Acceso usuarios
Andrew Mercer, Andrew Caporaso, David Cantor, Reanne Townsend
This meta-analysis quantifies the dose-response relationship between monetary incentives and response rates in household surveys. It updates and augments the existing meta-analyses on incentives by analyzing the latest experimental research, focusing specifically on general-population household surveys, and includes the three major data-collection modes (mail, telephone, and in-person) under the same analytic framework. Using hierarchical regression modeling and literature from the past 21 years, the analysis finds a strong, nonlinear effect of incentives. Survey mode and incentive delivery timing (prepaid or promised) also play important roles in the effectiveness of incentives. Prepaid incentives offered in mail surveys had the largest per-dollar impact on response. Incentive timing appears to play an important role in the effectiveness of incentives offered in telephone surveys but not in-person surveys. Our model estimates a null effect of promised incentives in mail surveys; however, given the dearth of experiments testing this type of incentive, we are unable to draw firm conclusions regarding their effectiveness. Survey burden and survey year both were negatively correlated with response overall. However, neither significantly impacted the dose-response relationship. Survey sponsorship affected neither response rate nor incentive effectiveness. The development and results of the model are discussed, and dose-response estimates specific to mode and incentive timing are presented.
