Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Effects of a Between-Wave Incentive Experiment on Contact Update and Production Outcomes in a Panel Study Cover

The Effects of a Between-Wave Incentive Experiment on Contact Update and Production Outcomes in a Panel Study

Open Access
|Oct 2013

References

  1. Bornstein, R.F. (1989). Exposure and Affect: Overview and Metaanalysis of Research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
  2. Budowski, M. and Scherpenzeel, A. (2005). Encouraging and Maintaining Participation in Household Surveys: The Case of the Swiss Household Panel. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 56, 10-36.
  3. Calderwood, L. (2010). Keeping in Touch with Mobile Families in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Centre for Longitudinal Studies Working Paper Series 2010/7. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies.
  4. Couper, M.P. and Ofstedal, M.B. (2009). Keeping in Contact with Mobile Sample Members. Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, P. Lynn (ed.). New York: Wiley, 188-203.10.1002/9780470743874.ch11
  5. De Leeuw, E., Callegaro, M., Hox, J., Korendijk, E., and Lensvelt-Mulders, G. (2007). The Influence of Advance Letters on Response in Telephone Surveys: A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 413-443.10.1093/poq/nfm014
  6. Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. Biometrics, 11, 1-42.10.2307/3001478
  7. Fumagalli, L., Laurie, H., and Lynn, P. (2010). Experiments with Methods to Reduce Attrition in Longitudinal Surveys. Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper 2010-04. Colchester: University of Essex.
  8. James, T.L. (1997). Results of the Wave 1 Incentive Experiment in the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 834-839.
  9. Laurie, H. (2007). The Effect Of Increasing Financial Incentives In A Panel Survey: An Experiment On The British Household Panel Survey, Wave 14. ISER Working Paper, No. 2007-05. Colchester: University of Essex. Available at: www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2007-05.pdf (Accessed May 31, 2012).
  10. Laurie, H., Smith, R., and Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for Reducing Nonresponse in a Longitudinal Panel Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 269-282.
  11. Laurie, H. and Lynn, P. (2009). The Use of Respondent Incentives on Longitudinal Surveys. Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, P. Lynn (ed.). New York: Wiley, 205-233.10.1002/9780470743874.ch12
  12. Lee, A.Y. (2001). The Mere Exposure Effect: An Uncertainty Reduction Explanation Revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1255-1266.10.1177/01461672012710002
  13. Mack, S., Huggins, V., Keathley, D., and Sundukchi, M. (1998). Do Monetary Incentives Improve Response Rates in the Survey of Income And Program Participation? Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 529-534.
  14. Martin, E., Abreu, D., and Winters, F. (2001). Money and Motive: Effects of Incentives on Panel Attrition in the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 267-284.
  15. McGonagle, K.A., Schoeni, R.F., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V.A. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268-284.
  16. McGonagle, K.A., Couper, M.P., and Schoeni, R.F. (2011). Keeping Track of Panel Members: An Experimental Test of a Between-Wave Contact Strategy. Journal of Official Statistics, 27, 319-338.
  17. Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public use dataset (2009). Produced and distributed by the Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  18. Ribisl, K.M., Walton, M.A., Mowbray, C.T., Luke, D.A., Davidson, W.S., and Bootsmiller, B.J. (1996). Minimizing Participant Attrition in Panel Studies Through the Use of Effective Retention and Tracing Strategies: Review and Recommendations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19, 1-25.10.1016/0149-7189(95)00037-2
  19. Rodgers, W. (2002). Size of Incentive Effects in a Longitudinal Study. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 2930-2935.
  20. Ryu, E., Couper, M.P., and Marans, R.W. (2006). Survey Incentives: Cash vs In-kind; Face-to-face vs Mail; Response Rate vs Nonresponse Error. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 89-106.10.1093/ijpor/edh089
  21. Scherpenzeel, A., Zimmermann, E., Budowski, M., Tillmann, R., Wernli, B., and Gabadinho, A. (2002). Experimental Pre-Test of the Biographical Questionnaire, Working Paper, No. 5-02. Neuchatel: Swiss Household Panel. Available at: http://aresoas.unil.ch/workingpapers/WP5_02.pdf. (Accessed May 31, 2012).
  22. Singer, E. (2002). The Use of Incentives to Reduce Nonresponse in Household Surveys.Survey Nonresponse, R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge, and R.J.A. Little (eds). New York: Wiley, 163-177.
  23. Singer, E., Gebler, N., Raghunathan, T., van Hoewyk, J., and McGonagle, K. (1999a). The Effect of Incentives in Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 217-230.
  24. Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., and Gebler, N. (1999b). The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates in Interviewer-Mediated Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 217-230.
Language: English
Page range: 261 - 276
Published on: Oct 3, 2013
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2013 Katherine A. McGonagle, Robert F. Schoeni, Mick P. Couper, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.