Obtaining valid response rates: considerations beyond the tailored design method

被引:11
作者
Huang, JY
Hubbard, SM
Mulvey, KP
机构
[1] Johnson Bassin & Shaw Inc, Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
[2] SAMHSA, Ctr Substance Abuse Treatment, Rockville, MD USA
关键词
treatment improvement protocols; substance abuse; substance abuse treatment; mailed surveys; tailored design method; survey response rate; survey participation; substance abuse treatment providers; primary care providers; problems in survey research; use of incentives; participant recruitment;
D O I
10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00091-5
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
This study reports on the use of the tailored design method (TDM) for survey response in two separate studies (i.e. the Retrospective Study and the TIP #24 Study). Both studies used similar procedures to design and collect the data, but yielded vastly different response rates. Examination of these studies revealed factors that may have influenced the response rates beyond the pproscriptions described by the TDM. Six factors that may have influenced non-response were: (1) the extent of participants' interest in the study, (2) the degree the researchers had a comprehensive understanding of the participants, (3) the characteristics of the mailing lists obtained, (4) selection criteria from that list, (5) types of incentives used, and (6) name recognition of the study sponsor. This study provides researchers with lessons for future mailed surveys. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:91 / 97
页数:7
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] *CTR SUBST AB TREA, 2000, RETR STUD WAV 1 QUAN, V1
  • [2] *CTR SUBST AB TREA, 2001, RETR STUD WAV 2 QUAN
  • [3] *CTR SUBST AB TREA, 2001, TIP 24 STUD FIN REP
  • [4] Dillman D.A., 1978, MAIL TELEPHONE SURVE
  • [5] Dillman D.A., 2011, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method
  • [6] Use of diffusion of innovations theory to drive a federal agency's program evaluation
    Hubbard, SM
    Hayashi, SW
    [J]. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2003, 26 (01) : 49 - 56
  • [7] TIPs evaluation project retrospective study: wave 1 and 2
    Hubbard, SM
    Mulvey, KP
    [J]. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2003, 26 (01) : 57 - 67
  • [8] Rogers EM., 1995, Diffusion of innovations. Elements of Diffusion, V4th ed, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-79868-9_2