Search

This article investigates how mail-based online panel recruitment can be facilitated through incentives. The analysis relies on two incentive experiments and their effects on panel recruitment, and the intermediate participation in the recruitment survey. The experiments were implemented in the context of the German Emigration and Remigration Panel Study and encompass two samples of randomly sampled persons. Tested incentives include a conditional lottery, conditional monetary incentives, and the combination of unconditional money-in-hand with conditional monetary incentives. For an encompassing evaluation of the link between incentives and panel recruitment, the article further assesses the incentives’ implications for demographic composition and panel recruitment unit costs. Multivariate analysis indicates that low combined incentives (€5/€5) or, where unconditional disbursement is unfeasible, high conditional incentives (€20) are most effective in enhancing panel participation. In terms of demographic bias, low combined incentives (€5/€5) and €10 conditional incentives are the favored options. The budget options from the perspective of panel recruitment include the lottery and the €10 conditional incentive which break-even at net sample sizes of 1000.

Documentation is an integral element of good scientific practice. Transparent and reproducible research with survey data requires a comprehensive and careful documentation of the data collection process and data processing. This guideline gives an overview of key information on the survey, data collection, and data processing that should be included in the documentation of face-to-face surveys. The guideline is most useful when read and incorporated already in the planning phase of a survey to ensure all relevant information for the final documentation is collected during survey implementation., Dokumentation ist ein integraler Bestandteil guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Transparente und reproduzierbare Forschung mit Umfragedaten erfordert eine umfassende und sorgfältige Dokumentation des Datenerhebungsprozesses und der Datenaufbereitung. Diese Survey Guideline gibt einen Überblick über alle wichtigen Informationen zur Studie, zur Datenerhebung und zur Datenaufbereitung, die die Dokumentation einer Face-to-Face-Erhebung beinhalten sollte. Es ist empfehlenswert, den Leitfaden schon während der Planungsphase einer Umfrage zu lesen und zu berücksichtigen. So kann sichergestellt werden, dass alle relevanten Informationen für die endgültige Dokumentation während der Durchführung der Umfrage gesammelt werden.

This article investigates how mail based online panel recruitment can be facilitated through incentives. The analysis relies on two incentive experiments and their effects on panel recruitment and the intermediate participation in the recruitment survey. The experiments were implemented in the context of the German Emigration and Remigration Panel Study and encompass two samples of randomly sampled persons. Tested incentives include a conditional lottery, conditional monetary incentives, and the combination of unconditional money-in-hand with conditional monetary incentives. For an encompassing evaluation of the link between incentives and panel recruitment, the article further assesses the incentives’ implications for demographic composition and panel recruitment unit costs. Multivariate analysis indicates that low combined incentives (€5/€5) or, where unconditional disbursement is unfeasible, high conditional incentives (€20) are most effective in enhancing panel participation. In terms of demographic bias, low combined incentives (€5/€5) and €10 conditional incentives are the favored options. The budget options from the perspective of panel recruitment include the lottery and the €10 conditional incentive which break even at net sample sizes of 1,000.

This article investigates the data quality of ego-centered social network modules in web surveys. It specifically examines whether these modules are subject to the effects of the repeated measurement of the same questions known as panel conditioning effects. Ego-centered social network modules are especially at risk of panel conditioning effects because many of the components in these modules are repetitive. Based on the theories of motivated underreporting and survey satisficing, we hypothesized that respondents reduce the length of the module by underreporting their network size and/or network density. To systematically test for panel conditioning effects, we experimentally varied the treatment frequency in a longitudinal study design, which included three panel waves. The results of our study showed that we generally obtained high quality data with relatively large reported network sizes and densities, low rates of item non-response, and low non-differentiation. In contrast to our expectations, the reported average network sizes were not smaller, and the network densities were not lower when respondents were asked to answer the same social network module multiple times. We found, however, patterns of individual change in network sizes that might be due to panel conditioning. Respondents with large network sizes in a panel wave reported smaller network sizes in the subsequent wave, while respondents with small network sizes reported larger network sizes in the subsequent wave. Respondents’ ability and motivation did not affect these results. Thus, we would like to encourage researchers to further explore the opportunity of implementing ego-centered social network modules in cross-sectional as well as longitudinal self-administered surveys, while being cautious that in longitudinal surveys the chance of panel conditioning effects may increase with the average network size and the response burden of the network module.

