Literature DB >> 28943717

Timing the Mode Switch in a Sequential Mixed-Mode Survey: An Experimental Evaluation of the Impact on Final Response Rates, Key Estimates, and Costs.

James Wagner1, Heather M Schroeder1, Andrew Piskorowski1, Robert J Ursano2, Murray B Stein3,4, Steven G Heeringa1, Lisa J Colpe5.   

Abstract

Mixed-mode surveys need to determine a number of design parameters that may have a strong influence on costs and errors. In a sequential mixed-mode design with web followed by telephone, one of these decisions is when to switch modes. The web mode is relatively inexpensive but produces lower response rates. The telephone mode complements the web mode in that it is relatively expensive but produces higher response rates. Among the potential negative consequences, delaying the switch from web to telephone may lead to lower response rates if the effectiveness of the prenotification contact materials is reduced by longer time lags, or if the additional e-mail reminders to complete the web survey annoy the sampled person. On the positive side, delaying the switch may decrease the costs of the survey. We evaluate these costs and errors by experimentally testing four different timings (1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks) for the mode switch in a web-telephone survey. This experiment was conducted on the fourth wave of a longitudinal study of the mental health of soldiers in the U.S. Army. We find that the different timings of the switch in the range of 1-4 weeks do not produce differences in final response rates or key estimates but longer delays before switching do lead to lower costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mixed-mode survey; nonresponse bias; survey costs

Year:  2016        PMID: 28943717      PMCID: PMC5608089          DOI: 10.1177/0894439316654611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Comput Rev        ISSN: 0894-4393            Impact factor:   4.578


  12 in total

1.  Comparison of e-mail, fax, and postal surveys of pediatricians.

Authors:  Shawn R McMahon; Martha Iwamoto; Mehran S Massoudi; Hussain R Yusuf; John M Stevenson; Felicita David; Susan Y Chu; Larry K Pickering
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 7.124

2.  Electronic mail was not better than postal mail for surveying residents and faculty.

Authors:  Elie A Akl; Nancy Maroun; Robert A Klocke; Victor Montori; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Mixing web and mail methods in a survey of physicians.

Authors:  Timothy J Beebe; G Richard Locke; Sunni A Barnes; Michael E Davern; Kari J Anderson
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost.

Authors:  Corey Greenlaw; Sharon Brown-Welty
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2009-07-15

5.  An analysis of response rate and economic costs between mail and web-based surveys among practicing dentists: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Patrick C Hardigan; Claudia Tammy Succar; Jay M Fleisher
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-04

6.  The Army study to assess risk and resilience in servicemembers (Army STARRS).

Authors:  Robert J Ursano; Lisa J Colpe; Steven G Heeringa; Ronald C Kessler; Michael Schoenbaum; Murray B Stein
Journal:  Psychiatry       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.458

7.  Composite International Diagnostic Interview screening scales for DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders.

Authors:  R C Kessler; J R Calabrese; P A Farley; M J Gruber; M A Jewell; W Katon; P E Keck; A A Nierenberg; N A Sampson; M K Shear; A C Shillington; M B Stein; M E Thase; H-U Wittchen
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 7.723

8.  Why do people report better health by phone than by mail?

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; William K Hallman; Nancy Fiedler; Howard M Kipen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2).

Authors:  Pam Leece; Mohit Bhandari; Sheila Sprague; Marc F Swiontkowski; Emil H Schemitsch; Paul Tornetta; P J Devereaux; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2004-10-29       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Following up nonrespondents to an online weight management intervention: randomized trial comparing mail versus telephone.

Authors:  Mick P Couper; Andy Peytchev; Victor J Strecher; Kendra Rothert; Julia Anderson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2007-06-13       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  1 in total

1.  Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Woolf; Phil Edwards
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 4.615

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.