IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v22y2014i03p304-320_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonresponse and Mode Effects in Self- and Interviewer-Administered Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Atkeson, Lonna Rae
  • Adams, Alex N.
  • Alvarez, R. Michael

Abstract

We examine the quality of two probability-based polls, one interviewer administered (telephone) and one self-administered (Internet and mail mixed mode survey). The polls use the same sampling frame (registered voters) and the same questions. First, we examine the representativeness of both surveys using information known about the population, and although we find important differences between the two in terms of sampling and nonresponse bias, we also find that both surveys represent the underlying population despite low response rates. We also test for mode effects between surveys due to social desirability and how it influences nondifferentiation or satisficing. Using a variety of methods (t-tests, multivariate regression, and genetic propensity matching), we find evidence that the presence of an interviewer alters response patterns on ego-driven questions. The implications of our work are important, due to the increasing popularity of mixed mode surveys. Researchers need to be methodologically sensitive to these differences when analyzing surveys that allow for different response modes.

Suggested Citation

  • Atkeson, Lonna Rae & Adams, Alex N. & Alvarez, R. Michael, 2014. "Nonresponse and Mode Effects in Self- and Interviewer-Administered Surveys," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 304-320, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:22:y:2014:i:03:p:304-320_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700013942/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. Almut Schumann & Detlev Lück, 2023. "Better to ask online when it concerns intimate relationships? Survey mode differences in the assessment of relationship quality," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 48(22), pages 609-640.
    2. Lonna Rae Atkeson & R. Michael Alvarez & Thad E. Hall & J. Andrew Sinclair, 2014. "Balancing Fraud Prevention and Electoral Participation: Attitudes Toward Voter Identification," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1381-1398, December.
    3. Philip S. Brenner, 2021. "Effects of Nonresponse, Measurement, and Coverage Bias in Survey Estimates of Voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 939-954, March.
    4. Mühlböck Monika & Steiber Nadia & Kittel Bernhard, 2017. "Less Supervision, More Satisficing? Comparing Completely Self-Administered Web-Surveys and Interviews Under Controlled Conditions," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 13-28, October.
    5. Pirmin Fessler & Maximilian Kasy & Peter Lindner, 2018. "Survey mode effects on measured income inequality," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 16(4), pages 487-505, December.

    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:polals:v:22:y:2014:i:03:p:304-320_01. 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/pan .

    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.