MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726096271 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.24.007

An Illustration of a Methodology to Maximize Mail Survey Response Rates in a Provincial School-Based Physical Activity Needs Assessment

2009· article· en· W2726096271 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John J. M. Dwyer, Kenneth R. Allison, Daria C. Lysy, Karen N. LeMoine, Edward M. Adlaf, Guy Faulkner, Jack M. Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)PsychologyKey (lock)MarketingMedical educationApplied psychologyBusinessComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Two mail surveys were conducted as a province-wide needs assessment to examine the opportunities for, barriers to, and participation in physical activity in Ontario elementary and secondary schools. Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (TDM) was used to maximize the quality of responses and the response rate. Both surveys entailed five mailings to key informants from randomly selected schools. The response rate among the 599 elementary and 600 secondary schools was 85% and 79%, respectively. This article discusses how the TDM strategies (i.e., strategies to establish trust, increase perceived rewards, and decrease perceived costs among key informants) were used to yield high response rates, examines the response rates after each mailing, and shares some lessons learned, which will be useful to researchers who are considering using the TDM in surveys designed to develop and evaluate programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207