Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey

Clicks: 3
ID: 298964
2000
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #31 of 48 articles by views in public opinion quarterly

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Critics of public opinion polls often claim that methodological shortcuts taken to collect timely data produce biased results. This study compares two random digit dial national telephone surveys that used identical questionnaires but very different levels of effort: a "Standard" survey conducted over a 5-day period that used a sample of adults who were home when the interviewer called, and a "Rigorous" survey conducted over an 8-week period that used random selection from among all adult household members. Response rates, computed according to AAPOR guidelines, were 60.6 percent for the Rigorous and 36.0 percent for the Standard study. Nonetheless, the two surveys produced similar results. Across 91 comparisons, no difference exceeded 9 percentage points, and the average difference was about 2 percentage points. Most of the statistically significant differences were among demographic items. Very few significant differences were found on attention to media and engagement in politics, social trust and connectedness, and most social and political attitudes, including even those toward surveys.
Reference Key
openalex_W1986056512 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Scott Keeter, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M. Groves, Stanley Presser
Journal public opinion quarterly
Year 2000
DOI
10.1086/317759
URL
https://doi.org/10.1086/317759
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.