Interviewers as a Source of Error in Surveys

Boyd, Harper W.; Westfall, Ralph

doi:10.2307/1247046

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The only interview situation where the effect of the form of the question itself has been subjected to detailed examination is in the opinion poll area. These studies have been well summarized by Hyman, et a1 (1954) and by Boyd and Westfall (1955). There is no doubt that the forin of the question, in these cases, does influence the response.…”

Section: Dependence On Studies Carried Out In Other Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 74%

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹

Mayfield¹

1964

Personnel Psychology

199

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OVER the last few years, the selection interview has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. Most of this criticism has stressed a general lack of evidence concerning the interview's reliability and validity. The present paper, while agreeing for the most part with prior criticism, attempts to take three further steps. First, the present limited knowledge is explained in terms of (a) a lack of comparability between studies and (b) an overdependence on research results from other areas. Second, in spite of these shortcomings, there are numerous research findings which have received support from more than one study. These findings are summarized and discussed. Finally, a starting point for basic research on the selection interview which may lead to more profitable research in the future is presented. 239

show abstract

Section: Dependence On Studies Carried Out In Other Fieldsmentioning

confidence: 74%

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹

Mayfield¹

1964

Personnel Psychology

199

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Boyd and Westfall, 1955). However, the potential biasing effects of researchers' psychological characteristics are possible only when these characteristics are manifest through overt behaviors perceptible by respondents.…”

Section: Reactions To Psychological Characteristics Of the Researchermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…' It has long been recognized that researcher characteristics may play two biasing roles (cf. Boyd and Westfall, 1955;Kahn and Cannell, 1957; see also Powell, 1987). First, researchers' characteristics may inadvertently affect results through biased research design or through biased recording, interpretation, or evaluation of participant responses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher Interaction Biases and Business Ethics Research: Respondent Reactions to Researcher Characteristics

Miyazaki

Taylor

2007

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are relatively low in cost, geographically flexible, and can reach a widely dispersed sample simultaneously without the attendant problems of interviewer access or the possible distortions of time lag. Difficult to reach respondents, such as farmers, soldiers, or busy executives, can be surveyed with relative ease [82], Businessmen and academic researchers favor mail surveys for reasons of expediency, since data can be procured more quickly, more abundantly, and more cheaply than when a personal interview is employed [46],Mail questionnaires are free from the costs and time consumption of interviewer bias or variability [7, 8, 9,17,31,41,44,70], Their relative or promised anonymity encourages respondents to freely divulge private or embarrassing or socially undesirable information [50,56,60,84], Finally, mail questionnaires tend to be more valid than either telephone or personal interviews because they enable respondents to check information by verifying their records or consulting' with other members of the family [59], and because they permit leisurely and thoughtful reply. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review

Kanuk¹,

Berenson²

1975

Journal of Marketing Research

714

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market researchers have long recognized the obvious advantages of mail questionnaire surveys. They are relatively low in cost, geographically flexible, and can reach a widely dispersed sample simultaneously without the attendant problems of interviewer access or the possible distortions of time lag. Difficult to reach respondents, such as farmers, soldiers, or busy executives, can be surveyed with relative ease [82], Businessmen and academic researchers favor mail surveys for reasons of expediency, since data can be procured more quickly, more abundantly, and more cheaply than when a personal interview is employed [46],Mail questionnaires are free from the costs and time consumption of interviewer bias or variability [7, 8, 9,17,31,41,44,70], Their relative or promised anonymity encourages respondents to freely divulge private or embarrassing or socially undesirable information [50,56,60,84], Finally, mail questionnaires tend to be more valid than either telephone or personal interviews because they enable respondents to check information by verifying their records or consulting' with other members of the family [59], and because they permit leisurely and thoughtful reply. Leslie Kanuk is Assistant Professor of Marketing and ConradBerenson is Professor of Marketing, Baruch College, City University of New York, The major disadvantages of mail surveys are generally believed to be their low response rates, with the attendant problems of response bias and nonresponse bias [1,5, 10,20,21,23,32,42,69, 78,81]. Efforts to increase the response rates to mail questionnaires are periodically reported in the literature, yet the most recent literature review appeared in a British journal back in 1961 [71], Various research reports published both before and since that time indicate that, contrary to general belief, some very high mail questionnaire response rates have been achieved.Empirical studies designed to improve the validity and reliability of mail surveys can be divided into two categories: those designed to increase response rates and those designed to reduce biases caused by nonresponse or special interest response. The reasons for this two-pronged effort are obvious. The greater the response, the more accurately it will estimate parameters in the population sampled. However, findings are representative of the population only if those people who do not respond to the questionnaire do not differ in significant ways from those who do respond. If they do differ, the kind and degree of such differences must be carefully estimated so that the findings may be properly weighted to reflect more accurately the population under study, INCREASING THE RESPONSE RATEEfforts to increase the response rate have variously been classified by timing(i.e., preliminary, concurrent, and followup efforts) and by technique (i.e., questionnaire length, size, survey sponsorship, return envelope and stamps, personalization of letter, method of reproduction, format, layout, color, anonymity, premiums or rewards, and deadline date). Methods clas...

show abstract

Interviewers as a Source of Error in Surveys

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹

Researcher Interaction Biases and Business Ethics Research: Respondent Reactions to Researcher Characteristics

Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interviewers as a Source of Error in Surveys

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH1

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH1

Researcher Interaction Biases and Business Ethics Research: Respondent Reactions to Researcher Characteristics

Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹

THE SELECTION INTERVIEW— A RE‐EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH¹