RESPONSE RATES AND RESPONSE CONTENT IN MAIL VERSUS FACE-TO-FACE SURVEYS |
| |
| Authors: | KRYSAN MARIA; SCHUMAN HOWARD; SCOTT LESLI JO; BEATTY PAUL |
| |
| Institution: | MARIA KRYSAN is a doctoral student in sociology at the University of Michigan. HOWARD SCHUMAN is a research scientist in the Institute for Social Research and professor of sociology at the University of Michigan, LESLI JO SCOTT is manager of the telephone facility at the Survey Research Center in the Institute for Social Research. PAUL BEATTY is a survey statistician at the Office of Research and Methodology at the National Center for Health Statistics. The authors wish to acknowledge advice and help from Charlotte Steeh (1992 Detroit Area Study director), Reynolds Farley (1992 Detroit Area Study faculty investigator), Michelle Mueller, and several other individuals connected with the 1992 Detroit Area Study. They received a number of useful comments on an earlier draft from Don Dillman. Willard Rodgers and James Lepkowski provided valuable assistance on calculating cluster effects. A grant to Howard Schuman from the National Science Foundation (SES-9212590) funded the mail survey component of this research. Funding for the 1992 Detroit Area Study came from the Ford Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the University of Michigan. |
| |
| Abstract: | Two surveys were administered based on the same area probabilitysampling frame and with some of the same questions: one samplewas used for hour-long face-to-face interviewing in the 1992Detroit Area Study; the other sample received a much shorterquestionnaire in the mail for sell-administration. The samplesegments had previously been stratified in terms of the percentagethat was black. For the predominantly white stratum, there wasonly a small difference in response rates due to mode of administration.For the predominantly black stratum, the mail survey obtaineda considerably lower response rate then the face-to-face survey.Within the predominantly white stratum, there were no cleardifferences between results for the two modes of administrationin demographic variables or in gross housing characteristics.However, the mail survey respondents expressed more negativeattitudes toward racial integration and affirmative action thandid the face-to-face respondents. Because the mail sample ofthe predominantly black stratum was small, it was not possibleto carry out similar analyses of demographic or attitudinaldifferences, or to determine whether its lower response ratewas due mainly to race, to correlates of race such as incomeor education, or even to problems with mail delivery in centralcities. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 Oxford 等数据库收录！ |
|
