Affiliation:
1. Vrije Universiteit Brussel , Department of Sociology, Research Group Tempus Omnia Revelat (TOR) , Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels , Belgium .
Abstract
Abstract
Like other surveys, time use surveys are facing declining response rates. At the same time paper-and-pencil surveys are increasingly replaced by online surveys. Both the declining response rates and the shift to online research are expected to have an impact on the representativeness of survey data questioning whether they are still the most suitable instrument to obtain a reliable view on the organization of daily life. This contribution examines the representativeness of a self-administered online time use survey using Belgian data collected in 2013 and 2014. The design of the study was deliberately chosen to test the automated processes that replace interviewer support and its cost-efficiency. We use weighting coefficients, a life table and discrete-time survival analyses to better understand the timing and selectivity of dropout, with a focus on the effects of individual time use patterns and the survey design. The results show that there are three major hurdles that cause large groups of respondents to drop out. This dropout is selective, and this selectivity differs according to the dropout moment. The contribution aims to provide a better insight in dropout during the fieldwork and tries to contribute to the further improvement of survey methodology of online time use surveys.
Reference34 articles.
1. Abraham, K.G., A. Maitland, and S.M. Bianchi. 2006. “Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?” Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5): 676–703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl037.
2. Bethlehem, J. 2009. “The Rise of Survey Sampling.” Statistics Netherlands. Discussion Paper (09015). Available at: https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/imported/documents/2009/07/2009-15-x10-pub.pdf?la=nl-nl&hash=B75A64DF0877B7FD089E796FCFE81145 (accessed August 2020).
3. Boström, G., J. Hallqvist, B.J.A. Haglund, A. Romelsjö, L. Svanström, and F. Diderichsen. 1993. “Socioeconomic Differences in Smoking in an Urban Swedish Population. The Bias Introduced by Non-Participation in a Mailed Questionnaire.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 21(2): 77–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/140349489302100204.
4. Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, and D.J. Decker. 2003. “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Natural Resource – Focused Mail Surveys: Empirical Evidence of Declining Rates Over Time.” Society & Natural Resources 16(6): 541–549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309152.
5. Couper, M.P., A. Kapteyn, M. Schonlau, and J. Winter. 2007. “Noncoverage and Nonresponse in an Internet Survey.” Social Science Research 36(1): 131–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.10.002.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献