Search

This study expands upon existing knowledge of response rates by conducting a large-scale quantitative review of published response rates. This allowed a fine-grained comparison of response rates across respondent groups. Other unique features of this study are the analysis of response enhancing techniques across respondent groups and response rate trends over time. In order to aid researchers in designing surveys, we provide expected response rate percentiles for different survey modalities. We analyzed 2,037 surveys, covering 1,251,651 individual respondents, published in 12 journals in I/O Psychology, Management, and Marketing during the period 1995-2008. Expected response rate levels were summarized for different types of respondents and use of response enhancing techniques was coded for each study. First, differences in mean response rate were found across respondent types with the lowest response rates reported for executive respondents and the highest for non-working respondents and non-managerial employees. Second, moderator analyses suggested that the effectiveness of response enhancing techniques was dependent on type of respondents. Evidence for differential prediction across respondent type was found for incentives, salience, identification numbers, sponsorship, and administration mode. When controlling for increased use of response enhancing techniques, a small decline in response rates over time was found. Our findings suggest that existing guidelines for designing effective survey research may not always offer the most accurate information available. Survey researchers should be aware that they may obtain lower/higher response rates depending on the respondent type surveyed and that some response enhancing techniques may be less/more effective in specific samples. This study, analyzing the largest set of published response rates to date, offers the first evidence for different response rates and differential functioning of response enhancing techniques across respondent types.

Interviewers play an important role in gaining cooperation in surveys. There is empirical evidence for a considerable variation in response rates between interviewers. Despite this, research on the role of the interviewer in nonresponse is relatively scarce. Past research showed that interviewer experience plays a role in gaining respondent cooperation, and recently the importance of the "doorstep' interaction has been emphasized. In this article, we describe the tactics for fighting nonresponse, as reported by experienced interviewers. We also explore the relationship between favored tactics of interviewers and interviewers' individual response rate.

Interviewers play an important role in gaining cooperation in surveys. There is empirical evidence for a considerable variation in response rates between interviewers. Despite this, research on the role of the interviewer in nonresponse is relatively scarce. Past research showed that interviewer experience plays a role in gaining respondent cooperation, and recently the importance of the "doorstep' interaction has been emphasized. In this article, we describe the tactics for fighting nonresponse, as reported by experienced interviewers. We also explore the relationship between favored tactics of interviewers and interviewers' individual response rate.

BACKGROUND: Tracing mail survey responses is useful for the management of reminders but may cause concerns about anonymity among prospective participants. We examined the impact of numbering return envelopes on the participation and the results of a survey on a sensitive topic among hospital staff. METHODS: In a survey about regrets associated with providing healthcare conducted among hospital-based doctors and nurses, two randomly drawn subsamples were provided numbered (N = 1100) and non-numbered (N = 500) envelopes for the return of completed questionnaires. Participation, explicit refusals, and item responses were compared. We also conducted a meta-analysis of the effect of questionnaire/envelope numbering on participation in health surveys. RESULTS: The participation rate was lower in the "numbered" group than in the "non-numbered" group (30.3% vs. 35.0%, p = 0.073), the proportion of explicit refusals was higher in the "numbered" group (23.1% vs 17.5%, p = 0.016), and the proportion of those who never returned the questionnaire was similar (46.6% vs 47.5%, p = 0.78). The means of responses differed significantly for 12 of 105 items (11.4%), which did not differ significantly from the expected frequency of type 1 errors, i.e., 5% (permutation test, p = 0.078). The meta-analysis of 7 experimental surveys (including this one) indicated that numbering is associated with a 2.4% decrease in the survey response rate (95% confidence interval 0.3% to 4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Numbered return envelopes may reduce the response rate and increase explicit refusals to participate in a sensitive survey. Reduced participation was confirmed by a meta-analysis of randomized health surveys. There was no strong evidence of bias.