Mixed Modes -- Don't forget the mixing parameter

I've been thinking about mixed-mode surveys a great deal over the last few months. And I notice that research publications tend to use a lot of shorthand to describe the approach -- e.g. "Mail-Telephone." Of course, they describe it in more detail, but the shorthand definition focuses on the modes. Since the shorthand describes the sequence, we end up comparing different sequences. But there are other important design features at play that make these comparisons tenuous.

Of course, these other design parameters include the dosage of each mode in the sequence. Different dosages may result in different proportions of the interviews be conducted in each mode. For example, in the mail-telephone design, more mailings can increase the proportion of interviews in the mail mode. A recent article by Klausch, Schouten, and Hox includes a parameter for the mixture of modes $\pi$.

I'm concerned that we may do lots of experimentation to design a mixed mode survey that is consistent with the current single-mode approach in terms of the estimates, but then let the mixing parameter vary after the switch is made. Of course, this is another reason to try to disentangle measurement error and nonresponse error in these surveys. Then the changes in the errors due to changes in the mixing parameter can still be controlled or, at least, understood.

Comments

Tailoring vs. Targeting

One of the chapters in a recent book on surveying hard-to-reach populations looks at "targeting and tailoring" survey designs. The chapter references this paper on the use of the terms among those who design health communication. I thought the article was an interesting one. They start by saying that "one way to classify message strategies like tailoring is by the level of specificity with which characteristics of the target audience are reflected in the the communication." That made sense. There is likely a continuum of specificity ranging from complete non-differentiation across units to nearly individualized. But then the authors break that continuum and try to define a "fundamental" difference between tailoring and targeting. They say targeting is for some subgroup while tailoring is to the characteristics of the individual. That sounds good, but at least for surveys, I'm not sure the distinction holds. In survey design, what would constitute

What is Data Quality, and How to Enhance it in Research

We often talk about “data quality” or “data integrity” when we are discussing the collection or analysis of one type of data or another. Yet, the definition of these terms might be unclear, or they may vary across different contexts. In any event, the terms are somewhat abstract -- which can make it difficult, in practice, to improve. That is, we need to know what we are describing with those terms, before we can improve them. Over the last two years, we have been developing a course on Total Data Quality , soon to be available on Coursera. We start from an error classification scheme adopted by survey methodology many years ago. Known as the “Total Survey Error” perspective, it focuses on the classification of errors into measurement and representation dimensions. One goal of our course is to expand this classification scheme from survey data to other types of data. The figure shows the classification scheme as we have modified it to include both survey data and organic forms of d

An Experimental Adaptive Contact Strategy

I'm running an experiment on contact methods in a telephone survey. I'm going to present the results of the experiment at the FCSM conference in November. Here's the basic idea. Multi-level models are fit daily with the household being a grouping factor. The models provide household-specific estimates of the probability of contact for each of four call windows. The predictor variables in this model are the geographic context variables available for an RDD sample. Let $\mathbf{X_{ij}}$ denote a $k_j \times 1$ vector of demographic variables for the $i^{th}$ person and $j^{th}$ call. The data records are calls. There may be zero, one, or multiple calls to household in each window. The outcome variable is an indicator for whether contact was achieved on the call. This contact indicator is denoted $R_{ijl}$ for the $i^{th}$ person on the $j^{th}$ call to the $l^{th}$ window. Then for each of the four call windows denoted $l$, a separate model is fit where each household is assu

Survey Methods Musings

Search This Blog