Methodological considerations in the use of name generators and interpreters |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Sociology, Duke University, PO Box 90088, Durham, NC 27708-0088, United States;2. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, PO Box 90392, Durham, NC 27708-0392, United States;1. MTA-ELTE Peripato Research Group, Eotvos Lorand University Faculty of Social Sciences, H-1117, Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/a, Hungary;2. Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church, H-1091, Budapest, Kálvin tér 9, Hungary;3. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungary;4. Institute of Mental Health, Faculty of Health and Public Services, Semmelweis University, H-1450, Budapest, Pf.91, Hungary;1. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 700 Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, United States;2. Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management, 2001 Sheridan Road, Rm 358, Evanston, IL 60208, United States;1. Chicago Center for HIV Elimination, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States;2. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States;3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States;4. Center for Data Science and Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States;1. University of Hildesheim, Institute for Social Pedagogy and Organization Sciences, Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany;2. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaft, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | With data from the Clergy Health Initiative Longitudinal Survey, we look for interviewer effects, differences between web and telephone delivery, and panel conditioning bias in an “important matters” name generator and interpreter, replicated from the U.S. General Social Survey. We find evidence of phone interviewers systematically influencing the number of confidants named, we observe that respondents assigned to the web survey reported a larger number of confidants, and we uncover strong support for panel conditioning. We discuss the possible mechanisms behind these observations and conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of our findings for similar studies. |
| |
| Keywords: | Name generators Survey design Longitudinal design Panel conditioning Interviewer effect Clergy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
