Search

The American Family Health Study (AFHS) collected family health and fertility data from a national probability sample of persons aged 18–49 between September 2021 and May 2022, using web and mail exclusively. In July 2022, we surveyed AFHS respondents and gauged their willingness to become part of a national web panel that would create novel longitudinal data on these topics. We focus on predictors of willingness to participate, identifying the potential selection bias that this type of approach may introduce. We found that efforts of this type to create a national web panel may introduce potential selection bias in estimates based on the panel respondents, with individuals having higher socioeconomic status being more cooperative. Thus, alternative recruitment strategies and re-weighting of the subsample may be needed to further reduce selection bias. We present methodological implications of our results, limitations of our approach, and suggestions for further research on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Survey researchers have carefully modified their data collection operations for various reasons, including the rising costs of data collection and the ongoing Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, both of which have made in-person interviewing difficult. For large national surveys that require household (HH) screening to determine survey eligibility, cost-efficient screening methods that do not include in-person visits need additional evaluation and testing. A new study, known as the American Family Health Study (AFHS), recently initiated data collection with a national probability sample, using a sequential mixed-mode mail/web protocol for push-to-web US HH screening (targeting persons aged 18–49 years). To better understand optimal approaches for this type of national screening effort, we embedded two randomized experiments in the AFHS data collection. The first tested the use of bilingual respondent materials where mailed invitations to the screener were sent in both English and Spanish to 50 percent of addresses with a high predicted likelihood of having a Spanish speaker and 10 percent of all other addresses. We found that the bilingual approach did not increase the response rate of high-likelihood Spanish-speaking addresses, but consistent with prior work, it increased the proportion of eligible Hispanic respondents identified among completed screeners, especially among addresses predicted to have a high likelihood of having Spanish speakers. The second tested a form of nonresponse follow-up, where a subsample of active sampled HHs that had not yet responded to the screening invitations was sent a priority mailing with a $5 incentive, adding to the $2 incentive provided for all sampled HHs in the initial screening invitation. We found this approach to be quite valuable for increasing the screening survey response rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]