport and engagement with respondents. We conclude with a thought experiment that illustrates the potential implications for power calculations, namely, that using FTF data to inform phone surveys may substantially underestimate the necessary sample size for sensitive questions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1024-1049\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X231221303\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X231221303","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

何时以及如何对潜在受访者进行调查通常由预算和外部限制因素决定,但调查方式的选择可能会对数据质量产生巨大影响。不同的调查方式可能会因受访者的分配而产生不同的测量误差,这就是所谓的受访者效应。在本文中,我们利用高度相似的调查,一种是面对面调查(FTF),另一种是通过电话调查,来研究不同调查方式和问题类型下访问者效应的差异。我们发现,虽然在简单问题上不存在跨调查方式的差异,但在敏感问题上,电话调查的受访者效应明显更高。这些发现的原因可能是,面对面的采访者更有能力与受访者建立融洽的关系和互动。最后,我们用一个思想实验来说明功率计算的潜在影响,即使用 FTF 数据为电话调查提供信息可能会大大低估敏感问题所需的样本量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality.

When and how to survey potential respondents is often determined by budgetary and external constraints, but choice of survey modality may have enormous implications for data quality. Different survey modalities may be differentially susceptible to measurement error attributable to interviewer assignment, known as interviewer effects. In this paper, we leverage highly similar surveys, one conducted face-to-face (FTF) and the other via phone, to examine variation in interviewer effects across survey modality and question type. We find that while there are no cross-modality differences for simple questions, interviewer effects are markedly higher for sensitive questions asked over the phone. These findings are likely explained by the enhanced ability of in-person interviewers to foster rapport and engagement with respondents. We conclude with a thought experiment that illustrates the potential implications for power calculations, namely, that using FTF data to inform phone surveys may substantially underestimate the necessary sample size for sensitive questions.

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
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
期刊最新文献
Effects of Behaviour Change Communication on Knowledge and Prevention of Malaria Among Women in Ghana. When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality. Calibrating Items Using an Unfolding Model of Item Response Theory: The Case of the Trait Personality Questionnaire 5 (TPQue5). Cluster Randomized Trials Designed to Support Generalizable Inferences. Multistage Supply Chain Channel Principal-Agent Model in the Context of e-Commerce With Fairness Preference.
×
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