Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exit Questions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nonresponse Bias

  • 3571 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Mit dem heutigen Stand der sozialwissenschaftlichen Methodenforschung stehen verschiedene Befragungsmodes zur Verfügung. Abhängig von Faktoren wie Zielgruppe, Budget, Zeit und Thema, ist darüber zu entscheiden, ob die Befragung mündlich-persönlich (Face-to-Face), selbstadministriert (Mail, Paper-and-Pencil, Web, Mobile Web) oder per Telefon durchgeführt werden soll. Jeder Befragungsmode weist spezifische Stärken und Schwächen auf. Im Vergleich zu anderen Befragungsmodes (Face-to-Face, selbstadministriert) gelten telefonische Befragungen vor allem als schneller und kostengünstiger (Cobben und Bethlehem 2005).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • AAPOR (2010). New considerations for survey researchers when planning and conducting RDD telephone surveys in the U.S: With respondents reached via cell phone numbers. American Association of Public Opinion Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • AAPOR (2011). Standard definitions final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • ADM (2014). ADM Jahresbericht 2013. Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, J. D., & Scheuren, F. (2010). Considerations in the study design of a mobile phone survey of the Haitian population. Vortrag anlässlich des Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia, M. P., Khare, M., Frankel, M., Murray, M. C., Buckley, P., & Peritz, S. (2008). Response rates: How have they changed and where are they headed? In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. De Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link & R. L. Sangster (Hrsg.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (529–560). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G., & Keller, W. J. (1987). Linear weighting of sample survey data. Journal of Official Statistics 3 (2), 141–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G., & Kersten, H. M. P. (1985). On the treatment of nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 1 (3), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biemer, P., & Lyberg, L. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. Hoboke, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, S. J., Luke, J. V., Ganesh, N., Davern, M. E., & Boudroux, M. H. (2012). Wireless substitution: State-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010–2011. In N. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Hg.), National Health Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak, M., Metzger, G., & Gräf, L. (2010). Understanding the willingness to participate in mobile surveys: Exploring the role of utilitarian, affective, hedonic, social, self-expressive, and trust-related factors. Social Science Computer Review 28 (3), 350–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brick, J. M., Edwards, W. S., & Lee, S. (2007). Sampling telephone numbers and adults, interview length, and weighting in the California Health Interview Survey cell phone pilot study. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (5), 793–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busse, B. (2013). Handy-Sharing in Deutschland. Eine Frage des Lebensstils? Göttingen: Cuivillier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, B., & Fuchs, M. (2011). Panel attrition in a mobile phone panel survey. Can incentives, text message announcements and switching to mobile web help? Vortrag anlässlich des 2nd International PPSM (Priority Programme on Survey Methodology) conference, Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, B., & Fuchs, M. (2012). The components of landline telephone survey coverage bias. The relative importance of no-phone and mobile-only populations. Quality & Quantity 46 (4), 1209–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callegaro, M., Steeh, C., Buskirk, T., Vehovar, V., Kuusela, V., & Piekarski, L. (2007). Fitting disposition codes to mobile phone surveys: Experiences from studies in Finland, Slovenia, and the USA. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 170 (3), 647–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobben, F. (2009). Nonresponse in sample surveys. Methods for Analysis and adjustment. (PhD), The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobben, F., & Bethlehem, J. (2005). Adjusting undercoverage and nonresponse bias in telephone surveys. Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effect of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (4), 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw. E. D. & de Heer. W. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In R. Groves, D. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge & R. J. A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey nonresponse (S. 41–54). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G. C. III, & Wayne, S. J. (1985). Presidential leadership. New York: St Martin`s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlen, J., & Ehlen, P. (2007). Cellular-only substitution in the United States as livestyle adoption. Implications for telephone survey coverage. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (5), 717–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldmann, V. I. (2003). Mobile overtakes fixed: Implications for policy and regulation (1–39). Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F. J., Gallagher, P. M., Stringfellow, V. L., Zaslavsky, A. M., Thompson, J. W., & Cleary, P. D. (2002). Using telephone interviews to reduce nonresponse bias to mail surveys of health plan members. Medical Care 40 (3), 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, J. H., Kunz, G., & Lüschen, G. (1990). Telefonumfragen in der Sozialforschung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, M. (2007). Mobile Web Survey. Möglichkeiten der Verknüpfung von Online-Befragung und Handy-Befragung. