IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v42y2013i1p82-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Relative Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Surveys:

Author

Listed:
  • Jorre T. A. Vannieuwenhuyze
  • Geert Loosveldt

Abstract

In order to investigate the advantage of mixed-mode (MM) surveys, selection effects between the modes should be evaluated. Selection effects refer to differences in respondent compositions on the target variables between the modes. However, estimation of selection effects is not an easy task because they may be completely confounded with measurement effects between the modes (differences in measurement error). Publications concerning the estimation of these mode effects are scarce. This article presents and compares three methods that allow measurement effects and selection effects to be evaluated separately. The first method starts from existing publications that avoid the confounding problem by introducing a set of mode-insensitive variables into the analysis model. However, this article will show that this method involves unrealistic assumptions in most practical research. The second and the third methods make use of an MM sample extended by comparable single-mode data. The assumptions, advantages, and disadvantages of all three methods are discussed. Each method will further be illustrated using a set of six variables relating to opinions about surveys among the Flemish population. The results show large differences between the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorre T. A. Vannieuwenhuyze & Geert Loosveldt, 2013. "Evaluating Relative Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Surveys:," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 82-104, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:42:y:2013:i:1:p:82-104
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124112464868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124112464868
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124112464868?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. Annette Jäckle & Caroline Roberts & Peter Lynn, 2010. "Assessing the Effect of Data Collection Mode on Measurement," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(1), pages 3-20, April.
    2. Bowden,Roger J. & Turkington,Darrell A., 1990. "Instrumental Variables," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521385824, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Jesica Escobar & Alexander Poznyak, 2022. "Robust Parametric Identification for ARMAX Models with Non-Gaussian and Coloured Noise: A Survey," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-38, April.
    3. Baştürk, Nalan & Grassi, Stefano & Hoogerheide, Lennart & Opschoor, Anne & van Dijk, Herman K., 2017. "The R Package MitISEM: Efficient and Robust Simulation Procedures for Bayesian Inference," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i01).
    4. Debra Wright & Matt Sloan & Kirsten Barrett, 2012. "Is There a Trade-off Between Quality and Cost? Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of Persons with Disabilities," Mathematica Policy Research Reports cb6067df035641e99a913d534, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    7. Mackeben, Jan, 2020. "Mode Effects in the Fourth Wave of the Linked Personnel Panel (LPP) Employee Survey," FDZ Methodenreport 202005_en, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    8. Peter Bühlmann & Domagoj Ćevid, 2020. "Deconfounding and Causal Regularisation for Stability and External Validity," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 88(S1), pages 114-134, December.
    9. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Nalan Baştürk & Stefano Grassi & Lennart Hoogerheide & Herman K. Van Dijk, 2016. "Parallelization Experience with Four Canonical Econometric Models Using ParMitISEM," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Viktoria Spaiser & Peter Hedström & Shyam Ranganathan & Kim Jansson & Monica K. Nordvik & David J. T. Sumpter, 2018. "Identifying Complex Dynamics in Social Systems," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(2), pages 103-135, March.
    12. repec:iab:iabfme:202005(en is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Stefania Capecchi & Romina Gambacorta & Rosaria Simone & Domenico Piccolo, 2024. "Modelling cognitive response patterns to survey questions using the class of CUB models," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 885, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    14. Pedro Amaral & Mauro Lemos & Rodrigo Simões & Flávia Chein, 2010. "Regional Imbalances and Market Potential in Brazil," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 463-482.
    15. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zawojska, Ewa & Meade, Norman & da Motta, Ronaldo Seroa & Welsh, Mike & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2024. "On the inference about a willingness-to-pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    16. Cernat, Alexandru, 2014. "Impact of mixed modes on measurement errors and estimates of change in panel data," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2014-05, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    17. repec:mpr:mprres:7332 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Bart Buelens & Jan A. van den Brakel, 2015. "Measurement Error Calibration in Mixed-mode Sample Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 391-426, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Ullah, Irfan & Zhang, Jiawei & Rehman, Alam & Zeeshan, Muhammad, 2022. "Linkages between trade openness, natural gas production and poverty in Pakistan: A simultaneous equation approach," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    21. Nalan Basturk & Lennart Hoogerheide & Anne Opschoor & Herman K. van Dijk, 2012. "The R Package MitISEM: Mixture of Student-t Distributions using Importance Sampling Weighted Expectation Maximization for Efficient and Robust Simulation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-096/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    22. Baker, Laurence C., 1997. "The effect of HMOs on fee-for-service health care expenditures: Evidence from Medicare," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 453-481, August.

    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:42:y:2013:i:1:p:82-104. 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: 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.

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