Advertisement

Quality and Quantity

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

The Effect of Follow-up Mailings on The Response Rate and Response Quality in Mail Surveys

  • Vidal Díaz De Rada
Article

Abstract

Numerous experts have demonstrated that the increase in the number of contacts produces a “lengthening” of the field work, although this lag in the analysis of the data is “compensated” by the increase in the response rate that is achieved through this second, third, and successive “contacts”. However, can it be said that these interviewees respond with the same dedication as those who responded from the initial contact? Or could it be that they will try to respond “hastily” so as not to be “harassed” further? The aim of this study is to try to find some answers to these questions by giving the results of the first ever research carried out in Spain using the TDM of Dillman in mail surveys.

Keywords

mail survey survey participation nonresponse differential responsiveness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altschuld, J. W. 1992Mailed evaluation questionnairesen Evaluation and Program Planning 15239246Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S., Overton, T. S. 1977Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveyJournal of Marketing Research14397402Google Scholar
  3. Bernick, E. L., Pratto, D. J. 1994Improving the quality of information in mail surveys: use of special mailingsSocial Science Quarterly75212219Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, M., Hoek, J. 1992The behavior of respondents, nonrespondents, and refusers across mail surveysPublic Opinion Quarterly56530535Google Scholar
  5. Dalecki, M. G. ,  et al. 1988The effects of multi-wave mailings on the external validity of mail surveysJournal of the Community Development Society195170Google Scholar
  6. Deleeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J. 1988The effects of response-stimulating factors on response rates and data quality in mail surveysJournal of Official Statistics4241249Google Scholar
  7. Díaz de rada, V. (1999). Measure and control of the non-response in a mail survey. Ponencia presentada en WAPOR Annual Conference, Paris, 3–5 septiembre.Google Scholar
  8. Díaz de rada, V. 2000aProblemas originados por la no respuesta en investigación social: Definición, control y tratamientoUniversidad Pública de NavarraPamplonaGoogle Scholar
  9. Díaz de rada, V. (2000b). Using Dillman’s Total Desing Method (TDM) in a South Europe country: Spain. Ponencia presentada en WAPOR Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon, 17–18 mayo.Google Scholar
  10. Dillman, D. A., Frey, J. H. 1974Contribution of personalization to mail questionnaire response as an element of a previously tested methodJournal of Applied Psychology59297301Google Scholar
  11. Dillman, D. A. 1978Mail and Telephone SurveysWileyNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillman, D. A., Moore, D. E. 1983Improving Response to Mail Surveys: Results From Five ExperimentsPullman, WashingtonUnpublished Manuscript, Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillman, D. A., Clark, J. R., Sinclair, M. D. 1995How Prenotice Letters Stamped Return Envelopes and Reminder Postcards Affect Mailback Response Rates for Census QuestionnairesSurvey Methodology 21159165Google Scholar
  14. Dolsen, D. E., Machlis, G. E. 1991Response rate and mail recreation survey results: how much is enoughJournal of Leisure Research23272277Google Scholar
  15. Donald, M. N. 1960Implications of Nonresponse for the Interpretation of Mail Questionnaire DataPublic Opinion Quarterly2499114Google Scholar
  16. Eckland, B. K. 1965Effects of Prodding to Increase Mail Back ReturnsJournal of Applied Psychology49165169Google Scholar
  17. Faria, A. J., Dickinson, J. R., Filipic, T. V 1990The effect of telephone versus letter prenotification on mail survey response rateJournal of the Market Research Society32551568Google Scholar
  18. Finn, D., Wang, C., Lamb, C. 1983An examination of the effects of sample composition bias in a mail surveyJournal of Market Research Society25331338Google Scholar
  19. Goudy, W. J. 1978Interim response to a mail questionnaire: impacts on variable relationshipsSociological Quarterly19253265Google Scholar
  20. Green, K. E. 1991Reluctant respondents: differences between early, late, and nonresponders to a mail surveyJournal of Experimental Education59268276Google Scholar
  21. Heberlein, T., Baumgartner, R. 1978Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literatureAmerican Sociological Review43447462Google Scholar
  22. Inglehart, R.(1991). Culture Shift In Advanced Industrial Society. Princenton: Princenton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, C. P. & Boyle, J. M. (1991). Mail Response Rate Improvement in a Mixed-Mode Survey, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association 593–597.Google Scholar
  24. James, J. M., Bolstein, R. 1990The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveysPublic Opinion Quarterly54346361Google Scholar
  25. James, J. M., Bolstein, R. 1992Large Monetary Incentives and Their Effect on Mail Survey Response RatesPublic Opinion Quarterly56442453Google Scholar
  26. Janssens, D., Pessemier, E. A. 1980Response Rates in Mail Surveys: A Review and SurveyInstitute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, Paper No. 714IndianaGoogle Scholar
  27. Keeter, S. 1995Estimating telephone noncoverage bias with a telephone surveyPublic Opinion Quarterly59196217Google Scholar
  28. Kivlin, J. E. 1965Contributions to the study of mail-backs biasRural Sociology30322326Google Scholar
  29. Kviz, F. J. 1984Bias in a Directory Sample for a Mail Survey of Rural HouseholdPublic Opinion Quarterly48801806Google Scholar
  30. Lavrakas, P. J. 1993Telephone Survey MethodsSageNewbury Park-CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  31. Nederhof, A. J. 1985A comparison of european and North American response patterns in mail SurveyJournal of the Market Research Society275563Google Scholar
  32. Nederhof, A. J. 1988Effects of a final telephone reminder and questionnaire cover design in mail surveysSocial Science Research17353361Google Scholar
  33. Pace, C. R. 1939Factors influencing questionnaire return from former university studentsJournal of Applied Psychology23391395Google Scholar
  34. Poe, G. L., Seeman, I., McLaughlin, J., Mehl, E., Dietz, M. 1988Don’t know boxes in factual questions in a mail questionnairePublic Opinion Quarterly52212222Google Scholar
  35. Roscoe, A. M., Lang, D., Sheth, J. N. 1975Follow-up methods, questionnaire length and market differences in mail surveysJournal of Marketing392027Google Scholar
  36. Scott, C. (1961). Research on mail surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 143–195.Google Scholar
  37. Tucker, C., Lepkowski, J. M., Casady, R. J., Groves, R. M. 1992Commercial residential telephone lists: their characteristics and uses in survey designSocial Science Computer Review10158172Google Scholar
  38. Wellman, J. D., Hawk, E. G., Roggenbuck, J. W., Buhyoff, G. J. 1980Mailed questionnaire surveys and the reluctant respondent: an empirical examination of differences between early and late respondentsJournal of Leisure Research2164173Google Scholar
  39. Willimack, D. K. ,  et al. 1995Effects of a prepaid nonmonetary incentive on response rates and response quality in a face-to-face surveyPublic Opinion Quarterly597892Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyPublic University of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations