Recruiting Probability Samples for a Multi-Mode Research Panel with Internet and Mail Components

Survey response rates have been declining over the past several decades, particularly for random-digit-dialing (RDD) telephone surveys (see de Leeuw and de Heer 2002; Steeh 1981). This trend af- fects research panels such as the Gallup Panel, which uses RDD methodology to recruit its members. If significant improvements in pan- el recruitment response rates are to be achieved, new approaches must be considered. This paper presents the findings of a mail and telephone mode experiment conducted by the Gallup Panel to analyze the individ- ual and combined effects of incentives, advance letters, and follow-up telephone calls on the panel recruitment response rate. Study results in- dicate that the mail recruitment approach nets a higher panel response rate, and that the cost-effectiveness of the mail recruitment approach is significantly greater than the telephone recruitment approach. Study re- sults also suggest that the advance letter, incentive, and telephone follow-up conditions all have independent, positive influences on the response rate; and that the groups that receive an advance letter, that receive incentives, and that receive a follow-up telephone call have higher panel recruitment response rates than the control group.

[1]  J. Hoek,et al.  THE BEHAVIOR OF RESPONDENTS, NONRESPONDENTS, AND REFUSERS ACROSS MAIL SURVEYS , 1992 .

[2]  Michael S. Goodstadt,et al.  Mail Survey Response Rates: Their Manipulation and Impact , 1977 .

[3]  E. Singer,et al.  Experiments with incentives in telephone surveys. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[4]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  The analysis of cross-classified categorical data , 1980 .

[5]  S. Huck,et al.  Using monetary inducements to increase response rates from mailed surveys: A replication and extension of previous research. , 1974 .

[6]  Edith D. de Leeuw,et al.  The Influence of Advance Letters on Response in Telephone Surveys A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[7]  Stanley Presser,et al.  Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century , 2005 .

[8]  Murray Aitkin,et al.  A Simultaneous Test Procedure for Contingency Table Models , 1979 .

[9]  A. H. Church ESTIMATING THE EFFECT OF INCENTIVES ON MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATES: A META-ANALYSIS , 1993 .

[10]  Paul F. Lazarsfeld,et al.  THE “PANEL” AS A NEW TOOL FOR MEASURING OPINION , 1938 .

[11]  E. D. de Leeuw,et al.  Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison , 2002 .

[12]  C. Steeh,et al.  Are They Really as Bad as They Seem? Nonresponse Rates at the End of the Twentieth Century , 2001 .

[13]  Michael W. Link,et al.  Advance Letters as a Means of Improving Respondent Cooperation in Random Digit Dial Studies A Multistate Experiment , 2005 .

[14]  Jt Massey,et al.  Response Rates in Random Digit Dialing RDD Telephone Surveys , 1996 .

[15]  Neil M. Ford The Advance Letter in Mail Surveys , 1967 .

[16]  D. Dillman Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[17]  Andrew E. Kimball Increasing the Rate of Return in Mail Surveys , 1961 .

[18]  C. Scott Research on Mail Surveys , 1961 .

[19]  David L. Rados,et al.  Effects of Foot-in-the-Door, Cash Incentives, and Followups on Survey Response , 1981 .

[20]  E. Ziegel,et al.  Nonresponse In Household Interview Surveys , 1998 .

[21]  H. Cooper,et al.  A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires , 1983 .

[22]  E. Singer,et al.  Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: description and an illustration. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[23]  J. F. Anderson,et al.  Questionnaires: Design and Use , 1974 .

[24]  Paul B. Sheatsley,et al.  Nonresponse Bias for Attitude Questions , 1981 .

[25]  M. Crask,et al.  MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATE A META-ANALYSIS OF SELECTED TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING RESPONSE , 1988 .

[26]  C. Steeh Trends in Nonresponse Rates, 1952–1979 , 1981 .

[27]  David W. Stewart,et al.  Monetary Incentives versus Promised Contribution to Charity: New Evidence on Mail Survey Response , 1982 .

[28]  M. Traugott,et al.  USING DUAL FRAME DESIGNS TO REDUCE NONRESPONSE IN TELEPHONE SURVEYS , 1987 .

[29]  D. Dillman The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys , 1991 .

[30]  T. Heberlein,et al.  Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. , 1978 .

[31]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION TO PARTICIPATE IN A SURVEY , 1992 .

[32]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Gaining Respondent Cooperation in Mail Surveys Through Prior Commitment , 1979 .

[33]  Linda B. Bourque,et al.  How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail Surveys , 1995 .