Author
Listed:
- EDITH D. DE LEEUW
(Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
- GIDEON J. MELLENBERGH
(University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
- JOOP J. HOX
(University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Abstract
In survey data, four potential sources of measurement error can jeopardize the results: the respondents, the interviewers, the questions, and the data collection method. In the past two decades, a shift has occurred in the way survey data are collected; telephone surveys and, to a lesser degree, mail surveys are now more extensively used. This has stimulated empirical research on the influence of the data collection method on data quality. Most of these mode comparisons used univariate criteria. In this study we concentrate on the potential influence of the data collection method on two substantive structural models. A controlled field experiment was conducted in which a mail, a telephone, and a face-to-face survey were compared. Using multigroup comparisons, two substantive structural equation models (one for loneliness and one for general well-being) were compared across the different data collection methods. The different data collection methods turned out to produce significantly different covariance matrices. Subsequent analyses showed that structural models, based on these covariance matrices, also differed.
Suggested Citation
Edith D. De Leeuw & Gideon J. Mellenbergh & Joop J. Hox, 1996.
"The Influence of Data Collection Method on Structural Models,"
Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 24(4), pages 443-472, May.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:somere:v:24:y:1996:i:4:p:443-472
DOI: 10.1177/0049124196024004002
Download full text from publisher
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:sae:somere:v:24:y:1996:i:4:p:443-472. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.