Using information from telephone panel surveys to predict reasons for refusal

One of the key problems in conducting surveys is convincing people to participate.¦However, it is often difficult or impossible to determine why people refuse. Panel surveys¦provide information from previous waves that can offer valuable clues as to why people¦refuse to participate. If we are able to anticipate the reasons for refusal, then we¦may be able to take appropriate measures to encourage potential respondents to participate¦in the survey. For example, special training could be provided for interviewers¦on how to convince potential participants to participate.¦This study examines different influences, as determined from the previous wave,¦on refusal reasons that were given by the respondents in the subsequent wave of the¦telephone Swiss Household Panel. These influences include socio-demography, social¦inclusion, answer quality, and interviewer assessment of question understanding and¦of future participation. Generally, coefficients are similar across reasons, and¦between-respondents effects rather than within-respondents effects are significant.¦While 'No interest' reasons are easier to predict, the other reasons are more situational. Survey-specific issues are able to distinguish¦different reasons to some extent.

Effects of different Incentives on Attrition and Fieldwork Effort in Telephone Household Panel Surveys

Little is known about sample behavior and fieldwork effects of different incentives introduced in a household panel survey. This is especially true for telephone surveys. In a randomized experiment, the Swiss Household Panel implemented one prepaid and two promised nonmonetary incentives in the range of 10 to 15 Swiss Francs (7-10 e), plus a no incentive control group. The aim of the paper is to compare effects of these incentives especially on cooperation, but also on sample selection and fieldwork effort, separated by the household and the subsequent individual level. We find small positive cooperation effects of the prepaid incentive on both the household and the individual level especially in larger households. Sample composition is affected to a very minor extent. Finally, incentives tend to save fieldwork time and partially the number of contacts needed on the individual level.

Attrition of Households and Individuals in Panel Surveys

Attrition is mostly caused by not contacted or refusing sample members. On one hand it is well-known that reasons to attrite due to non-contact are different from those that are due to refusal. On the other hand does non-contact most probably affect household attrition, while refusal can be effective on both households and individuals. In this article, attrition on both the household and (conditional on household participation) the individual level is analysed in three panel surveys from the Cross National Equivalent File (CNEF): the German Socio- Economic Panel (GSOEP), the British Household Panel Study (BHPS), and the Swiss Household Panel (SHP). To follow households over time we use a common rule in all three surveys. First, we find different attrition magnitudes and patterns both across the surveys and also on the household and the individual level. Second, there is more evidence for reinforced rather than compensated household level selection effects if the individual level is also taken into account.