Advertisement

Artifacts in Mail Surveys: the Influence of Dillman’s Total Design Method on the Quality of the Responses

  • E. D. de Leeuw
  • J. J. Hox

Abstract

Dillman (1978) has developed a set of procedures, called the Total Design Method (TDM), to improve the quality of mail survey data. Most research on the efficacy of the TDM has been concerned with the response rate. Using the TDM Dillman (1978, p. 27) reports an average response rate of 70 per cent for samples from the general population of the United States. There is some evidence for the cross-cultural usefulness of the TDM. For instance, in The Netherlands, Hox, de Leeuw and Duijx (1984a) report a response rate of 71 per cent for a sample of the general population. Their study shows that, to achieve a response rate as high as this, the TDM has to be followed completely.1

Keywords

Response Bias Mail Survey Social Desirability Scale Total Design Loneliness Scale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BRADBURN, N. M., SUDMAN, S., BLAIR, E. and STOCKING, C., ‘Question Threat and Response Bias’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 42 (1978) 221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BRONNER, F., Telefonisch Onderzoek’, Methoden en Data Nieuwsbrief, 5 (1980) 145–56.Google Scholar
  3. BRUINSMA, C. and SARIS, W. E., ‘Effects of Response Functions in Survey Interviews on Evaluation of Job Qualifications’, Kwantitatieve Methoden, 5 (1984) 87–109.Google Scholar
  4. CBS: Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistisch Zakboek 1983 (Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1983).Google Scholar
  5. COOK, T. D. and CAMPBELL, D. T., Quasi Experimentation: design and analysis issues for field studies (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979).Google Scholar
  6. DIJKSTRA, W., Beinvloeding van Antwoorden in Survey-interviews (Delft: Bouwplatenwerkplaats, 1983).Google Scholar
  7. — and ELSINGA, E., ‘Respondent-rolopvattingen in Survey-interviews’, Mens en Maatschappij, 3 (1981) 311–17.Google Scholar
  8. — and ZOUWEN, J. van der (eds), Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview (London: Academic Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  9. DILLMAN, D. A., Mail and Telephone Surveys (New York: Wiley, 1978).Google Scholar
  10. ELSHOUT, J. J. and AKKERMAN, A. E., ‘Een Nederlandse test voor vijf persoonlijkheidsfactoren, de 5 PFT’, in DRENTH, P. J. D. and WOLFF, Ch. J. de (eds) Arbeids — en organisatiepsychologie (Deventer: Kluwer, 1973).Google Scholar
  11. FEY, J. A., Temparement, een onderzoek naar de betekenis van extraversie, impulsiviteit en spanningsbehoefte (Lisse: Swets, 1979).Google Scholar
  12. FLIER, H. van de, Vergelijkbaarheid van individuele testprestaties (Lisse: Swets, 1980).Google Scholar
  13. HART, H., ‘t Selectie en zelfselectie van Informanten in enquetes, Dissertation (University of Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar
  14. HIPPLER, H. J. and SEIDEL, K., Schriftliche Befragung bei Algemeine bevölkerings-stichproben — Untersuchungen zur Dillman’sehen ‘Total Design Method’, ZUMA-Nachrichten (Mannheim: ZUMA, 1985).Google Scholar
  15. HOX, J. J., LEEUW, E. D. de and DUIJX, A. W. M., ‘The Postman Rings Thrice’, Mens en Maatschappij (1984a). (An English version is available as: HOX, J. J., LEEUW, E. D. de and DUIJX, A. W. M., ‘The Postman Rings Thrice: the effect of personalizing and using certified mail on the response in mail surveys’ (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Department of Education, 1984b).Google Scholar
  16. Inter/View groep, Rondje Nonresponse (Amsterdam: Inter/View groep, 1978).Google Scholar
  17. JONES, W. H. and LANG, J. R., ‘Sample Composition Bias and Response Bias in a Mail Survey: a comparison of inducement methods’, Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (1980) 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. JONG-GIERVELD, J. J. de and KAMPHUIS, F. H., ‘The Development of a Rasch-type Loneliness Scale’, in Multivariate Analysis in the Social and Behavioural Sciences (Amsterdam: SISWO, 1983) 65–91.Google Scholar
  19. LEEUW, E. D. de and HOX, J. J., Artifacten bij postenquetes: de gebruikte instrumenten (University of Amsterdam: Subfaculteit Opvoedkunde and Subfaculteit Sociologie, 1984).Google Scholar
  20. McGUIRE, W. J., ‘Suspiciousness of Experimenter’s Intent’, in ROSENTHAL, R. and ROSNOW, R. L. (eds), Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York: Academic Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  21. MOKKEN, R. J., A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis (Den Haag: Mouton, 1970).Google Scholar
  22. MOLENAAR, I. W., ‘Some Improved Diagnostics for Failure of the Rasch Model’, Psychometrika, 48 (1983) 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NEDERHOF, A. J., Some Sources of Artifact in Social Science Research: nonresponse, volunteering, and research experience (Dissertation, University of Leiden, Leiden, 1981).Google Scholar
  24. PHILLIPS, D. L., Knowledge from What? (Chicago: Rand MacNally, 1971).Google Scholar
  25. RASCH, G., Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests (Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research, 1960).Google Scholar
  26. ROOIJEN, L. van, ‘Problem Drinking among Students in a Dutch University’, Gezondheid en Samenleving, 2 (1981) 65–77.Google Scholar
  27. ROSENTHAL, R. and ROSNOW, R. L., Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York: Academic Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  28. — and — The Volunteer Subject (New York: Wiley, 1975).Google Scholar
  29. SCR, Social and Cultural Report 1980 (Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1981).Google Scholar
  30. SUDMAN, S. and BRADBURN, N. M., Response Effects in Surveys: review and synthesis (Chicago: Aldine, 1974).Google Scholar
  31. TATSUOKA, K. K. and TATSUOKA, M. M., ‘Spotting Erroneous Rules of Operation by the Individual Consistency Index’, Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 3 (1983) 221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. TULDER, J. J. M. van, ‘Op de grens van de non-response I’, in Jaarboek van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Marktonderzoekers (Amsterdam, 1977).Google Scholar
  33. — ‘Op de grens van de non-response II’, in Jaarboek van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Marktonderzoekers (Amsterdam, 1978).Google Scholar
  34. TURNER, C. B. and FISKE, D. W., ‘Item Quality and Appropriateness of Response Processes’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28 (1968) 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Willem E. Saris and Irmtraud N. Gallhofer 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. D. de Leeuw
  • J. J. Hox

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations