MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396570341 · doi:10.1093/jssam/smae021

Should We Offer Web, Paper, or Both? A Comparison of Single- and Mixed-Response Mode Treatments in a Mail Survey

2024· article· en· W4396570341 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah K Heimel, Rebecca L. Medway, Rachel Horwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey Statistics and Methodology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Science and Engineering StatisticsU.S. Census BureauWashington State UniversityAmerican Institutes for ResearchMcMaster UniversityU.S. Department of EducationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMixed modeThe InternetWeb surveyMode (computer interface)Consistency (knowledge bases)Sample (material)Response timeIncentiveResponse biasPsychologyComputer scienceAdvertisingWorld Wide WebSocial psychologyBusinessArtificial intelligenceEconomicsHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article leverages a five-treatment response mode experiment (paper-only, web-only, sequential web-mail, choice, and choice-plus [choice with a promised incentive for responding online]) that was conducted within a nationally representative survey. Because this survey’s sample was drawn from respondents to another nationally representative survey, we have rich frame data that includes multiple indicators of comfort using the internet for our sample members and we can compare their response behavior across two surveys. We find that the paper-only treatment yielded a lower response rate than most of the other treatments, but there were not significant differences between the response rates for the other treatments. Among our mixed-mode treatments, the sequential web-mail treatment had the highest percentage of response by web and the lowest cost per response. When focusing on the subgroups that we expected to be the least—and the most—comfortable with the internet, we found that the paper-only treatment generally performed worse than the others, even among subgroups expected not to be comfortable with the internet. We generally did not find significant differences in the effect of response mode treatment on the response rate or percentage of response by web between the subgroups who were the most and least comfortable with the internet. In terms of the consistency of response mode choice over time, our results suggest that some people respond consistently—but also that response mode preferences are weak enough that they can be influenced by the way in which the modes are offered. We ultimately recommend using a sequential web-mail design to minimize costs while still providing people who cannot or will not respond by web with another response mode option. We also find evidence that there may be a growing lack of interest in responding by paper; more research is needed in this area.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.682
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.130 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNon-randomized trial
DomainMethods
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey Statistics and MethodologySame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207