Within-Household Selection and Dual-Frame Telephone Surveys: A Comparative Experiment of Eleven Different Selection Methods

Abstract

Numerous within-household selection methods have been tested in general population surveys since the advent of telephone interviewing. However, very few selection studies, if any, have been conducted with a dual frame (landline and cell phone) sample. Landline and cell phone frames are known to represent demographically different groups of respondents, and selection methods that may result in more representative demographics in a landline frame may actually skew the results when combined with the cell phone frame. This study tested 11 different within-household selection methods with approximately 11,000 landline respondents. A parallel cell phone sample was also collected with 1,000 respondents, and the frames were combined for analysis. The selection methods tested included one probability-based method, four quasi-probability methods and six nonprobability methods. The methods were evaluated on four criteria: response rates, accuracy, demographic representation and substantive results. The demographic representativeness of each method was examined for the landline frame only and for the dual (landline and cell phone) frame combination. The probability method had the lowest response rate, while the nonprobability at-home methods had the highest. Accuracy rates were lowest for the quasi-probability birthday methods. There were few demographic differences between selection methods, and no substantive differences, when combined with the cell phone sample.

Farkli Cevaplayici Seçi̇m Yöntemleri̇ Farkli Araştirma Tahmi̇nleri̇ Üreti̇r Mi̇? 2013 Tnsa İçi̇n Cevaplayici Seçi̇m Yöntemleri̇ni̇n Bi̇r Si̇mülasyonu

“…Non-probabilistic selection techniques, for example, TCB and arbitrary convenience methods are generally used to increase cooperation with the respondent and diminish cost. Marlar et al (2018) found the highest response rates with non-probabilistic within-household methods while the lowest accuracy rates were observed for quasi-probability birthday methods. Although they do not follow a complete random cycle, such methods attempted to approximate gender and age distributions and give a premise for modified versions of choice strategies (Gaziano, 2005).…”

“…There are plenty of studies that examine within-household selection procedures as well as their strengths and weaknesses, especially for the US survey settings. In other words, there exists literature on within-household selection procedures and their impact on statistics in the US surveys (Alves et al, 2014;Lavrakas, 1993;Lavrakas, 2008;Lavrakas and Bauman, 1993;Lavrakas et al, 2000;Marlar et al, 2018;Marken, 2018;Smyth et al, 2019). In later and earlier, a large portion of the examinations focuses on the Kish technique which follows the probabilistic selection procedure (Kish, 1949).…”

“…Yan et al (2015) and Kumar (2014) have featured the utilization of probabilistic methodology when selecting respondents in order to give precise statistics through a representative sample. When modes of data collection are considered, respondent choice strategies and their efficiency were generally examined for phone surveys (Binson and Catania, 2000;Marlar et al, 2018;Lavrakas et al, 2000). The Kish strategy, last and next birthday techniques, full enumeration method, oldest and youngest methods, the Troldahl-Carter-Byrant (TCB) method, and arbitrary convenience method are among the well-known selection procedures even though there are additionally alternative methods to select the specific respondent (Gaziano, 2005).…”