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial 13, 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, M., Bossert, D., & Stukowski, S. (2013). Response rate and Nonresponse bias. Impact of the number of contact attempts on data quality in the European Social Survey. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 117 (1), 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabler, S., & Ayhan, Ö. (2007). Gewichtung bei Erhebungen im Festnetz und über Mobilfunk: Ein Dual Frame Ansatz. ZUMA Nachrichten Spezial 13, 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabler, S., & Häder, S. (1999). Erfahrungen beim Aufbau eines Auswahlrahmens für Telefonstichproben in Deutschland. ZUMA Nachrichten 44, 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graeske, J., & Kunz, T. (2009). Stichprobenqualität der CELLA-Studie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Mobile-onlys. In M. Häder & S. Häder (Hrsg.). Telefonbefragungen über das Mobilfunknetz (S. 57–70). Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, B. S., & Stokes, L. S. (1990). Developing an optimal call scheduling strategy for a telephone survey. Journal of Official Statistics 6 (4), 421–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. (1983). Implications of CATI: Costs, errors, and organization of telephone survey research. Sociological Methods & Research 12 (2), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5), 646–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häder, S., & Gabler, S. (2006). Neue Entwicklungen bei der Ziehung von Telefonstichproben in Deutschland. In F. Faulbaum & C. Wolf (Hrsg.), Stichprobenqualität in Bevölkerungsumfragen (S. 11–17). Bonn: IZSozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häder, M., & Häder, S. (Hrsg.). (2009). Telefonbefragungen über das Mobilfunknetz. Konzept, Design und Umsetzung einer Strategie zur Datenerhebung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckel, C. (2002). Erstellung der ADM-Telefonauswahlgrundlage. In S. Gabler & S. Häder (Hrsg.), Telefonstichproben. Methodische Innovationen und Anwendungen in Deutschland (S. 11–31). Münster/New York/München/ Berlin: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., & Pfent, A. (2008). The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the News Media and government contractor survey research firms. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. De Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link & R. L. Sangster (Hrsg.), Advances in telephone survey methodology(S. 499- 528). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsicker, S., & Schroth, Y. (2007). Die Kombination von Mobilfunk- und Festnetzstichproben. Methoden – Daten – Analysen. Zeitschrift für empirische Sozialforschung 1 (2), 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabkowski, P. (2011). Do more contact-attempts reduce nonresponse bias in representative face-to-face interviews? Findings from a PAPI survey with a low response rate. ASK, Research & Methods 20, 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Clark, A., Tompson, T., & Mokrzycki, M. (2007). What’s missing from national landline RDD surveys? The impact of the growing cell-only population Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (5), 772–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, H. M. P., & Bethlehem, J. G. (1984). Exploring and reducing the nonresponse bias by asking the basic question. Statistical Journal of the United Nations 2, 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, T., & Fuchs, M. (2012). Improving RDD cell phone samples. Evaluation of different pre-call validation methods. Journal of Official Statistics 28 (3), 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuusela, V., Callegaro, M., & Vehovar, V. (2008). The influence of mobile telephones on telephone surveys. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link & R. L. Sangster (Hrsg.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (S. 87–112). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, M. W., Battaglia, M. P., Frankel, M., Osborn, L., & Mokdad, A. H. (2007). Reaching the U.S. cell phone generation. Comparison of cell phone survey results with an ongoing landline telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (5), 814–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. (2003). PEDAKSI: Methodology for collecting data about survey non-respondents. Quality & Quantity 37 (3), 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P., Clarke, P., Martin, J., & Sturgis, P. (2002). The effects of extended enterviewer efforts on nonresponse bias. In R. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge & R. J. A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey nonresponse (S. 135–147). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, J. T. (1988). An overview of telephone coverage. In R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, W. L. Nicholls II & J. Waksberg (Hrsg.), Telephone survey methodology (3–7). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuckin, N., Liss, S., & Keyes, M. A. (2005). Hang-ups – Looking at nonresponse in telephone surveys. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkle, D. M., & Edelmann, M. (2002). Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. In R. Groves (Hrsg.), Survey nonresponse (S. 243- 257). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minder, C. E., Müller, T., Gillmann, G., Beck, J. C., & Stuck, A. E. (2002). Subgroups of refusers in a disability prevention trial in older adults: Baseline and follow-up analysis. American Journal of Public Health 92 (3), 445–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitofsky, W. (1970). Sampling of telephone households. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neller, K. (2005). Kooperation und Verweigerung: Eine Non-Response Studie. ZUMA Nachrichten 57 (29), 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldendick, R. W., & Lambries, D. M. (2011). Incentives for cell only users: What difference do they make? Survey Practice 4 (1). http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/94. Zugegriffen: 19.09.014.

