Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe usual method for assessing the reliability of survey data has been to conduct reinterviews a short interval (such as one to two weeks) after an initial interview and to use these data to estimate relatively simple statistics, such as gross difference rates (GDRs). More sophisticated approaches have also been used to estimate reliability. These include estimates from multi-trait, multi-method experiments, models applied to longitudinal data, and latent class analyses. To our knowledge, no prior study has systematically compared these different methods for assessing reliability. The Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Reliability and Validity (PATH-RV) Study, done on a national probability sample, assessed the reliability of answers to the Wave 4 questionnaire from the PATH Study. Respondents in the PATH-RV were interviewed twice about two weeks apart. We examined whether the classic survey approach yielded different conclusions from the more sophisticated methods. We also examined two ex ante methods for assessing problems with survey questions and item nonresponse rates and response times to see how strongly these related to the different reliability estimates. We found that kappa was highly correlated with both GDRs and over-time correlations, but the latter two statistics were less highly correlated, particularly for adult respondents; estimates from longitudinal analyses of the same items in the main PATH study were also highly correlated with the traditional reliability estimates. The latent class analysis results, based on fewer items, also showed a high level of agreement with the traditional measures. The other methods and indicators had at best weak relationships with the reliability estimates derived from the reinterview data. Although the Question Understanding Aid seems to tap a different factor from the other measures, for adult respondents, it did predict item nonresponse and response latencies and thus may be a useful adjunct to the traditional measures.

Abstract
Using reinterview data from the PATH Reliability and Validity (PATH-RV) study, we examine the characteristics of questions and respondents that predict the reliability of the answers. In the PATH-RV study, 524 respondents completed an interview twice, five to twenty-four days apart. We coded a number of question characteristics and used them to predict the gross discrepancy rates (GDRs) and kappas for each question. We also investigated respondent characteristics associated with reliability. Finally, we fitted cross-classified models that simultaneously examined a range of respondent and question characteristics. Although the different models yielded somewhat different conclusions, in general factual questions (especially demographic questions), shorter questions, questions that did not use scales, those with fewer response options, and those that asked about a noncentral topic produced more reliable answers than attitudinal questions, longer questions, questions using ordinal scales, those with more response options, and those asking about a central topic. One surprising finding was that items raising potential social desirability concerns yielded more reliable answers than items that did not raise such concerns. The respondent-level models and cross-classified models indicated that five adult respondent characteristics were associated with giving the same answer in both interviews—education, the Big Five trait of conscientiousness, tobacco use, sex, and income. Hispanic youths and non-Hispanic black youths were less likely to give the same answer in both interviews. The cross-classified model also found that more words were associated with less reliable answers. The results are mostly consistent with earlier findings but are nonetheless important because they are much less model-dependent than the earlier work. In addition, this study is the first to incorporate such personality traits as needed for cognition and the Big Five personality factors and to examine the relationships among reliability, item nonresponse, and response latency.

Abstract
It is well established that taking part in earlier rounds of a panel survey can affect how respondents answer questions in later rounds. It is less clear, however, whether panel participation affects the quality of the data that respondents provide. We examined two panels to investigate how participation affects several indicators of data quality—including straightlining, item missing data, scale reliabilities, and differences in item functioning over time—and to test the hypotheses that it is less educated and older respondents who mainly account for any panel effects. The two panels were the GfK Knowledge Panel, in which some respondents completed up to four rounds measuring their attitudes toward terrorism and ways to counter terrorism, and the General Social Survey (GSS), in which respondents completed up to three rounds with an omnibus set of questions. The two panels differ sharply in terms of response rates and the level of prior survey experience of the respondents. Most of our comparisons are within-respondent, comparing the answers panel members gave in earlier rounds with those they gave in later rounds, but we also confirm the main results using between-subject comparisons. We find little evidence that respondents gave either better or worse data over time in either panel and little support for either the education or age hypotheses.

