Skip to main content

Split-Sample Reliability of a Secondary Sequence Effect on Questionnaire Item Omission

  • Conference paper
Proceedings of the 1983 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference

Abstract

Nonresponse to individual questionnaire items effectively reduces sample size, especially in multi-item scales and multivariate analyses requiring complete sets of observations per respondent, and raises issues of validity. This paper examines the split-sample reliability of a within-question-group sequence effect found to be present in the aggregate sample data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Norman M. Bradburn and William M. Mason, “The Effect of Question Order on Responses," Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (November 1964) 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terry L. Childers, William M. Pride and O. C. Ferrell, “A Reassessment of the Effects of Appeals on Response to Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (August 1980) 365–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kevin J. Clancy and Robert A. Wachsler, “Positional Effects in Shared-Cost Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly, 35 (Summer 1972) 258–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel C. Craig and John M. McCann, “Item Nonresponse in Mail Surveys" Extent and Correlates," Journal of Marketing Research, XV (May 1978) 285–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert Ferber, “Item Nonresponse in a Consumer Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (Fall 1966) 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles N. Futrell and John E. Swan, “Anonymity and Response by Salespeople to a Mail Questionnaire," Journal of Marketing Research, XIV (November 1977) 611–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwin J. Gross, “The Effect of Question Sequence on Measures of Buying Interest," Journal of Advertising Research, 4 (September 1964) 40–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert A. Hansen, “A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effect of Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives on Mail Survey Respondent Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (February 1980) 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael J. Houston and Neil J. Ford, “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (February 1980) 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael J. Houston and John R. Nevin, “The Effects of Source and Appeal on Mail Survey Response Patterns," Journal of Marketing Research, XIV (August 1977) 374–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell W. Johnson and Nicholas A. ßieveking, “Effects of Alternative Positioning of Open-Ended Questions in Multiple-Choice Questionnaires," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, No. 6 (1974) 776–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesley H. Jones and Gerald Linda, “Multiple Criteria Effects in a Mail Survey Experiment," Journal of Marketing Research, XV (May 1978) 280–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie Kanuck and Conrad Berenson, “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review," Journal of Marketing Research, XII (November 1975) 440–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen I. Kraut, Alan D. Wolfson and Alan Rothenberg, “Some Effects of Position on Opinion Survey Items," Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, No. 6 (1975) 774–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen W. McDaniel and C. P. Rao, “The Effect of Monetary Inducement on Mailed Questionnaire Response Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (May 1980) 265–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John Neter and William Wasserman, Applied Linear Statistical Models (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elisabeth Noelle-Newmann, “Wanted: Rules for Wording Structured Questionnaires," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXIV (Summer 1970) 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • William D. Perreault, Jr., “Controlling Order-Effect Bias," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXIX (Winter 1975– 1976) 544–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel H. Willick and Richard K. Ashley, “Survey Question Order and the Political Party Preferences of College Students and Their Parents," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXXV (Summer 1971) 189–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Academy of Marketing Science

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dickinson, J.R., Kirzner, E. (2015). Split-Sample Reliability of a Secondary Sequence Effect on Questionnaire Item Omission. In: Rogers III, J., Lamb, Jr., C. (eds) Proceedings of the 1983 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16937-8_98

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics