Preference for Mobile Interview Surveys? Interplay of Costs, Errors and Biases

  • Vasja Vehovar
  • Ana Slavec


Information and communication technology has an important effect on the development of survey data collection methods. In recent years, computer assisted mobile telephone interviewing (mobile CATI) is becoming an increasingly frequent option, supplementing or replacing face-to-face and fixed telephone interviews (Gallup Europe 2009). This process was sped up by the increasing number of households without a fixed telephone but having at least one mobile telephone (Blumberg and Luke 2009). The decline in coverage – as well as in response rates for the fixed telephone CATI approach – in surveys of the general population led to an intensive search for alternatives.


Mean Square Error American Statistical Association Cost Ratio Mobile Telephone Dual Frame 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bankier, M.D.: Estimators based on several stratified samples with applications to multiple frame surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association (1986), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  2. Biemer, P., Lyberg, L.E.: Introduction to survey quality. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biemer, P.P.: Optimal Design of Dual Frame Survey Results of a Simulation Study. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section of Survey Methods Research, pp. 630–635 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. Blumberg, S.J., Luke, J.V.: Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2008. National Center for Health Statistics (2009), (accessed July 29, 2010)
  5. Blyth, B.: The implications of variation in national data-collection mode access and rates of access change: a European overview (2008), (accessed August 26, 2010)
  6. Brick, J.M., Dipko, S., Presser, S., Tucker, C., Yangyang, Y.: Nonresponse bias in a Dual Frame Sample of Cell and Landline Numbers. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5) (2006), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  7. Brick, J.M., Sherman, W.E., Lee, S.: Sampling telephone numbers and adults, interview length, and weighting in the California health interview survey cell phone pilot study. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(5), 793–813 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brick, M.J., Ismael, F., Cervantes, I.F., Lee, S., Norman, G.: Nonsampling Errors in Dual Frame Telephone Surveys. Unpublished Paper (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Callegaro, M., Steeh, C., Buskirk, T.D., Vehovar, V., Kuusela, V., Piekarski, L.: Fitting disposition codes to mobile phone surveys: experiences from studies in Finland, Slovenia and the USA. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 170(3), 647–670 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochran, W.G.: Sampling techniques, vol. 3. Wiley, New York (1978)Google Scholar
  11. Deming, W.E.: Some theory of sampling. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1950)Google Scholar
  12. Deming, W.E.: On a probability mechanism to attain an economic balance between the resultant error of response and the bias of nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical Association 48(264), 743–772 (1953)Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 293. E-communication Household Survey. TNS Opinion and social (2008a), (accessed July 29, 2010)
  14. European Commission. Flash Eurobarometer 251. Public attitudes and perceptions in the Euro area. Gallup Europe, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS, Cologne [Publisher]. ZA4743, data set version 2.0.0. Description (2008b), (accessed July 29, 2010)
  15. European Commission. Flash Eurobarometer 25. Public attitudes and perceptions in the Euro area. Analytical Report. Gallup Europe, Brussels (2009), (accessed July 29, 2010)
  16. Gallup Europe: Alec M. Gallup Future of Survey Research Forum: Incorporating Mobile Phones in Social and Policy-oriented Surveys, Brussels (October 14, 2009)Google Scholar
  17. Groves, R.M., Lepkowski, J.M.: Alternative Dual Frame Mixed Mode Survey Designs. In: Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. American Statistical Association (1982), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  18. Groves, R.M.: Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, Hoboken (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  20. Groves, R.M.: Total survey error: Past, present, and future. Paper Presented at the Total Survey Error Workshop, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  21. Groves, R.M.: Survey budgets, cost models, and responsive survey designs. Paper presented at the Survey Cost Workshop, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, M.H., Hurwitz, W.N., Madow, W.G.: Sample survey methods and theory. Wiley, New York (1953)Google Scholar
  23. Harter, R., Mach, T., Wolken, J., Chapline, J.: Determining subsampling rates for nonrespondents. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Establishment Surveys, Montréal, Canada (2007)Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, H.O.: Multiple Frame Surveys. In: Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association (1962)Google Scholar
  25. Keeter, S.: What’s Missing from National Landline RDD Surveys? The Impact of Growing Cell-Only Population. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(5) (2007), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  26. Kennedy, C.: Evaluating the Effects of Screening for Telephone Service in Dual Frame RDD Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(5) (2007), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  27. Kish, L.: Survey sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  28. Kuusela, V., Callegaro, M., Vehovar, V.: The Influence of Mobile Telephones on Telephone Surveys. In: Advances in Survey Methodology. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
  29. Leah, C., Keeter, S., Purcell, K., Smith, A.: Assessing the Cell Phone Challenge to Survey Research. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2010), (accessed May 24, 2010)
  30. Lepkowski, J.M., Groves, R.M.: The Impact of Bias on Dual Frame Survey Design. In: AMSE model - Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research. American Statistical Association (1984), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  31. Lepkowski, J.M., Groves, R.M.: A Mean Squarred Error Model for Dual Frame, Mixed Mode Survey Design. Journal of the American Statistical Association 396(81) (1986), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  32. Lessler, J.T., Kalsbeek, W.D.: Nonsampling error in surveys. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  33. Linacre, S.J., Trewin, D.J.: Total survey design: Application to a collection of the construction industry. Journal of Official Statistics 9(3), 611–621 (1993)Google Scholar
  34. Link, M.W., Battaglia, M.P., Frankel, M.R., Osborn, L., Mokdad, A.H.: Reaching the U.S. cell phone generation: Comparison of cell phone survey results with an ongoing landline telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(5), 814–839 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynn, P., Elliot, D.: The British Crime Survey: A review of methodology. National Centre for Social Research, London (2000)Google Scholar
  36. Lyberg, L.E., Japec, L., Biemer, P.: Quality improvement in surveys: A process perspective. Paper presented at the Survey Research Methods Section (1998)Google Scholar
  37. Skinner, C.J.: On the Efficiency of Raking Ratio Estimation for Multiple Frame Surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association 86(415) (1991), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  38. Skinner, C.J., Rao, J.N.K.: Estimation in Dual Frame Surveys with Complex Designs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(433) (1996), (accessed October 26, 2009)
  39. Traugott, M.W., Groves, R.M., Lepkowski, J.M.: Dual Frame Designs to Reduce Nonresponse. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, 522–539 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K.: How many mailings are enough? In: Koch, A., Porst, R. (eds.) Nonresponse in Survey Research, pp. 139–149. Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, Mannheim (1998)Google Scholar
  41. Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., Batagelj, Z.: Sensitivity of electronic commerce measurement to the survey instrument. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(1), 31–52 (2001)Google Scholar
  42. Vehovar, V., Belak, E., Batagelj, Z., Čikić, S.: Mobile phone surveys: The Slovenian case study. Metodološki Zvezki (Advances in Methodology and Statistics) 1(1), 1–19 (2004)Google Scholar
  43. Vehovar, V., Berzelak, N., Lozar Manfreda, K.: Mobile Phones in an Environment of Competing Survey Modes: Applying Metric for Evaluation of Costs and Errors. Social Sciences Computer Review 28, 303 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisberg, H.F.: The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. University of Chicago Press (2005)Google Scholar
  45. Westling, S.: A simulation approach to evaluate the cost efficiency of nonresponse follow-ups. Working Paper series, Handelshögskolan vid Örebro universitet 2008(11) (2008), (accessed October 26, 2009)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasja Vehovar
    • 1
  • Ana Slavec
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations