Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluating Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Survey Data Using Covariate Adjustment Models Cover

Evaluating Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Survey Data Using Covariate Adjustment Models

Open Access
|Feb 2014

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/0471249688
  2. Angrist, J.D., Imbens, G.W., and Rubin, D.B. (1996). Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444-455. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902
  3. Bowden, R.J. and Turkington, D.A. (1990). Instrumental Variables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Casella, G. and Berger, R.L. (2002). Statistical Inference (2nd edition). Duxbury, CA: Pacific Grove.
  5. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley.
  6. De Leeuw, E.D. (2005). To Mix or not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 233-255.
  7. Dillman, D.A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., and Messer, B.L. (2009a). Response Rate and Measurement Differences in Mixed-Mode Surveys Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.00710.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007
  8. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. (2009b). Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  9. Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., and Yan, T. (2005). An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 370-392. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi02710.1093/poq/nfi027
  10. Galles, D. and Pearl, J. (1998). An Axiomatic Characterization of Causal Counterfactuals. Foundations of Science, 1, 151-182. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1023/ A:100960282589410.1023/A:1009602825894
  11. Greenfield, T.K., Midanik, L.T., and Rogers, J.D. (2000). Effects of Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interview Modes on Reports of Alcohol Consumption. Addiction, 95, 277-284. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95227714.x 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95227714.x10723856
  12. Greenland, S., Pearl, J., and Robins, J.M. (1999). Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research. Epidemiology, 10, 37-48.10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008
  13. Hayashi, T. (2007). The Possibility of Mixed-Mode Surveys in Sociological Studies. International Journal of Japanese sociology, 16, 51-63. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6781.2007.00099.x 10.1111/j.1475-6781.2007.00099.x
  14. Heerwegh, D. and Loosveldt, G. (2011). Assessing Mode Effects in a National Crime Victimization Survey Using Structural Equation Models: Social Desirability Bias and Acquiescence. Journal of Official Statistics, 27, 49-63.
  15. Holbrook, A.L., Green, M.C., and Krosnick, J.A. (2003). Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79-125. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1086/34601010.1086/346010
  16. Holland, P.W. (1986). Statistics and Causal Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945-960. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.1047835410.1080/01621459.1986.10478354
  17. Jäckle, A., Roberts, C., and Lynn, P. (2010). Assessing the Effect of Data Collection Mode on Measurement. International Statistical Review, 78, 3-20. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00102.x 10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00102.x
  18. Kreuter, F., Olson, K., Wagner, J., Yan, T., Ezzati-Rice, T.M., Casas-Cordero, C., Lemay, M., Peytchev, A., Groves, R.M., and Raghunathan, T.E. (2010). Using Proxy Measures and Other Correlates of Survey Outcomes to Adjust for Non-response: Examples from Multiple Surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 173, 389-407. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.x 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.x
  19. Lee, R.M. and Renzetti, C.M. (1990). The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics: An Overview and Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 510-528.10.1177/0002764290033005002
  20. Lehmann, E.L. (2001). Elements of Large-Sample Theory. New York: Springer.
  21. Little,R.J.A. (1986). Survey NonresponseAdjustments for Estimates ofMeans. International Statistical Review, 54, 139-157.10.2307/1403140
  22. Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data (2nd edition). London: Wiley.10.1002/9781119013563
  23. Loosveldt, G. and Storms, V. (2008). Measuring Public Opinions About Surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 74-89. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn006 10.1093/ijpor/edn006
  24. Lugtig, P., Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Frerichs, R., and Greven, A. (2011). Estimating Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects in a Mixed-Mode Survey. International Journal of Market Research, 53, 669-686.10.2501/IJMR-53-5-669-686
  25. Medway, R.L. and Fulton, J. (2012). When More Gets You Less: A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 733-746. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs04710.1093/poq/nfs047
  26. Millar, M.M. and Dillman, D.A. (2011). Improving Response to Web and Mixed-Mode Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 249-269. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr00310.1093/poq/nfr003
  27. Molenberghs, G., Njeru Njagi, E., Kenward, M.G., and Verbeke, G. (2012). Enriched-Data Problems and Essential Non-Identifiability. International Journal of Statistics in Medical Research, 1, 16-44.10.6000/1929-6029.2012.01.01.02
  28. Morgan, S.L. and Winship, C. (2009). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Analytical Methods for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Olson, K., Smyth, J.D., and Wood, H.M. (2012). Does Giving People their Preferred Survey Mode Actually Increase Survey Participation Rates? An Experimental Examination. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 611-635. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs02410.1093/poq/nfs024
  30. Pearl, J. (1995). Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research. Biometrika, 82, 669-688. DOI:http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/82.4.66910.1093/biomet/82.4.669
  31. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803161
  32. Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.4110.1093/biomet/70.1.41
  33. Rubin, D.B. (1974). Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1037/h003735010.1037/h0037350
  34. Rubin, D.B. (1978). Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 34-58.10.1214/aos/1176344064
  35. Rubin, D.B. (1991). Practical Implications of Modes of Statistical Inference for Causal Effects and the Critical Role of the Assignment Mechanism. Biometrics, 47, 1213-1234.10.2307/2532381
  36. Rubin, D.B. (2005). Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322-331. DOI: http:// www.dx.doi.org/10.1198/01621450400000188010.1198/016214504000001880
  37. Storms, V. and Loosveldt, G. (2005). Procesevaluatie van het Veldwerk van een Mixed Mode Survey naar het Surveyklimaat in Vlaanderen. Leuven: KUL, Centrum voor Sociologisch Onderzoek.
  38. Tourangeau, R. and Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859-883.10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.85917723033
  39. Vannieuwenhuyze, J.T.A. and Loosveldt, G. (2013). Evaluating Relative Mode-Effects in Mixed Mode Surveys: Three Methods to Disentangle Selection and Measurement Effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 42, 82-104. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1177/004912411246486810.1177/0049124112464868
  40. sVannieuwenhuyze, J.T.A., Loosveldt, G., and Molenberghs, G. (2012). A Method to Evaluate Mode Effects on the Mean and Variance of a Continuous Variable in Mixed- Mode Surveys. International Statistical Review, 80, 306-322. DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2011.00167.x
  41. Voogt, R.J. and Saris, W.E. (2005). Mixed Mode Designs: Finding the Balance Between Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 367-387.
  42. Weisberg, H.F. (2005). The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research. Chicago: University of Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226891293.001.0001
  43. Weisberg, H.F. (2010). Bias and Causation: Models and Judgment for Valid Comparisons. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470631102
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 21
Published on: Feb 14, 2014
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2014 Jorre T.A. Vannieuwenhuyze, Geert Loosveldt, Geert Molenberghs, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.