IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v184y2021i3p1052-1069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse

Author

Listed:
  • Henning Silber
  • Joss Roßmann
  • Tobias Gummer
  • Stefan Zins
  • Kai Willem Weyandt

Abstract

In this article, we examine two types of item nonresponse in a face‐to‐face population survey: ‘don’t know’ (DK) and ‘item refusal’ (REF). Based on the cognitive model of survey response, the theory of survey satisficing and previous research, we derive explanatory variables on three levels: question, respondent and interviewer characteristics. The results of our cross‐classified model show that while the two levels question and respondents’ characteristics affected both types of item nonresponse, interviewer characteristics affected only DK answers. Our results also confirm that DK and REF are substantially different item nonresponse types resulting from distinguishable disruptions of the cognitive response process. Since most results are in line with prior theoretical predictions, they suggest that survey practitioners are well‐advised by continuing to follow the large body of practical guidance derived from the theories tested here.

Suggested Citation

  • Henning Silber & Joss Roßmann & Tobias Gummer & Stefan Zins & Kai Willem Weyandt, 2021. "The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1052-1069, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:184:y:2021:i:3:p:1052-1069
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12703
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12703?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dickinson, John R. & Kirzner, Eric, 1985. "Questionnaire item omission as a function of within-group question position," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 71-75, February.
    2. Frank Bais & Barry Schouten & Peter Lugtig & Vera Toepoel & Judit Arends-Tòth & Salima Douhou & Natalia Kieruj & Mattijn Morren & Corrie Vis, 2019. "Can Survey Item Characteristics Relevant to Measurement Error Be Coded Reliably? A Case Study on 11 Dutch General Population Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 263-295, May.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Jan Pickery & Geert Loosveldt, 1998. "The Impact of Respondent and Interviewer Characteristics on the Number of “No Opinion” Answers," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 31-45, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Guizzo Altube, Matías & Scartascini, Carlos, 2024. "Gender-Based Research and Interviewer Effects: Evidence for Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13475, Inter-American Development Bank.
    2. Melike Saraç, 2024. "Does respondent motivation affect item-nonresponse for split-ballot designed survey data? Comparative evidence from the European Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3791-3809, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2006. "Trust in surveys and the respondents' susceptibility to item nonresponse," Papers 06-06, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Stocké, Volker, 2004. "Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents' susceptibility to nonresponse," Papers 04-30, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    3. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    4. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    5. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    6. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    7. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    9. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    10. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    11. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    12. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    13. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    14. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Mark Morrison & Craig Nalder, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Quality of Electricity Supply Across Business Type and Location," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(2), pages 117-134, April.
    17. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    20. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.

    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:184:y:2021:i:3:p:1052-1069. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.