How Much Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys

Mercer, Andrew E.; Caporaso, Andrew; Cantor, David; Townsend, Reanne

doi:10.1093/poq/nfu059

Cited by 100 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, surveys performed by Statistics Netherlands using this technique results in similar high response rates 15. We tried to increase response rates by sending a prepaid incentive in the invitation letter16 and, among people with certain migration backgrounds, by door-to-door visits motivating them to respond to the questionnaire. In total, 840 home visits were performed, resulting in only 53 (6%) extra returned questionnaires.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National prevalence estimates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the Netherlands

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National prevalence estimates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the Netherlands

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the sample was of households rather than individuals, all mailings were addressed to “Resident.” Sampled households were sent a $2 prepaid monetary incentive to encourage participation. Including prepaid monetary incentives is an established method of increasing participation in surveys (Mercer, Caporaso, Cantor, & Townsend, 2015). The HINTS-FDA sample used a similar sample design as past HINTS administrations: a two-stage design wherein a sample of addresses was selected from a file of residential addresses in the first stage and one adult was selected from within each sampled household in the second stage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationale, Procedures, and Response Rates for the 2015 Administration of NCI’s Health Information National Trends Survey: HINTS-FDA 2015

Blake

Portnoy

Kaufman

et al. 2016

Journal of Health Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) to monitor population trends in cancer communication practices, information preferences, health risk behaviors, attitudes, and cancer knowledge. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized HINTS as a unique data resource for informing its health communication endeavors and partnered with NCI to field HINTS-FDA 2015. HINTS-FDA 2015 was a self-administered paper instrument sent by mail May 29 to September 8, 2015, using a random probability-based sample of U.S. postal addresses stratified by county-level smoking rates, with an oversampling of high and medium-high smoking strata to increase the yield of current smokers responding to the survey. The response rate for HINTS-FDA 2015 was 33% (N = 3,738). The yield of current smokers (n = 495) was lower than expected, but the sampling strategy achieved the goal of obtaining more former smokers (n = 1,132). Public-use HINTS-FDA 2015 data and supporting documentation have been available for download and secondary data analyses since June 2016 at http://hints.cancer.gov. NCI and FDA encourage the use of HINTS-FDA for health communication research and practice related to tobacco-related communications, public knowledge, and behaviors as well as beliefs and actions related to medical products and dietary supplements.

show abstract

“…Most high-quality surveys continue to apply established methods to increase response rates, although response rates are a poor indicator of nonresponse bias (Groves 2006;National Research Council 2013). 33 Methods include participation incentives (Singer and Ye 2013;Mercer et al 2015), advance letters (de Leeuw et al 2007), multiple contact attempts (Dillman et al 2014), two-phase sampling (Groves and Heeringa 2006), refusal "conversion" (persuading reluctant respondents to take part despite their objections), and longer field periods (which allows for more contact attempts and better spacing). Economists often worry about how explicit and implicit incentives might affect SP estimates, but little work has examined this issue.…”

Section: Response Rates and Nonresponse Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies

Johnston

Boyle

Adamowicz

et al. 2017

Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Econom

806

701

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article proposes contemporary best-practice recommendations for stated preference (SP) studies used to inform decision making, grounded in the accumulated body of peer-reviewed literature. These recommendations consider the use of SP methods to estimate both use and non-use (passive-use) values, and cover the broad SP domain, including contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. We focus on applications to public goods in the context of the environment and human health but also consider ways in which the proposed recommendations might apply to other common areas of application. The recommendations recognize that SP results may be used and reused (benefit transfers) by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and that all such applications must be considered. The intended result is a set of guidelines for SP studies that is more comprehensive than that of the original National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Blue Ribbon Panel on contingent valuation, is more germane to contemporary applications, and reflects the two decades of research since that time. We also distinguish between practices for which accumulated research is sufficient to support recommendations and those for which greater uncertainty remains. The goal of this article is to raise the quality of SP studies used to support decision making and promote research that will further enhance the practice of these studies worldwide.

show abstract

How Much Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys

Cited by 100 publications

References 20 publications

National prevalence estimates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the Netherlands

National prevalence estimates of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in the Netherlands

Rationale, Procedures, and Response Rates for the 2015 Administration of NCI’s Health Information National Trends Survey: HINTS-FDA 2015

Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About