Abstract
Audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) has been widely used to collect sensitive information from respondents in face-to-face interviews. Interviewers ask questions that are not sensitive or only moderately sensitive and then allow respondents to self-administer more sensitive questions, listening to audio recordings of the questions and typically entering their responses directly into the same device that the interviewer has used. According to the conventional thinking, ACASI is taken as independent of the face-to-face interaction that almost always precedes it. Presumably as a result of this presumed independence, the respondents' prior interaction with the interviewer is rarely considered when assessing the quality of ACASI responses. There is no body of existing research that has experimentally investigated how the preceding interviewer–respondent interaction may create sufficient social presence to affect responses in the subsequent ACASI module. The study reported here, a laboratory experiment with eight professional interviewers and 125 respondents, explores the carryover effects of preceding interactions between interviewer and respondent on responses in the subsequent ACASI. We evaluated the impact of the similarity of the live and recorded interviewer's voice for each respondent as well as respondents' rapport with interviewers in the preceding interview. We did not find significant main effects of vocal similarity on disclosure in ACASI. However, we found significant interaction effects between vocal similarity and respondents' rapport ratings in the preceding interview on disclosure in ACASI. When the ACASI voice was similar to the interviewer's voice in the preceding interaction, respondent-rated rapport led to more disclosure but, when the ACASI voice is clearly different from the interviewer's voice, respondent-rated rapport in the prior interaction did not affect disclosure.

Abstract
Interviewer-respondent rapport is generally considered to be beneficial for the quality of the data collected in survey interviews; however, the relationship between rapport and data quality has rarely been directly investigated. We conducted a laboratory experiment in which eight professional interviewers interviewed 125 respondents to see how the rapport between interviewers and respondents is associated with the quality of data—primarily disclosure of sensitive information—collected in these interviews. It is possible that increased rapport between interviewers and respondents might motivate respondents to be more conscientious, increasing disclosure; alternatively, increased rapport might inhibit disclosure because presenting oneself unfavorably is more aversive if respondents have a positive relationship with the interviewer. More specifically, we examined three issues: (1) what the relationship is between rapport and the disclosure of information of varying levels of sensitivity, (2) how rapport is associated with item nonresponse, and (3) whether rapport can be similarly established in video-mediated and computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs). We found that (1) increased respondents' sense of rapport increased disclosure for questions that are highly sensitive compared with questions about topics of moderate sensitivity; (2) increased respondents' sense of rapport is not associated with a higher level of item nonresponse; and (3) there was no significant difference in respondents' rapport ratings between video-mediated and CAPI, suggesting that rapport is just as well established in video-mediated interviews as it is in CAPI.

Abstract
Using multiple modes of contact has been found to increase survey participation over a single contact mode. Text messaging has emerged as a new mode to contact survey participants in mixed-mode survey designs, especially for surveys that include web and/or phone data collection. However, it is unclear how to best combine text messages with mailings and other outreach contacts to improve response rates and data quality. To explore the effectiveness of using text messaging as a contact mode, we conducted a full factorial experiment that varies the sequencing of text messages with mailing contacts (early versus late reminder) and the time text messages were sent (morning versus afternoon). The experiment was implemented in a follow-up wave of a mixed-mode nationally representative longitudinal survey with two sample groups (Cooperative versus Other Respondents). For Cooperative Respondents, text reminders seemed to be effective at increasing completion rates, with the early text reminder being somewhat more effective than the late text reminder, at least early in the field period. For Other Respondents, text invitations were effective at improving the completion rate, but effects diminished quickly once the invitation letter was sent. Additionally, the early text reminder appears to be more effective than the late text reminder at increasing completion rates for Other Respondents. The sequencing of text messages did not affect data quality across sample groups or substantially impact nonresponse. The time of day the text messages were sent did not affect any of the outcome measures examined.

Does completing a web survey on a smartphone or tablet computer reduce the quality of the data obtained compared to completing the survey on a laptop computer? This is an important question, since a growing proportion of web surveys are done on smartphones and tablets. Several earlier studies have attempted to gauge the effects of the switch from personal computers to mobile devices on data quality. We carried out a field experiment in eight counties around the United States that compared responses obtained by smartphones, tablets, and laptop computers. We examined a range of data quality measures including completion times, rates of missing data, straightlining, and the reliability and validity of scale responses. A unique feature of our study design is that it minimized selection effects; we provided the randomly determined device on which respondents completed the survey after they agreed to take part. As a result, respondents may have been using a device (e.g., a smartphone) for the first time. However, like many of the prior studies examining mobile devices, we find few effects of the type of device on data quality.