Skip to main content

A national survey of U.S. pharmacists in 2000: Assessing nonresponse bias of a survey methodology

AAPS PharmSci volume 3, pages 76–86 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

The first objective of this study was to assess the existence of nonresponse bias to a national survey of licensed pharmacists conducted in 2000. Three methods were used to assess nonresponse bias. The second objective of the study was to examine reasons why sampled licensed pharmacists did not respond to the national survey of licensed pharmacists. We used data from 2204 respondents to a national survey of pharmacists and from 521 respondents to a survey of nonrespondents to the national survey. We made comparisons between respondents for 5 variables: employment status, gender, age, highest academic degree, and year of initial licensure. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in the 5 variables between respondents to the first mailing and second mailing of the survey, early and late respondents to the survey, and respondents to the survey and respondents to the nonrespondent survey. There were no significant differences between first mailing and second mailing respondents, but there were differences in each variable except year of licensure between early and late respondents. These differences likely were due to regional bias possibly related to differences in mailing times. There were differences between respondents and nonrespondents in terms of employment status and year of licensure. The main reasons for not responding to the survey were that it was too long or that it was too intrusive. Overall, the survey methodology resulted in a valid sample of licensed pharmacists. Nonresponse bias should be assessed by surveying nonrespondents. Future surveys of pharmacists should consider the length of the survey and the address where it is sent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Churchill GA. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. 6th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. State Health Workforce Profiles. National Center for Health Workforce Information and Analysis Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/pharmacist.html.

  3. Vector Research. Pharmacy. Manpower Project State and National Survey Reports. Arlington, VA: Vector Research, Inc; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kish, L.: Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Armstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. In: Ferber R, ed. Readings in Survey Research. Chicago: American Marketing Association; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hansen MH, Hurwitz WN. The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys. JAMA. 1946;41:517–529.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferber R. The problem of bias in mail returns: a solution. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1948-1949;12:669–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pace CR. Factors influencing questionnaire returns from former university students. J Applied Psych. 1939;23:388–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pedersen CA, Doucette WR, Gaither CA, Mott DA, Schrmmer JC. National Pharmacist Workforce Survey: 2000. Available at: http://www.aacp.org/resources/profiles_reports/manpower.html. Accessed August 1, 2000.

  10. Schommer JC, Pedersen CA. Pharmacists' work activities in two midwestern states. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2001,41:760–762.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schommer JC, Worley MM, Hadsall RS, et al. 1999 Minnesota pharmacist compensation and salary survey, part 1: pharmacists' hourly wages and benefits. Minn Pharm. 1999;53(6):13–15, 24, 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schommer JC, Worley MM, Hadsall RS, et al. 1999 Minnesota pharmacist compensation and salary survey, part 2: pharmacists' work activities. Minn Pharm. 2000;54(2):17–20, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pedersen CA. 1999 compensation and labor survey for Ohio pharmacists. Ohio Pharm. 1999;48(12):12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pedersen CA, Amick SD. 1999 labor market assessment and practice activities for Ohio pharmacists. Ohio Pharm. 2000;49(1):12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sorofman BA, Doucette WR, Kittisopee T, et al. 1999 Iowa pharmacist compensation report. J Iowa Pharm Assoc. 2000;65(1):30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kreling DH, Mott DA, Wiederholt JB. 1999 salary survey. J Pharm Soc Wis. 2000;Jan/Feb:17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gaither CA. An investigation of pharmacists' role stress and the work/nonwork interface. J Soc Admin Pharm. 1998;15:92–103.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gaither CA. Career commitment: a mediator of the effects of job stress on pharmacists' work-related attitudes. J Am Pharm Assoc. 1999;39(3):353–361.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Meyer SM, Marimorino MP. The pharmacy student population: applications received 1997–98, degrees of conferred 1997–98, fall 1998 enrollments. Am J Pharma Educ. 1999;63(Winter supplement):57S-67S.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mort E, Edwards J, Emmons D. Physician response to patient insurance status in ambulatory care clinical decision-making: implications forquality of care. Med Care. 1996;34(8):783–797.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. English T. APhA house sets agenda for the profession's future. Pharm Today. 2001;7(4):1, 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, Madison, WI

    David A. Mott

  2. College of Pharmacy, The Ohio State University, 43210, Columbus, OH

    Craig A. Pederson

  3. College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, 52242, Iowa City, IA

    William R. Doucette

  4. College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 48109, Ann Arbor, MI

    Caroline A. Gaither

  5. College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, 55455, Minneapolis, MN

    Jon C. Schommer

Authors
  1. David A. Mott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig A. Pederson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William R. Doucette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline A. Gaither
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jon C. Schommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Mott.

Additional information

Published: December 15, 2001

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mott, D.A., Pederson, C.A., Doucette, W.R. et al. A national survey of U.S. pharmacists in 2000: Assessing nonresponse bias of a survey methodology. AAPS PharmSci 3, 76–86 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1208/ps030433

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/ps030433

Keywords

  • Pharmacy Workforce
  • Survey Methods
  • Nonresponse Bias