Survey Practice November 2009

In the previous issue of Survey Practice, the articles were on a single topic – the uses of non-probability samples in survey research. The November issue returns to the more typical format with the articles reflecting a range of topics. We have seven articles in this issue.

In the first article, Nancy Bates from the U.S Census Bureau provides data that suggests that cell-only households might be targeted for Internet surveys. Self-reported preferences indicate the Internet to be one more technique that could help solve the growing problem of cell-only and cell-mostly households.

Typically, for household telephone number samples, we think of cell samples and landline samples. John Tarnai and his colleagues from Washington State University provide more information about cell phone samples by comparing them to listed and unlisted landline numbers. The results (see Table 2 for details) show that there are differences across the three groups and that sometimes the unlisted RDD sample generates estimates that are similar to the cell phone sample and sometimes similar to the listed landline numbers.

In the past few years, California has experienced a substantial growth in mail election ballots. Mark DiCamillo reports on the results from The Field Poll pre-election surveys of the California electorate that show significant demographic differences between the state’s permanent mail ballot registrants and other registered voters.

Debit cards are used more often by survey organizations to delivery survey incentives. Heather Gatny and her colleagues at the University of Michigan report that reloadable debit cards were a cost-effective incentive for a weekly panel study.

What’s better to get a good demographic distribution of respondents – mall or internet surveys? Eugene Ericksen describes how he uses mall intercepts for confusion surveys which are used in trademark infringement litigation.

We know that RDD samples are not as productive as they once were. Linda Piekarski provides an interpretation of why the number of working telephone numbers in a block had decreased over the past few years.

Finally, we have an article by Lisa Carley-Baxter and her colleagues at RTI International based on their research into the importance of response rates to journal editors. They find that editors are not as concerned about response rates as many authors think, although response rates are a criterion and one that has been changing over time.

  • Nancy Bates – Cell Phone-Only Households: A Good Target for Internet Surveys?
  • John Tarnai, Danna L. Moore, Marion Schultz – Characteristics of Cell Phone Only, Listed and Unlisted Landline Telephone Households
  • Mark DiCamillo – The Rapid Growth of Permanent Mail Ballot Registration in California and its Impact
  • Heather H. Gatny, Mick P. Couper, William G. Axinn, Jennifer S. Barber – Using Debit Cards for Incentive Payments: Experiences of a Weekly Survey Study
  • Eugene P. Ericksen – Using Non-Probability Samples for Confusion Surveys – Mall Intercepts and the Internet
  • Linda B., Piekarski – Declining Working Phone Rates Impact Sample Efficiency
  • Lisa R. Carley-Baxter, Craig A. Hill, David J. Roe, Susan E. Twiddy, Rodney K. Baxter, and Jill Ruppenkamp - Does Response Rate Matter? Journal Editors Use of Survey Quality Measures in Manuscript Publication Decisions

We hope you enjoy this issue and, as always, we welcome your comments and suggestions.

The Editors