Difference between revisions of "Houtkoop-vdBergh2000"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=281–300 | |Pages=281–300 | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0049124100028003002 |
|DOI=10.1177/0049124100028003002 | |DOI=10.1177/0049124100028003002 | ||
|Abstract=In this article, the effect of four different introductions on response rates in large-scale telephone surveys in the Netherlands in investigated. Three standardized scripted introductions with different numbers of content elements, in addition to a fourth agendabased introduction, were distinguished. In the latter, the interviewers formulated their own introductions on the basis of a limited number of catchwords. A total of 1,831 first telephone calls by 132 interviewers were analyzed; only first calls were taken into account. In a multilevel model, the three standardized scripted introductions did not differ much with respect to response rates, appointment rates, or refusal rates. However, the agenda-based introduction induced both higher response rates and higher appointment rates and, therefore, lower refusal rates. | |Abstract=In this article, the effect of four different introductions on response rates in large-scale telephone surveys in the Netherlands in investigated. Three standardized scripted introductions with different numbers of content elements, in addition to a fourth agendabased introduction, were distinguished. In the latter, the interviewers formulated their own introductions on the basis of a limited number of catchwords. A total of 1,831 first telephone calls by 132 interviewers were analyzed; only first calls were taken into account. In a multilevel model, the three standardized scripted introductions did not differ much with respect to response rates, appointment rates, or refusal rates. However, the agenda-based introduction induced both higher response rates and higher appointment rates and, therefore, lower refusal rates. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:50, 27 October 2019
| Houtkoop-vdBergh2000 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Houtkoop-vdBergh2000 |
| Author(s) | Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Huub van den Bergh |
| Title | Effects of introductions in large-scale telephone survey interviews |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Survey Interviews |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2000 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Sociological Methods & Research |
| Volume | 28 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 281–300 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0049124100028003002 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article, the effect of four different introductions on response rates in large-scale telephone surveys in the Netherlands in investigated. Three standardized scripted introductions with different numbers of content elements, in addition to a fourth agendabased introduction, were distinguished. In the latter, the interviewers formulated their own introductions on the basis of a limited number of catchwords. A total of 1,831 first telephone calls by 132 interviewers were analyzed; only first calls were taken into account. In a multilevel model, the three standardized scripted introductions did not differ much with respect to response rates, appointment rates, or refusal rates. However, the agenda-based introduction induced both higher response rates and higher appointment rates and, therefore, lower refusal rates.
Notes
