IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v36y2020i3p589-607n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Interviewer Performance in Approaching Reissued Initial Nonrespondents

Author

Listed:
  • Peeters Laurie

    (Catholic University of Leuven, Centre for Sociological Research, Parkstraat 45, 3000Leuven, Belgium.)

  • De Coninck David

    (Catholic University of Leuven, Centre for Sociological Research, Parkstraat 45, 3000Leuven, Belgium.)

  • Wuyts Celine

    (Catholic University of Leuven, Centre for Sociological Research, Parkstraat 45, 3000Leuven, Belgium.)

  • Loosveldt Geert

    (Catholic University of Leuven, Centre for Sociological Research, Parkstraat 45, 3000Leuven, Belgium.)

Abstract

Nonresponse is a repeatedly reported concern in survey research. In this article, we investigate the technique of reissuing nonrespondents to another interviewer and attempting to convert them into respondents, using data of Rounds 7 and 8 of the European Social Survey (ESS) in Belgium. The results show no marked differences between respondents interviewed by the more and the less successful interviewers, indicating that the latter are not more successful in persuading more reluctant respondents to participate. Sample units that were unsuccessfully approached in the initial phase by an interviewer with a high response rate are more difficult to convert during the reissue phase. Sample units that were unsuccessfully approached in the initial phase by an interviewer with a low response rate are easier to convert during the reissue phase.

Suggested Citation

  • Peeters Laurie & De Coninck David & Wuyts Celine & Loosveldt Geert, 2020. "Assessing Interviewer Performance in Approaching Reissued Initial Nonrespondents," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 589-607, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:36:y:2020:i:3:p:589-607:n:7
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2020-0030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0030
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2020-0030?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. Annelies G. Blom & Edith D. de Leeuw & Joop J. Hox, 2010. "Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse," MEA discussion paper series 10202, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    2. Jonathan Burton & Heather Laurie & Peter Lynn, 2006. "The long‐term effectiveness of refusal conversion procedures on longitudinal surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 459-478, July.
    3. Jan Pickery & Geert Loosveldt, 2002. "A Multilevel Multinomial Analysis of Interviewer Effects on Various Components of Unit Nonresponse," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 427-437, November.
    4. C. O'Muircheartaigh & P. Campanelli, 1999. "A multilevel exploration of the role of interviewers in survey non‐response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 162(3), pages 437-446.
    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. Wagner James & Olson Kristen, 2018. "An Analysis of Interviewer Travel and Field Outcomes in Two Field Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 211-237, March.
    2. Rebecca Vassallo & Gabriele Durrant & Peter Smith, 2017. "Separating interviewer and area effects by using a cross-classified multilevel logistic model: simulation findings and implications for survey designs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(2), pages 531-550, February.
    3. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    4. Durrant, Gabriele B. & Steele, Fiona, 2009. "Multilevel modelling of refusal and non-contact in household surveys: evidence from six UK Government surveys," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50112, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Steele, Fiona & Durrant, Gabriele B., 2011. "Alternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50113, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Geert Loosveldt & Koen Beullens, 2014. "A Procedure to Assess Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse Bias," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    7. Albacete, Nicolás & Fessler, Pirmin & Lindner, Peter, 2021. "Who’s asking? Interviewer effects on unit non-response in the Household Finance and Consumption Survey," Statistics Paper Series 39, European Central Bank.
    8. Wuyts Celine & Loosveldt Geert, 2020. "Measurement of Interviewer Workload within the Survey and an Exploration of Workload Effects on Interviewers’ Field Efforts and Performance," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 561-588, September.
    9. Sarah Miller & David Amirault & Laurent Martin, 2017. "What’s Up with Unit Non-Response in the Bank of Canada’s Business Outlook Survey? The Effect of Staff Tenure," Discussion Papers 17-11, Bank of Canada.
    10. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    11. Korbmacher, Julie M. & Schröder, Mathis, 2013. "Consent when Linking Survey Data with Administrative Records: The Role of the Interviewer," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 115-131.
    12. West Brady T. & Kreuter Frauke & Jaenichen Ursula, 2013. "“Interviewer” Effects in Face-to-Face Surveys: A Function of Sampling, Measurement Error, or Nonresponse?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(2), pages 277-297, September.
    13. Gabriele B. Durrant & Fiona Steele, 2009. "Multilevel modelling of refusal and non‐contact in household surveys: evidence from six UK Government surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(2), pages 361-381, April.
    14. Laura Fumagalli & Heather Laurie & Peter Lynn, 2013. "Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(2), pages 499-519, February.
    15. van den Berg, Gerard J & Lindeboom, Maarten & Dolton, Peter J, 2004. "Survey non-response and unemployment duration," Working Paper Series 2004:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    16. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    17. Mark Amos, 2018. "Interviewer effects on patterns of nonresponse: Evaluating the impact on the reasons for contraceptive nonuse in the Indonesia and the Philippines DHS," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(14), pages 415-430.
    18. Tadeusz Bednarski, 2014. "On robust causality nonresponse testing in duration studies under the Cox model," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 221-231, February.
    19. Schrapler, Jorg-Peter, 2003. "Respondent behaviour in panel studies: a case study for income-nonresponse by means of the British Household Panel Study (BHPS)," ISER Working Paper Series 2003-08, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    20. Jörg-Peter Schräpler, 2002. "Respondent Behavior in Panel Studies: A Case Study for Income-Nonresponse by Means of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 299, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    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:vrs:offsta:v:36:y:2020:i:3:p:589-607:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.