Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorLau, Charles Q.de
dc.contributor.authorCronberg, Alexandrade
dc.contributor.authorMarks, Leenishade
dc.contributor.authorAmaya, Ashleyde
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-04T10:44:07Z
dc.date.available2020-03-04T10:44:07Z
dc.date.issued2019de
dc.identifier.issn1864-3361de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/66754
dc.description.abstractMobile phone surveys are increasingly prevalent in low- and middle-income countries. The main modes include computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), interactive voice response (IVR), and short message service (SMS, or text messaging). But there is surprisingly little research to guide researchers in selecting the optimal mode for a particular survey. To address this gap, this study compares cross-sectional CATI, IVR, SMS, and face-to-face (FTF) surveys of the general population in Nigeria. We ask four research questions: (1) What are production and response rates to CATI, IVR, SMS, and FTF surveys? (2) How representative (age, gender, education, marital status, literacy, household assets, urbanicity) are CATI, IVR, and SMS respondents relative to FTF respondents? (3) Can IVR and SMS provide an unbiased estimate of voting behavior? If there is bias, to what extent can weights reduce bias? (4) How does the cost and time differ across mobile phone survey modes? We find that FTF had the highest response rate (99%), followed by CATI (15%), IVR (3%) and SMS (0.2%). All mobile phone modes had substantial deficiencies with representativeness: mobile phones underrepresented women, older people, the less educated, and people in rural areas. There were differences in representativeness among mobile phone modes, but differences were relatively small and inconsistent. Both SMS and IVR produced biased estimates of voting relative to official statistics – but SMS was less biased than IVR. Weighting SMS and IVR data for demographic characteristics did not reduce bias. With regard to cost, we find that CATI is the most expensive mobile phone survey mode. For a survey of 3,000 completes, IVR is 43% the cost of CATI, and SMS is 24% the cost of CATI. SMS is significantly less expensive than IVR. We discuss the implications of these results for research and practice.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcSozialwissenschaften, Soziologiede
dc.subject.ddcSocial sciences, sociology, anthropologyen
dc.subject.otherIVR; modede
dc.titleIn Search of the Optimal Mode for Mobile Phone Surveys in Developing Countries: A Comparison of IVR, SMS, and CATI in Nigeriade
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalSurvey Research Methods
dc.source.volume13de
dc.publisher.countryDEU
dc.source.issue3de
dc.subject.classozErhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaftende
dc.subject.classozMethods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methodsen
dc.subject.thesozUmfrageforschungde
dc.subject.thesozsurvey researchen
dc.subject.thesozMobiltelefonde
dc.subject.thesozcell phoneen
dc.subject.thesozBefragungde
dc.subject.thesozsurveyen
dc.subject.thesozEntwicklungslandde
dc.subject.thesozdeveloping countryen
dc.subject.thesozNigeriade
dc.subject.thesozNigeriaen
dc.subject.thesozAfrikade
dc.subject.thesozAfricaen
dc.subject.thesozCATIde
dc.subject.thesozcomputer-assisted telephone interviewen
dc.subject.thesozSMSde
dc.subject.thesozSMSen
dc.subject.thesozInterviewde
dc.subject.thesozinterviewen
dc.subject.thesozRepräsentativitätde
dc.subject.thesozrepresentativityen
dc.subject.thesozVergleichde
dc.subject.thesozcomparisonen
dc.subject.thesozDatengewinnungde
dc.subject.thesozdata captureen
dc.subject.thesozDatenqualitätde
dc.subject.thesozdata qualityen
dc.subject.thesozAntwortverhaltende
dc.subject.thesozresponse behavioren
dc.rights.licenceDeposit Licence - Keine Weiterverbreitung, keine Bearbeitungde
dc.rights.licenceDeposit Licence - No Redistribution, No Modificationsen
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10040714
internal.identifier.thesoz10060117
internal.identifier.thesoz10037910
internal.identifier.thesoz10034610
internal.identifier.thesoz10035654
internal.identifier.thesoz10034677
internal.identifier.thesoz10060120
internal.identifier.thesoz10066781
internal.identifier.thesoz10037913
internal.identifier.thesoz10056653
internal.identifier.thesoz10047774
internal.identifier.thesoz10040547
internal.identifier.thesoz10055811
internal.identifier.thesoz10035808
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo305-318de
internal.identifier.classoz10105
internal.identifier.journal674
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc300
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7375de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence3
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
ssoar.urn.registrationfalsede


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record