Search

Reluctance of respondents to participate in surveys has long drawn the attention of survey researchers. Yet, little is known about what drives a respondent's decision to answer the survey invitation early or late during the field period. Moreover, we still lack evidence on response timing in longitudinal surveys. That is, the questions on whether response timing is a rather stable respondent characteristic and what—if anything—affects change in response timing across different interviews remain open. We relied on data from a mixed-mode general population panel survey collected between 2014 and 2016 to study the stability of response timing across 18 panel waves and factors that influence the decision to participate early or late in the field period. Our results suggest that the factors which had effects on response timing are different in the mail and web modes. Moreover, we found that experience with prior panel waves affected the respondent's decision to participate early or late. Overall, the present study advocates understanding response timing as a metric variable and, consequently, the need to reflect this in modeling strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many colleges and universities conduct web-based campus climate surveys to understand the prevalence and nature of sexual assault among their students. When designing and fielding a web survey to measure a sensitive topic like sexual assault, methodological decisions, including the length of the field period and the use or amount of an incentive, can affect the representativeness of the respondent sample leading to biased or imprecise estimates. This study uses data from the Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS) to assess how the interaction between field period length and survey incentive amount affects nonresponse, sample representativeness, and the precision of survey estimates. Research suggests that using robust incentives gives potential survey respondents a reason to complete the survey beyond their intrinsic motivation to do so. Likewise, extending the field period gives more time to people who may be less intrinsically motivated to complete the survey. Both serve to increase sample size and representativeness, minimize bias, and improve estimate precision. Schools, however, sometimes lack the time and/or resources for both a robust incentive and a lengthy field period, and this study examines the extent to which the potential negative impacts of not using one can be mitigated by the presence of the other. Findings indicate that target response rates can be achieved using a smaller incentive if the field period is lengthy but, even with a lengthy field period, the use of a smaller incentive can result in biased estimates due to a lack of representativeness. Conversely, when a robust incentive is used and weights are developed to adjust for nonresponse, a shorter field period will not have a significant impact on point estimates, but the estimates will be less precise due to fewer respondents participating in the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]