Concerns about interviewer effects in interviewer-mediated surveys have accompanied survey research for a long time. As interviewers are involved in nearly all aspects of the survey implementation process, they can affect almost all types of survey errors, including sampling error, nonresponse error, measurement error, and, to a lesser extent, error resulting from the coding and editing of survey responses. Building on the existing literature, this survey guideline provides an overview of interviewer effects and their estimation. It consists of two parts: first, an introductory text using the total survey error (TSE) paradigm as a theoretical framework to provide a general overview of interviewer effects; second, a brief introduction to calculating interviewer effects using multilevel analyses., Interviewereffekte in Interviewer-administrierten Umfragen sind seit langem ein wichtiges Thema in der Umfrageforschung. Da Interviewer an fast allen Aspekten der Durchführung von Umfragen beteiligt sind, können sie auf fast alle Arten von Umfragefehlern einen Einfluss haben, einschließlich Stichprobenfehler, Antwortfehler, Messfehler und in geringerem Maße Fehler, die sich aus der Kodierung und Bearbeitung von Umfrageantworten ergeben. Aufbauend auf der vorhandenen Literatur gibt diese Survey Guideline einen Überblick zu Interviewereffekten und deren Schätzung. Die Survey Guideline besteht aus zwei Teilen: Erstens, der Einleitung, in welcher das TSE-Paradigma (Total Survey Error) als theoretischer Rahmen verwendet wird, um einen allgemeinen Überblick über die Interviewer-Effekte zu geben; zweitens, eine kurze Einführung in die Berechnung der Interviewereffekte mittels Mehrebenanalysen.

Detailed and precise documentation is the key to scientific research and of particular importance for high-quality data collection. An important parameter for each survey is the response rate. It reflects how many persons initially invited to participate finally took part in a survey interview. In any case, every survey based on a probability sample should report its response rate, since it provides first and easily assessable information about the data collection process. The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) has proposed Standard Definitions that include final disposition codes as guidelines for reporting of response rates. These definitions take various modes of data collection into account. However, the final disposition codes proposed by AAPOR are based on sampling and data collection practices in the context of the United States. To date, there is no clear guidance on how to adapt these definitions in a comparable manner for the German context. This survey guideline aims to close this information gap and offers operational definitions for the AAPOR final disposition codes that are applicable in the German context.

This contribution provides an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of panel surveys and of fundamental considerations when deciding for or against a panel design.

Die Durchführung quantitativer Befragungen wird im Rahmen von Forschungsprojekten häufig an Umfrageinstitute ausgelagert. Die Leistungen werden dann meist ausgeschrieben, um Angebote verschiedener Institute einzuholen. In der Regel umfasst die Ausschreibung eine Leistungsbeschreibung, in der die zu erbringenden Dienstleistungen beschrieben werden. Ziel dieses Leitfadens ist es, die Erstellung einer detaillierten Leistungsbeschreibung für die Ausschreibung von Interviewer-administrierten Befragungen zu unterstützen. Der Fokus des Leitfadens liegt auf der Ausschreibung persönlich-mündlicher Befragungen, er kann jedoch auch bei der Ausschreibung von telefonischen Befragungen als Grundlage dienen.

Der Beitrag erläutert, was man unter persönlich-mündliche Befragungen versteht und welche Vor- und Nachteile dieser Befragungsmodus hat. Außerdem werden bestimmte Aspekte der Durchführung persönlich-mündlicher Befragungen angesprochen.

This contribution explains what is meant by face-to-face surveys and what advantages and disadvantages this survey mode has. Moreover, certain aspects of the implementation of face-to-face surveys are addressed.

Das Papier gibt einen Überblick über die methodischen Vor- und Nachteile von Panelstudien und über die grundlegenden Überlegungen bei der Entscheidung für oder gegen ein Panel-Designs.