1980
DOI: 10.1080/00222216.1980.11969435
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mailed Questionnaire Surveys and the Reluctant Respondent: An Empirical Examination of Differences Between Early and Late Respondents

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This response rate was higher than similar surveys concerning pesticide use (e.g., Roden and Surgeoner 1984;Wellman et al 1980). Wellman et al (1 980) and Hammitt and Macdonald (1 982) showed that follow-up surveys of non-respondents resulted in no or only small changes in results when the initial delivery obtained a return rate of 30% or higher.…”
Section: General Resultsmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…This response rate was higher than similar surveys concerning pesticide use (e.g., Roden and Surgeoner 1984;Wellman et al 1980). Wellman et al (1 980) and Hammitt and Macdonald (1 982) showed that follow-up surveys of non-respondents resulted in no or only small changes in results when the initial delivery obtained a return rate of 30% or higher.…”
Section: General Resultsmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Do more educated people also reply faster, and with higher-quality responses? Green (1991) and Wellman, Hawk, Roggenbuck, and Buhyoff (1980) found no significant relationship between education and response speed as assessed by wave of response; Baur (1947), Dalecki, Ilvento, and Moore (19881, Donald (19601, Finn, Wang, and Lamb (1983) did, with the better-educated replying more quickly. The Green (1991) study had a restricted range of education; the Wellman et al (1980) study found a significant effect when date of return rather than wave was the dependent variable.…”
Section: Educationmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…There should be an expectation that authors should provide sufficient 12 information about the eligible and ineligible study population, how they were identified and contacted, sampling procedures, and the participation and declining rates. Researchers should also check for differences between early, late and non-respondents (Wellman et al, 1980;Green, 1991;Paganini-Hill et al, 1993). By so doing, editors, reviewers and readers will be able to make an informed judgment about the adequacy of the sampling procedures and the acceptability of the reported RR.…”
Section: A Critical Appraisal Of Reporting Procedures and Utility Of Rrmentioning
confidence: 99%