Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Summary
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PIAZZA, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Public Opinion Quarterly 57:219-231 (1993)
© 1993 American Association for Public Opinion Research

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF ANSWERING MACHINES

THOMAS PIAZZA, manager of technical services, coordinator for survey design and analysis in the Computer-assisted Survey Methods Program

The Survey Research Center, University of California Berkeley and The University of California Berkeley

Answering machines have become one of the major challenges to obtaining high response rates in telephone surveys. This article presents some data that may be helpful in answering two questions that frequently arise: (1) What are the chances that additional calls to a household known to use an answering machine will result in a completed interview? (2) When is the best time to call, in order to minimize the chances of encountering an answering machine? The data used to analyze these questions are based on the calling records of the 1990 California Disability Survey, a large random-digit dialing survey that generated about 330,000 calls and completed interviews at over 24,000 house holds. This large number of calls is interesting not only in absolute terms but because of the high number of callbacks that they represent, designed to bring the response rate up over 80 percent. The records of calls analyzed here, consequently, can show convincingly what really happens when 10, 20, 30, or even more callbacks are attempted. Such opportunities are rare. Researchers can take advantage of these results to generate more informed calling strategies and consequently improve response rates in their surveys.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Field MethodsHome page
C. McCarty, M. House, J. Harman, and S. Richards
Effort in Phone Survey Response Rates: The Effects of Vendor and Client-Controlled Factors
Field Methods, May 1, 2006; 18(2): 172 - 188.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Opin QHome page
E. Singer
Introduction: Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys
Public Opin Q, January 1, 2006; 70(5): 637 - 645.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJPHHome page
S. Kinne and T. D. Topolski
Inclusion of People With Disabilities in Telephone Health Surveillance Surveys
Am J Public Health, March 1, 2005; 95(3): 512 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Environment and BehaviorHome page
P. B. Crabb
The Use of Answering Machines and Caller ID to Regulate Home Privacy
Environment and Behavior, September 1, 1999; 31(5): 657 - 670.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.