获得调查对象合作伙伴的同意:自主模式下主播调查经验的重要性

IF 1.5 Q2 DEMOGRAPHY Comparative Population Studies Pub Date : 2023-07-06 DOI:10.12765/cpos-2023-12
Tobias Gummer, Pablo Christmann, Tanja Kunz
{"title":"获得调查对象合作伙伴的同意:自主模式下主播调查经验的重要性","authors":"Tobias Gummer, Pablo Christmann, Tanja Kunz","doi":"10.12765/cpos-2023-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dyadic surveys aim to interview pairs of respondents, such as partners in a relationship. In dyadic surveys, it is often necessary to obtain the anchors’ consent to contact their partners and invite them to a survey. If the survey is operated in self-administered modes, no interviewer is present to improve the consent rate, for example, by providing convincing arguments and additional information. To overcome the challenges posed by self-administered modes for dyadic surveys and to improve consent rates, it is important to identify aspects that positively influence the likelihood of anchors giving consent to contact their partners. Ideally, these aspects are in the hands of the researchers, such as the survey design and aspects of the questionnaire. Thus, in this study, we analyzed the relationship between anchors’ survey experience and their willingness to consent to surveying their partners in self-administered modes. Based on data from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA), we found that the anchors’ perceptions of the questionnaire as “interesting” or “too personal” were related to consent rates. These relationships were consistent across different survey modes and devices. Effects of other aspects of the questionnaire, such as “important for science” and “diverse” varied between modes and devices. We concluded with practical recommendations for survey research and an outlook for future research.\n* This article belongs to a special issue on “Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)”.","PeriodicalId":44592,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Population Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaining Consent to Survey Respondents’ Partners: The Importance of Anchors’ Survey Experience in Self-administered Modes\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Gummer, Pablo Christmann, Tanja Kunz\",\"doi\":\"10.12765/cpos-2023-12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dyadic surveys aim to interview pairs of respondents, such as partners in a relationship. In dyadic surveys, it is often necessary to obtain the anchors’ consent to contact their partners and invite them to a survey. If the survey is operated in self-administered modes, no interviewer is present to improve the consent rate, for example, by providing convincing arguments and additional information. To overcome the challenges posed by self-administered modes for dyadic surveys and to improve consent rates, it is important to identify aspects that positively influence the likelihood of anchors giving consent to contact their partners. Ideally, these aspects are in the hands of the researchers, such as the survey design and aspects of the questionnaire. Thus, in this study, we analyzed the relationship between anchors’ survey experience and their willingness to consent to surveying their partners in self-administered modes. Based on data from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA), we found that the anchors’ perceptions of the questionnaire as “interesting” or “too personal” were related to consent rates. These relationships were consistent across different survey modes and devices. Effects of other aspects of the questionnaire, such as “important for science” and “diverse” varied between modes and devices. We concluded with practical recommendations for survey research and an outlook for future research.\\n* This article belongs to a special issue on “Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Population Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Population Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12765/cpos-2023-12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Population Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12765/cpos-2023-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Dyadic调查旨在采访成对的受访者,例如恋爱关系中的伴侣。在二元调查中,通常需要征得主播的同意才能联系他们的伴侣并邀请他们参加调查。如果调查是以自我管理的模式进行的,则没有采访者在场,例如通过提供令人信服的论据和额外信息来提高同意率。为了克服二元调查的自我管理模式带来的挑战,并提高同意率,重要的是要确定对主播同意联系其伴侣的可能性产生积极影响的方面。理想情况下,这些方面掌握在研究人员手中,例如调查设计和问卷的各个方面。因此,在本研究中,我们分析了主播的调查经验与他们同意以自我管理模式调查伴侣的意愿之间的关系。根据德国家庭人口学小组研究(FReDA)的数据,我们发现主播对问卷“有趣”或“过于个人化”的看法与同意率有关。这些关系在不同的调查模式和设备中是一致的。问卷的其他方面的效果,如“对科学很重要”和“多样性”,因模式和设备而异。最后,我们对调查研究提出了切实可行的建议,并对未来的研究进行了展望。*这篇文章属于“家庭研究和人口统计分析——德国家庭人口小组研究(FReDA)的新见解”特刊。
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
Gaining Consent to Survey Respondents’ Partners: The Importance of Anchors’ Survey Experience in Self-administered Modes
Dyadic surveys aim to interview pairs of respondents, such as partners in a relationship. In dyadic surveys, it is often necessary to obtain the anchors’ consent to contact their partners and invite them to a survey. If the survey is operated in self-administered modes, no interviewer is present to improve the consent rate, for example, by providing convincing arguments and additional information. To overcome the challenges posed by self-administered modes for dyadic surveys and to improve consent rates, it is important to identify aspects that positively influence the likelihood of anchors giving consent to contact their partners. Ideally, these aspects are in the hands of the researchers, such as the survey design and aspects of the questionnaire. Thus, in this study, we analyzed the relationship between anchors’ survey experience and their willingness to consent to surveying their partners in self-administered modes. Based on data from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA), we found that the anchors’ perceptions of the questionnaire as “interesting” or “too personal” were related to consent rates. These relationships were consistent across different survey modes and devices. Effects of other aspects of the questionnaire, such as “important for science” and “diverse” varied between modes and devices. We concluded with practical recommendations for survey research and an outlook for future research. * This article belongs to a special issue on “Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)”.
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Quarter Century of Change in Family and Gender-Role Attitudes in Hungary Scarred for Life? Early-Life Experience of the Post-Reunification Economic Crisis in East Germany and Physical and Mental Health Outcomes in Early Adulthood The Impact of Terrorism on Fertility: Evidence From Women of Childbearing Age in Pakistan Excess Mortality During the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Korea Family Research and Demographic Analysis – New Insights from the German Family Demography Panel Study (FReDA)
×
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