Comparing the Accuracy of RDD Telephone Surveys and Internet Surveys Conducted with Probability and Non-Probability Samples

Clicks: 88
ID: 307094
2011
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
Steady

Ranked #8 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
This study assessed the accuracy of telephone and Internet surveys of probability samples and Internet surveys of non-probability samples of American adults by comparing aggregate survey results against benchmarks. The probability sample surveys were consistently more accurate than the non-probability sample surveys, even after post-stratification with demographics. The non-probability sample survey measurements were much more variable in their accuracy, both across measures within a single survey and across surveys with a single measure. Post-stratification improved the overall accuracy of some of the non-probability sample surveys but decreased the overall accuracy of others. Higher completion and response rates of the surveys were associated with less accuracy. Accuracy did not appear to change from 2004/2005 to 2009 for any of the methods, and these conclusions are reinforced by data collected in 2008 as well. These results are consistent with the conclusion that non-probability samples yield data that are neither as accurate as nor more accurate than data obtained from probability samples.
Reference Key
openalex_W2136621417 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors David S. Yeager, Jon A. Krosnick, LinChiat Chang, Harold S. Javitz, Matthew Levendusky, Alberto Simpser, Rui Wang
Journal public opinion quarterly
Year 2011
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfr020
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr020
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.