IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v38y2022i4p1097-1123n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Your Best Estimate is Fine. Or is It?

Author

Listed:
  • Timbrook Jerry

    (RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, U.S.A.)

  • Olson Kristen

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 711 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0324, U.S.A.)

  • Smyth Jolene D.

    (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 711 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0324, U.S.A.)

Abstract

Providing an exact answer to open-ended numeric questions can be a burdensome task for respondents. Researchers often assume that adding an invitation to estimate (e.g., “Your best estimate is fine”) to these questions reduces cognitive burden, and in turn, reduces rates of undesirable response behaviors like item nonresponse, nonsubstantive answers, and answers that must be processed into a final response (e.g., qualified answers like “about 12” and ranges). Yet there is little research investigating this claim. Additionally, explicitly inviting estimation may lead respondents to round their answers, which may affect survey estimates. In this study, we investigate the effect of adding an invitation to estimate to 22 open-ended numeric questions in a mail survey and three questions in a separate telephone survey. Generally, we find that explicitly inviting estimation does not significantly change rates of item nonresponse, rounding, or qualified/range answers in either mode, though it does slightly reduce nonsubstantive answers for mail respondents. In the telephone survey, an invitation to estimate results in fewer conversational turns and shorter response times. Our results indicate that an invitation to estimate may simplify the interaction between interviewers and respondents in telephone surveys, and neither hurts nor helps data quality in mail surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Timbrook Jerry & Olson Kristen & Smyth Jolene D., 2022. "Your Best Estimate is Fine. Or is It?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(4), pages 1097-1123, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1097-1123:n:7
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2022-0047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0047
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2022-0047?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. Frank Bais & Barry Schouten & Peter Lugtig & Vera Toepoel & Judit Arends-Tòth & Salima Douhou & Natalia Kieruj & Mattijn Morren & Corrie Vis, 2019. "Can Survey Item Characteristics Relevant to Measurement Error Be Coded Reliably? A Case Study on 11 Dutch General Population Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 48(2), pages 263-295, May.
    2. Blair, Edward & Burton, Scot, 1987. "Cognitive Processes Used by Survey Respondents to Answer Behavioral Frequency Questions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 280-288, September.
    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. Teo, Thompson S. H. & Lim, Vivien K. G. & Lai, Raye Y. C., 1999. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 25-37, February.
    2. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Markus Prior & Arthur Lupia, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Experiments on Time, Money and Political Knowledge," Experimental 0510001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    5. Dürnberger, Andrea & Drasch, Katrin & Matthes, Britta, 2010. "Kontextgestützte Abfrage in Retrospektiverhebungen: Ein kognitiver Pretest zu Erinnerungsprozessen bei Weiterbildungsereignissen," IAB-Discussion Paper 201020, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    6. Eckman, Stephanie & Kreuter, Frauke, 2015. "Misreporting to looping questions in surveys : recall, motivation and burden," IAB-Discussion Paper 201529, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    7. Igbaria, M. & Iivari, J., 1995. "The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 587-605, December.
    8. Peterson, Robert A., 2005. "Response construction in consumer behavior research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 348-353, March.
    9. Lupia, Arthur & Prior, Markus, 2005. "What Citizens Know Depends on How You Ask Them: Political Knowledge and Political Learning Skills," MPRA Paper 103, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 25 Sep 2006.
    10. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. repec:lic:licosd:37516 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Nora Cate Schaeffer & Judith A. Seltzer & Marieka Klawitter, 1991. "Estimating Nonresponse and Response Bias," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 30-59, August.
    13. Gibson, John & Kim, Bonggeun, 2015. "Hicksian separability does not hold over space: Implications for the design of household surveys and price questionnaires," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 34-40.
    14. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2008. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," Working Papers 1061, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    15. Lee, Richard & Lockshin, Larry & Cohen, Justin & Corsi, Armando, 2019. "A latent growth model of destination image's halo effect," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Friedman, Jed & Beegle, Kathleen & De Weerdt, Joachim & Gibson, John, 2017. "Decomposing response error in food consumption measurement: Implications for survey design from a randomized survey experiment in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 94-111.
    17. Deal, David, 2008. "Time for play – An exploratory analysis of the changing consumption contexts of digital games," MPRA Paper 11655, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. repec:mpr:mprres:7524 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Abraham Katharine G. & Amaya Ashley, 2019. "Probing for Informal Work Activity," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(3), pages 487-508, September.
    20. Jamie Lynn Marincic, "undated". "Measurement Models for Behavioral Frequencies: A Comparison Between Numerically and Vaguely Quantified Reports," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a55a64fc06fb4fc4af6621cb9, Mathematica Policy Research.
    21. Jed Friedman & Kathleen Beegle & Joachim De Weerdt & John Gibson, 2016. "Decomposing response error in food consumption measurement: implications for survey design from a survey experiment in Tanzania," Working Papers of LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance 537166, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
    22. Ian B. Page & Erik Lichtenberg & Monica Saavoss, 2020. "Estimating Willingness to Pay from Count Data When Survey Responses are Rounded," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(3), pages 657-675, March.

    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:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1097-1123: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.