IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v23y1994i02p200-206_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reporting Response Rates for Telephone Surveys Used In Agricultural Economics Research

Author

Listed:
  • Gripp, Sharon I.
  • Luloff, A.E.
  • Yonkers, Robert D.

Abstract

Response rates are one indicator of a survey's data quality, as a great deal of importance has been placed on the mail survey's response rate. However, a telephone survey's response rate usually is not reported. Even if one is reported, the numbers used in the calculation are rarely defined making the response rate interpretation unclear. Using a recent telephone survey of Pennsylvania dairy managers, this paper demonstrates how telephone survey data should be reported. Essentially, every research report should include a discussion of how the survey was conducted, a disposition table, and well-defined formulas used to calculate response rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Gripp, Sharon I. & Luloff, A.E. & Yonkers, Robert D., 1994. "Reporting Response Rates for Telephone Surveys Used In Agricultural Economics Research," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 200-206, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:23:y:1994:i:02:p:200-206_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500002318/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. William J. Wheeler & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Matthew T. Heberling & Ann N. Fisher & Donald J. Epp, 1997. "Monetary Incentive Response Effects in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys," Others 9703001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Gripp, Sharon I. & Ford, Stephen A., 1997. "Health Insurance Coverage For Pennsylvania Dairy Farm Managers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-10, October.

    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:cup:agrerw:v:23:y:1994:i:02:p:200-206_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.