Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 1053–1065 | Cite as

The effect of the elapsed time between the initial refusal and conversion contact on conversion success: evidence from the 2nd round of the European social survey

  • Koen Beullens
  • Jaak Billiet
  • Geert Loosveldt
Article

Abstract

The hold period between the initial refusal and the follow-up conversion attempt may be used as a strategic tool to improve conversion rates. We argue that longer hold periods result in better conversion rates, particularly among hard-to-convert refusals. In this article we will first investigate to what extend and in which manner survey authorities exert this elapsed time as an active survey instrument. Contact sheet data show that different national survey coordinators deploy different strategies with regard to this hold period. In the Netherlands, intentional survey tactics can be disentangled, whereas Swiss contact data show that the length of the hold period is a mere result other fieldwork conditions. Actual conversion success seems to be consistently dependent upon the hold period between the initial refusal and the follow-up contact.

Keywords

Refusal conversion Elapsed time Hold period European Social Survey Contact sheet data Survey nonresponse Fieldwork strategy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biemer P., Lyberg L.: Introduction to Survey Quality. Wiley, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billiet J., Philippens M., Fitzgerald R., Stoop I.: Estimation of response bias in the European Social Survey: using information from reluctant respondents in round one. J. Off. Stat. 23(2), 135–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. Billiet J., Pleysier S.: Response Based Quality Assessment in the ESS—Round 2. An update for 26 countries. Centre for Sociological Research, Leuven (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Campanelli P., O’Muircheartaigh C.: Interviewers, interviewer continuity, and panel survey nonresponse. Qual. Quant. 33, 59–76 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, S., Martin, D., DiSogra, C., Grant, D.: Altering the hold period for refusal conversion cases in an RDD survey. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, ASA (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Fuse K., Xie D.: A successful conversion or double refusal: a study of the process of refusal conversion in telephone survey research. The Social Science Journal 44, 434–446 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Groves R., Couper M.: Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. Groves R., Singer E., Corning A.D., Bowers A.: A laboratory approach to measuring the effects on survey participation of interview length, incentives, differential incentives, and refusal conversion. J. Off. Stat. 5(2), 251–268 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. Kropf, M.E., Scheib, J., Blair, J.: The effect of alternative incentives on cooperation and refusal conversion in a telephone survey. Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Meeting (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Loosveldt G., Carton A., Billiet J.: Assessment of survey data quality: a pragmatic approach focused on interviewer tasks. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46(1), 65–82 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Pickery, J.: Applications of multilevel analysis in survey data quality research. Random coefficient models for respondent and interviewer effects. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (2000)Google Scholar
  12. Pickery J., Loosveldt G.: A multinomial analysis of interviewer effects on various components of unit nonresponse. Qual. Quant. 36, 427–437 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stoop, I.: The hunt for the last respondent. Dissertation, SCP, The Hague (2005)Google Scholar
  14. Symons, K., Matsuo, H., Beullens, K., Billiet, J.: Response Based Quality Assessment in the ESS—Round 3. An update for 19 countries. Centre for Sociological Research, Leuven (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Triplett, T.: What is Gained From Additional Call Attempts & Refusal Conversion and What are the Cost Implications? Research Report, 36 pp. (+Appendix). The Urban Institute, Washington DC (2002). http://mywebpages.comcast.neet/triplett13/tncpap.pdf
  16. Triplett, T., Scheib, J., Blair, T.: How long should you wait before attempting to convert a telephone refusal? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, ASA (2001)Google Scholar
  17. Verbeke G., Molenberghs G.: Linear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data. Springer Series in Statistics, New York (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sociological ResearchKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations