Nowadays sample survey data collection strategies combine web, telephone, face-to-face, or other modes of interviewing in a sequential fashion. Measurement bias of survey estimates of means and totals are composed of different mode-dependent measurement errors as each data collection mode has its own associated measurement error. This article contains an appraisal of two recently proposed methods of inference in this setting. The first is a calibration adjustment to the survey weights so as to balance the survey response to a prespecified distribution of the respondents over the modes. The second is a prediction method that seeks to correct measurements towards a benchmark mode. The two methods are motivated differently but at the same time coincide in some circumstances and agree in terms of required assumptions. The methods are applied to the Labour Force Survey in the Netherlands and are found to provide almost identical estimates of the number of unemployed. Each method has its own specific merits. Both can be applied easily in practice as they do not require additional data collection beyond the regular sequential mixed-mode survey, an attractive element for national statistical institutes and other survey organisations.
De Leeuw, E. 2005. “To Mix or not to Mix data Collection Modes in Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics 21: 233–255.
Dillman, D., G. Phelps, R. Tortora, K. Swift, J. Kohrell, J. Berck, and B. Messer. 2009. “Response Rate and Measurement Differences in Mixed-Mode Surveys Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response and the Internet.” Social Science Research 39: 1–18. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007.
Holbrook, A., M. Green, and J. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346010.
Klausch, T., J. Hox, and B. Schouten. 2015. “Selection Error in Single- and Mixed Mode Surveys of the Dutch General Population.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 178(4): 945–961. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12102.
Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin. 1987. “An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 201–219. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269029.
Lynn, P. 2013. “Alternative Sequential Mixed-Mode Designs: Effects on Attrition Rates, Attrition Bias, and Costs.” Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1(2): 183–205. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt015.
Särndal, C.-E., B. Swensson, and J. Wretman. 1992. Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schouten, B., J. van den Brakel, B. Buelens, J. van der Laan, and T. Klausch. 2013. “Disentangling Mode-Specific Selection and Measurement Bias in Social Surveys.” Social Science Research 42(6): 1555–1570. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.005.
Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.T., S. Heeringa, and R. Vaillant. 2012. “Investigating the Bias of Alternative Statistical Inference Methods in Sequential Mixed-Mode Surveys.” In Proceedings of the JSM, Section on Survey Research Methods, San Diego, July 28–August 2, 2012. American Statistical Association, 4711–25.
Tourangeau, R., L. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vannieuwenhuyze, J.T.A. and G. Loosveldt. 2013. “Evaluating Relative Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Surveys: Three Methods to Disentangle Selection and Measurement Effects.” Sociological Methods & Research 42(1): 82–104. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124112464868.
Voogt, R. and W. Saris. 2005. “Mixed Mode Designs: Finding the Balance Between Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects.” Journal of Official Statistics 21: 367–387.