An Interviewer Variance Study for the Eight Impact Cities of the National Crime Survey Cities Sample

Bailey, Leroy; Moore, Thomas F.; Bailar, Barbara A.

doi:10.2307/2286510

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bailey et al (1978), in contrast, found response variance components that were at least 50% of their sampling variance for only a quarter of their statistics.…”

Section: Findings From Hierarchical Analysis Of Variancementioning

confidence: 85%

“…Though there are some studies in which the complex sampling variance and the complex interviewer variance are both computed (Bailey et al (1978) for the US National Crime Survey and O'Muircheartaigh (1984a,b) for the World Fertility Survey in Lesotho and Peru are examples), such studies are rare. This is due to a combination of design and analytic challenges.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Relative Impact of Interviewer Effects and Sample Design Effects on Survey Precision

O’Muircheartaigh

Campanelli²

1998

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the principal sources of error in data collected from structured face-to-face interviews is the interviewer. The other major component of imprecision in survey estimates is sampling variance. It is rare, however, to ®nd studies in which the complex sampling variance and the complex interviewer variance are both computed. This paper compares the relative impact of interviewer effects and sample design effects on survey precision by making use of an interpenetrated primary sampling unit±interviewer experiment which was designed by the authors for implementation in the second wave of the British Household Panel Study as part of its scienti®c programme. It also illustrates the use of a multilevel (hierarchical) approach in which the interviewer and sample design effects are estimated simultaneously while being incorporated in a substantive model of interest.

show abstract

“…Bailey et al (1978), in contrast, found response variance components that were at least 50% of their sampling variance for only a quarter of their statistics.…”

Section: Findings From Hierarchical Analysis Of Variancementioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relative Impact of Interviewer Effects and Sample Design Effects on Survey Precision

O’Muircheartaigh

Campanelli²

1998

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interviewer variance has been shown to have magnitudes that rival sampling variance (Bailey et al 1978) and there is evidence of larger interviewer variance as a function of interviewer training and experience (Freeman and Butler, 1976;Fowler and Mangione, 1990). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Interviewer Attitudes and Behaviors on Refusal in Household Surveys

Durrant¹,

Groves²,

Staetsky³

et al. 2010

Public Opinion Quarterly

117

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interviewers play a crucial role in gaining cooperation from a sample unit. This paper aims to identify the interviewer characteristics that influence survey cooperation. Of principal interest to survey practitioners are interviewer attributes associated with higher cooperation rates, particularly among sample members whose characteristics are traditionally associated with a lower probability of response. Our data source is unusually rich, in that it contains extensive information on interviewers including their attitudes and behaviors which is linked to detailed information on both responding and nonresponding sample units. An important value of the data is that they permit examining a host of as yet unanswered questions about whether some interviewer attributes stimulate cooperation among some respondents but not others. In short, we investigate if some sample units react favorably to certain interviewer characteristics. A multilevel cross-classified logistic model with random interviewer effects is used to account for clustering of households within interviewers due to unmeasured interviewer attributes, and for the cross-classification of interviewers within areas. The model allows for statistical interactions between interviewer and household characteristics.We find that interviewer confidence and attitudes towards persuading reluctant respondents play an important role in explaining between-interviewer variation in refusal rates. We also find evidence of interaction effects between the interviewer and householder, for example with respect to gender and educational level, supporting the notion of similarity of interviewers and respondents generating higher cooperation. The results are discussed with respect to potential implications for survey practice and design.

show abstract

“…Sources of bias in victimization data include, but are not limited to, citizens' failure to report crimes to interviewers, as well as other problems that are common to survey research, such as errors associated with interviewer effects, interviewee memory problems, and other response biases (e.g., Bailey, Moore & Bailer, 1978;Biderman & Lynch, 1991).…”

Section: Crime Measurement and Null Findings In This Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Peep show establishments, police activity, public place, and time: A study of secondary effects in San Diego, California

Linz

Paul

Yao

2006

The Journal of Sex Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An Interviewer Variance Study for the Eight Impact Cities of the National Crime Survey Cities Sample

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

The Relative Impact of Interviewer Effects and Sample Design Effects on Survey Precision

The Relative Impact of Interviewer Effects and Sample Design Effects on Survey Precision

Effects of Interviewer Attitudes and Behaviors on Refusal in Household Surveys

Peep show establishments, police activity, public place, and time: A study of secondary effects in San Diego, California

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About