Richard Hendra1, Aaron Hill2. 1. MDRC, New York City, NY, USA. 2. The New School, Parsons School of Design, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Federally funded evaluation research projects typically strive for an 80% survey response rate, but the increasing difficulty and expense in reaching survey respondents raises the question of whether such a threshold is necessary for reducing bias and increasing the accuracy of survey estimates. OBJECTIVES: This analysis focuses on a particular component of survey methodology: the survey response rate and its relationship to nonresponse bias. Following a review of the literature, new analysis of data from a large, multisite random assignment experiment explores the relationship between survey response rates and measured nonresponse bias. RESEARCH DESIGN: With detailed survey disposition data, the analysis simulates nonresponse bias at lower response rates. The subjects included 12,000 individuals who were fielded for 16 identical surveys as part of the Employment Retention and Advancement evaluation. RESULTS: The results suggest scant relationship between survey nonresponse bias and response rates. The results also indicate that the pursuit of high response rates lengthens the fielding period, which can create other measurement problems. CONCLUSIONS: The costly pursuit of a high response rate may offer little or no reduction of nonresponse bias. Achieving such a high rate of response requires considerable financial resources that might be better applied to methods and techniques shown to have a greater effect on the reduction of nonresponse bias.
BACKGROUND: Federally funded evaluation research projects typically strive for an 80% survey response rate, but the increasing difficulty and expense in reaching survey respondents raises the question of whether such a threshold is necessary for reducing bias and increasing the accuracy of survey estimates. OBJECTIVES: This analysis focuses on a particular component of survey methodology: the survey response rate and its relationship to nonresponse bias. Following a review of the literature, new analysis of data from a large, multisite random assignment experiment explores the relationship between survey response rates and measured nonresponse bias. RESEARCH DESIGN: With detailed survey disposition data, the analysis simulates nonresponse bias at lower response rates. The subjects included 12,000 individuals who were fielded for 16 identical surveys as part of the Employment Retention and Advancement evaluation. RESULTS: The results suggest scant relationship between survey nonresponse bias and response rates. The results also indicate that the pursuit of high response rates lengthens the fielding period, which can create other measurement problems. CONCLUSIONS: The costly pursuit of a high response rate may offer little or no reduction of nonresponse bias. Achieving such a high rate of response requires considerable financial resources that might be better applied to methods and techniques shown to have a greater effect on the reduction of nonresponse bias.
Authors: Morgan M Millar; Hilary A Hewes; Andrea L Genovesi; Michael Ely; Braden Green; Patricia Schmuhl; Kjelsey Polzin; Carolina Roberts Santana; Marc Minkler; Lenora M Olson Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 2.329
Authors: Rana Orhan; John Middleton; Thomas Krafft; Katarzyna Czabanowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Patrick D Thornton; Kylea Liese; Kirby Adlam; Katherine Erbe; Barbara L McFarlin Journal: J Midwifery Womens Health Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Maggie E Horn; Emily K Reinke; Richard C Mather; Jonathan D O'Donnell; Steven Z George Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel S Tawfik; Amrita Sinha; Mohsen Bayati; Kathryn C Adair; Tait D Shanafelt; J Bryan Sexton; Jochen Profit Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 5.428