Survey Practice June 2009 Issue

Welcome to Survey Practice in a new format. In the new format:

  • Survey Practice will be published bimonthly;
  • Has 6–7 articles in each bimonthly issue, instead of 3–4 in each monthly issue; and
  • Each issue has an introduction and table of contents instead of first paragraph of each article.

The next issue will be published in August and will be a special topics issue on the uses of non-probability samples in survey research.

Our “Ask the Experts” article this month is the second by Aaron Maitland on the labeling of attitude scales. His article in the previous issue of Survey Practice on labeling scale points was the most viewed by SP readers. This month, his article focuses on the number of responses to include in attitude scales. Please let the editors know if you would like more articles like these.

Prior to the last issue of Survey Practice, the article most viewed was on the universal design for surveys. In this issue, Larry Malakhoff provides more detail on some requirements needed to be “508” compliant. That is, he describes some formatting and other design issues that web survey developers need to use to meet the federal guidelines for accessibility.

The hottest topic at this year’s AAPOR annual meeting was address-based sampling. Many think that it will replace telephone samples and that it has the flexibility to be used for paper and Web surveys, too. We asked the presenters at the conference to prepare a short summary of their presentations. Some presenters provided longer papers or PowerPoint slides that are available at the end of their summary. ABS is an interesting and important method and more research is needed. The SP editors are considering a special issue on ABS sometime in the next year.

The raking article, written by Mike Battaglia and his colleagues, is a little longer than most SP articles. But, the topic is interesting and requires more than the standard number of words to convey its message. Survey Practice often has articles that might seem relevant to a limited group of readers but we also hope that others will read the articles to learn more about a topic that might be a stretch for them. This article is a good non-technical description of raking.

The article by Katherine McGonagle and her colleagues at the University of Michigan describes an experiment using a variety of methods to maintain the panel members of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. They found some difference among methods that would be useful for others who need to maintain panels.

Heather Stuckey and her colleagues present a good analysis of the cost-effectiveness of pre-survey notifications and return receipts. Many of us often wonder if extra efforts to improve efficiency and response rates are justified by the extra costs. This study helps to understand the tradeoffs and shows that their use of a pre-survey postcard mailing saved money.

Survey Practice accepts articles in multiple formats but most articles sent to us are in traditional magazine or journal format. The article by Glenn Israel is an example of short article that describes useful research. He shows mode differences in response between a postal and web survey. The article can be used as an example for others who would like to submit short, descriptive articles.

And, as always, we welcome your comments and suggestions. Let us know what kinds of articles you would like to see in SP. Do you prefer the monthly or bimonthly format?

Articles in the Survey Practice June 2009

  • How Many Scale Points Should I Include for Attitudinal Questions?
  • Can Survey Respondents with Visual Deficits Complete My Web Survey?
  • Summaries of Address-Based Sampling Presentations at the AAPOR Annual Meeting
  • Considerations in Raking Survey Data
  • An Experimental Test of a Strategy to Maintain Contact with Families between Waves of a Panel Study
  • Analyzing the Cost-Effectiveness of Using Return Receipt and Address Corrections in Mail Surveys
  • Obtaining Responses by Mail or Web: Response Rates and Data Consequences

The Editors