IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v56y2022i1d10.1007_s11135-021-01126-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of a special sequential mixed-mode design, and reminders, on panellists’ participation in a probability-based panel study

Author

Listed:
  • Rolf Becker

    (University of Bern)

Abstract

The sequential mixed-mode strategy has become standard practice in the survey management of longitudinal studies, in order to achieve consistently high response rates. To realise this aim in a cost-efficient way, a first mode is often an online questionnaire, towards which the target persons are pushed, and a second mode is then a telephone interview, offered to those who do not respond to the initial mode. However, the rationale for using the sequential mixed-mode plus “push-to-web” strategy to reduce the burden of choosing between survey modes, in order to maximise survey participation, could be undermined if there is an overlapping field period during which the target persons could choose between two or more offered modes. The use of reminders might be useful in solving this problem of competing risks. In the context of a multiple-panel study, this question was investigated by utilising longitudinal paradata from the fieldwork, as well as procedures of event history analysis that are adequate for the analysis of processes with competing risks. First, for a web survey as the initial mode and computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) as the subsequent mode, it was found that the idea of a sequential mixed-mode plus “push-to-web” strategy does work even in the case of competing risks in the choice of a survey mode. Second, it was confirmed that reminders are a useful instrument for stimulating panellists to choose the running survey mode. Third, and finally, it was found that this feature of survey management is effective in countering panellists’ procrastination in regard to responding to a survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolf Becker, 2022. "The effects of a special sequential mixed-mode design, and reminders, on panellists’ participation in a probability-based panel study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 259-284, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01126-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-021-01126-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-021-01126-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-021-01126-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eleanor Singer & Cong Ye, 2013. "The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 112-141, January.
    2. Bianchi Annamaria & Biffignandi Silvia & Lynn Peter, 2017. "Web-Face-to-Face Mixed-Mode Design in a Longitudinal Survey: Effects on Participation Rates, Sample Composition, and Costs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 385-408, June.
    3. Hans-Peter Blossfeld & Götz Rohwer, 1997. "Causal inference, time and observation plans in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 361-384, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Frauke Kreuter, 2013. "Facing the Nonresponse Challenge," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 23-35, January.
    6. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    7. Mick Couper & Robert Groves, 1996. "Social environmental impacts on survey cooperation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 173-188, May.
    8. Paul C. Lambert, 2017. "The estimation and modeling of cause-specific cumulative incidence functions using time-dependent weights," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 17(1), pages 181-207, March.
    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. Rolf Becker, 2023. "Short- and long-term effects of reminders on panellists’ survey participation in a probability-based panel study with a sequential mixed-mode design," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4095-4119, October.

    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. Bürgel, Tobias R. & Hiebl, Martin R.W. & Pielsticker, David I., 2023. "Digitalization and entrepreneurial firms' resilience to pandemic crises: Evidence from COVID-19 and the German Mittelstand," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).
    2. Haan Marieke & Ongena Yfke P. & Aarts Kees, 2014. "Reaching Hard-to-Survey Populations: Mode Choice and Mode Preference," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 355-379, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Tatsushi Fukaya & Masayuki Suzuki & Ikumi Ozawa & Takumi Nakagoshi, 2022. "An Examination of Related Factors of Mathematical Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Elementary School Teachers: Focusing on Conceptions of Teaching and Learning and Test Utilization Strategy," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    6. Maikel Schwerdtfeger & Ruben L. Bach, 2024. "How does broadband supply affect participation in panel surveys?: Using geospatial broadband data at the district level to analyze mode choice and panel attrition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 5805-5828, December.
    7. Nadeem, Kashif & Wong, Sut I. & Za, Stefano & Venditti, Michelina, 2024. "Digital transformation and industry 4.0 employees: Empirical evidence from top digital nations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.
    10. Haifeng Zhao & Nosherwan Khaliq & Chunling Li & Judit Oláh, 2024. "In quest of perceived transaction cost’s impact on fintech users’ intention: the moderating role of situational factors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. 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).
    12. Rolf Becker, 2023. "Short- and long-term effects of reminders on panellists’ survey participation in a probability-based panel study with a sequential mixed-mode design," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(5), pages 4095-4119, October.
    13. Vahid Sobhani & Mohammadjavad Rostamizadeh & Seyed Morteza Hosseini & Seyed Ebrahim Hashemi & Ignacio Refoyo Román & Daniel Mon-López, 2022. "Anthropometric, Physiological, and Psychological Variables That Determine the Elite Pistol Performance of Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-10, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Giulia Mascarello & Anna Pinto & Stefania Crovato & Barbara Tiozzo Pezzoli & Marco Pietropaoli & Michela Bertola & Franco Mutinelli & Giovanni Formato, 2024. "Consumers’ Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Honey Purchases and Expectations on Traceability and Sustainability in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Barbara Ryan & Rachel King, 2020. "How ready is ready? Measuring physical preparedness for severe storms," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 171-199, October.
    17. Yang Liu & Jan Hannig & Abhishek Pal Majumder, 2019. "Second-Order Probability Matching Priors for the Person Parameter in Unidimensional IRT Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 701-718, September.
    18. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ad Jong & Ko Ruyter & Martin Wetzels, 2006. "Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, April.
    19. 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.
    20. 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].

    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:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01126-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.