| Title |
Responsive Survey Design, Demographic Data Collection, and Models of Demographic Behavior
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-011-0044-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William G. Axinn, Cynthia F. Link, Robert M. Groves |
| Abstract |
To address declining response rates and rising data-collection costs, survey methodologists have devised new techniques for using process data ("paradata") to address nonresponse by altering the survey design dynamically during data collection. We investigate the substantive consequences of responsive survey design-tools that use paradata to improve the representative qualities of surveys and control costs. By improving representation of reluctant respondents, responsive design can change our understanding of the topic being studied. Using the National Survey of Family Growth Cycle 6, we illustrate how responsive survey design can shape both demographic estimates and models of demographic behaviors based on survey data. By juxtaposing measures from regular and responsive data collection phases, we document how special efforts to interview reluctant respondents may affect demographic estimates. Results demonstrate the potential of responsive survey design to change the quality of demographic research based on survey data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 96 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 28 | 28% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Psychology | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,629,858
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#1,383
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,135
of 130,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.