How to encourage a facetoface household panel to go online University of Essex July 2013 Gerry Nicolaas Carl Cullinane 1 Contents Background Design of Experiment Results Summary of Results and Conclusions ID: 794873
Download The PPT/PDF document "Timing Isn’t Everything, But Money Tal..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Timing Isn’t Everything, But Money Talks
How to encourage a face-to-face household panel to go online?
University of Essex, July 2013
Gerry Nicolaas
Carl Cullinane
Slide21
Contents
BackgroundDesign of ExperimentResults
Summary of Results and Conclusions
Slide3Background
1.
Slide43
Background
Switch to mixed mode data collection at wave 7 of Understanding Society
Potential for cost savingsPotential for reducing attrition
Slide54
Context
Longitudinal household panel
Face-to-face interviewing of all household members at waves 1 to 6Greatest potential for reducing data collection costs when an interviewer does not have to visit the household
Previous experiment mixing telephone & face-to-face:
Costs can be reduced
BUT response rates suffer
Slide65
Innovation Panel – wave 5
Vehicle for methodological development & testing
About 2,500 individuals in 1,500 householdsMain objective of IP5 =Determine whether it is possible to reduce costs by mixing web questionnaires and face-to-face interviews without sacrificing data quality
Sequential mixed mode design starting with web
Slide76
6
IP5
Design
Experimental group
F2F phase,
web open
Web only phase
Control group
F2F only phase
No web
Slide87
Research question
Is it possible to boost the proportion of
whole households completing web questionnaires byTiming the arrival of the invitation to go online?
Offering a web bonus?
Slide9Design of experiment
within mixed-mode sample
2.
Slide109
Design of experiment within mixed-mode sample
(1) Timing of invitation to go online
Random allocation of households to:
Letter (+ email) to arrive on Friday
Letter (+ email) to arrive on Monday
Reminder letters (+ emails) sent 2 and 4 days later
(2) Web bonus
Random allocation of households to:
No web bonus
£5 per household member conditional on
all completing online questionnaire
Slide1110
Design of experiment within mixed-mode sample
270 households
265 households
266 households
276 households
No web bonus
Cond. £5 per hhld member
Invite arrival on Friday
Invite arrival on Monday
Slide12Results
3.
Slide1312
Experimental effects on Web Response
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide1413
Experimental effects on Web Response
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide1514
Effect of Bonus by Sample Type
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide1615
Effect of Bonus by Upfront Incentives
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide1716
16
Unconditional Incentives
Original Sample
Refreshment Sample
£5
£10
£10
£30
£20
Slide1817
Effect of Bonus by Children in Household
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide1918
Effect of Bonus by Advance Mailing
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide2019
Effect of timing by Advance Mailing
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
Slide2120
Experimental effects on Final Response
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
75.6
72.8
Slide2221
Experimental effects on Final Response
Base: IP5 WEB Sample (n=1077)
75.6
72.8
74
74.4
Slide2322
Estimation of cost savings
Web bonus of £5 compared to no web bonus:
Small reduction in travel and mileage costs15% reduction in interviewer fees Offsetting the cost of web bonuses reduces the saving in interviewer fees to less than 5%
Slide2423
Summary of results and conclusions
4.
Slide2524
Summary of results
Friday mailing had a small but diluted effectWeb bonus increased full household web response
Effect of bonus varied by a number of factors, e.g.Diminishing returns with larger upfront incentivesGreater effect for households with childrenGreater effect when household contacted by email
Web bonus did not increase final response rate
But potential for cost savings
Slide2625
Limitations
Small sample sizesConfounding of sample type and value of unconditional incentives sent with advance letter
Estimation of costs
Slide2726
Points for discussion
Timing to be looked at further?Potential for greater cost savings through targeting
Large upfront incentives vs conditional web bonus- costs
Slide28If you want further information or would like to contact the author,
Carl Cullinane
T.
020 7549 7158
E.
carl.cullinane@natcen.ac.uk
Visit us online,
natcen.ac.uk
Thank you