  • Olson, K. (2006). Survey participation, nonresponse bias, measurement error bias, and total bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 737–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev, A. (2014). Models and interventions in adaptive and responsive survey designs. Vortrag anlässlich der DC-AAPOR Panel on Adaptive Survey Design, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev, A., Baxter, R. K. & Carley-Baxter, L. R. (2009). Not all survey effort is equal. Reduction of nonresponse bias and nonresponse error. Public Opinion Quaterly 73 (4), 785–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten, B., Calinescu, M., & Luiten, A. (2013). Optimizing quality of response through adaptive survey designs. Survey Methodology 39 (1), 29–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten, B., Cobben, F., & Bethlehem, J. (2009). Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. Survey Methodology 35 (1), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steve, K. W., Burks, A. T., Lavrakas, P. J., Brown, K. D., & Hoover, B. (2008). Monitoring telephone interviewer performance. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link & R. L. Sangster (Hrsg.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (S. 401–422). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent: Nonresponse in sample surveys. (PhD Thesis). The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Goor, H., & Van Goor, A. (2007). The usefulness of the basic question procedure for determining non-response bias in substantive variables. International Journal of Market Research 49 (2), 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ingen, E., Stoop, I., & Breedveld, K. (2009). Nonresponse in the Dutch Time Use Survey: Strategies for response enhancement and bias reduction. Field Methods 21 (1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vercruyssen, A., Roose, H., Carton, A., & Van de Putte, B. (2014). The effect of busyness on survey participation: Being too busy or feeling too busy to cooperate? International Journal of Social Research Methodology 17 (4), 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vercruyssen, A., Roose, H., & Van de Putte, B. (2011). Underestimating busyness: Indications of nonresponse bias due to work-family conflict and time pressure. Social Science Research 40 (6), 1691–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, P., & Reis, E. (2009). The mobile-only population in Portugal and its impact in adual frame telephone survey. Survey Research Methods 3 (2), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2012). A comparison of alternative indicators for the risk of nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waksberg, J. (1978). Sampling methods for random digit dialling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 73, 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, M. F. (1988). Call scheduling with CATI: Current capabilites and methods. In R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, W. L. Nicholls II & J. Waksberg (Hrsg.), Telephone survey methodology (S. 403–420). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland

    Britta Busse

  2. Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Deutschland

    Simon Laub & Marek Fuchs

Authors
  1. Britta Busse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon Laub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marek Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Britta Busse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIW Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jürgen Schupp

  2. GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Mannheim, Germany

    Christof Wolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Busse, B., Laub, S., Fuchs, M. (2015). Exit Questions. In: Schupp, J., Wolf, C. (eds) Nonresponse Bias. Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10458-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10459-7

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation