Public Opinion Quarterly Advance Access originally published online on February 7, 2008
Public Opinion Quarterly 2008 72(1):6-27; doi:10.1093/poq/nfn003
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Published by Oxford University Press 2008.
A Comparison of Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Versus Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) for General Population Surveys
Address correspondence to Michael W. Link; e-mail: Michael.Link{at}Nielsen.com
Valid and reliable public health data are becoming more difficult to obtain through random-digit dial (RDD) telephone surveys. As a result, researchers are evaluating different survey designs (i.e., sampling frame and survey mode combinations) as complements or alternatives to RDD. Traditionally, mail surveys of the general public have been limited due to a lack of a complete sampling frame of households. Recent advances in electronic record keeping, however, have allowed researchers to develop a sample from a frame of addresses (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File, which appears to provide coverage which rivals or possibly exceeds that obtained through RDD sampling methods). To test the use of this frame for surveying adults aged 18 years and older across a wide geographic area, a pilot study was conducted as part of the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The pilot compared use of a traditional, RDD telephone survey methodology to an approach using a mail version of the questionnaire completed by a random sample of households drawn from an address-based frame. The findings indicate that the mail survey approach can achieve higher response rates in low-response-rate states (<40%) than RDD (particularly when two mailings are sent). Additionally, the address frame with mail survey design provides access to cell phone only households and offers cost savings over the telephone approach. The resulting sample, however, significantly overrepresents non-Hispanic whites and people with higher levels of education.
MICHAEL W. LINK is with Nielsen Media Research, 3784 Ardsley Ct., Marietta, GA 30062, USA. MICHAEL P. BATTAGLIA is with Abt Associates, 55 Wheeler St., Cambridge, MA 02474, USA. MARTIN R. FRANKEL is with Baruch College, City University of New York, 14 Patricia Lane, Cos Cob, CT 06807, USA. LARRY OSBORN is with Abt Associates, 55 Wheeler St., Cambridge, MA 02474, USA. ALI H. MOKDAD is with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE MS:K66, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. The authors thank the BRFSS Coordinators, including Bonnie Davis (California), Bruce Steiner (Illinois), Kenneth O’Dowd (New Jersey), Ziya Gizlice (North Carolina), Jimmy Blanton (Texas), and Katrina Wynkoop Simmons (Washington), and the staff at Marketing Systems Group, particularly Meg Ryan, for their timely assistance with this project. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abt Associates, or Baruch College.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. D. Rookey, S. Hanway, and D. A. Dillman Does a Probability-Based Household Panel Benefit from Assignment to Postal Response as an Alternative to Internet-Only? Public Opin Q, December 9, 2008; (2008) nfn061v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Battaglia, M. W. Link, M. R. Frankel, L. Osborn, and A. H. Mokdad An Evaluation of Respondent Selection Methods for Household Mail Surveys Public Opin Q, September 1, 2008; 72(3): 459 - 469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|