IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v178y2015i4p945-961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selection error in single- and mixed mode surveys of the Dutch general population

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Klausch
  • Joop Hox
  • Barry Schouten

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="rssa12102-abs-0001"> This study compares the extent of selection error (non-response and coverage error) evoked by the four major contemporary modes of data collection (face to face, telephone, mail and Web) and three sequential mixed mode designs (telephone, mail and Web with face-to-face follow-up) for the case of the Dutch Crime Victimization Survey. Sociodemographic characteristics and target variables from the survey serve as benchmark variables. A special two-wave experimental design allows studying design differences in selection error on Crime Victimization Survey variables independently from differences in measurement error. Despite large differences in response rates, only small or no differences in selection error between the four single-mode designs are found on both types of variable. We observe cases when the error is enlarged or mitigated in the mixed mode designs despite the fact that the designs yielded large response increases. Our results question the use of response rates to motivate the choice of mode and use of mixed mode surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Klausch & Joop Hox & Barry Schouten, 2015. "Selection error in single- and mixed mode surveys of the Dutch general population," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 178(4), pages 945-961, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:178:y:2015:i:4:p:945-961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rssa.2015.178.issue-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buelens Bart & Van den Brakel Jan A., 2017. "Comparing Two Inferential Approaches to Handling Measurement Error in Mixed-Mode Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 513-531, June.
    2. Christine Eisenmann & Bastian Chlond & Clotilde Minster & Christian Jödden & Peter Vortisch, 2019. "Assessing the effects of a mixed-mode design in a longitudinal household travel survey," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1737-1753, October.
    3. Roberts Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E. & Manjon Marc Asensio & Abbet Philip & Gatica-Perez Daniel, 2022. "Response Burden and Dropout in a Probability-Based Online Panel Study – A Comparison between an App and Browser-Based Design," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(4), pages 987-1017, December.
    4. Jed J. Cohen & Johannes Reichl, 2022. "Comparing Internet and phone survey mode effects across countries and research contexts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 44-71, January.
    5. Joseph W. Sakshaug & Jonas Beste & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Effects of mixing modes on nonresponse and measurement error in an economic panel survey," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 57(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Thomas Klausch & Barry Schouten & Joop J. Hox, 2017. "Evaluating Bias of Sequential Mixed-mode Designs Against Benchmark Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 456-489, August.
    7. Sakshaug, Joseph & Beste, Jonas & Trappmann, Mark, 2023. "Effects of mixing modes on nonresponse and measurement error in an economic panel survey," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 57, pages 1-2.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:178:y:2015:i:4:p:945-961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.