Skip Navigation

Public Opinion Quarterly 2005 69(1):124-157; doi:10.1093/poq/nfi006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gaziano, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.

Comparative Analysis of Within-Household Respondent Selection Techniques

Cecilie Gaziano

Research Solutions, Inc., Minneapolis

Address correspondence to the author; e-mail: cgaziano{at}prodigy.net.

A probability sample of households frequently must be translated into a sample of persons representing characteristics of the adult population. Researchers have developed at least 14 within-household respondent selection procedures or their variants to accomplish this task. Although probability methods are preferable, they often increase nonresponse. Quasi-probability and nonprobability techniques have been devised to increase cooperation and decrease costs, although they sacrifice the advantages of randomness. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the results of 16 studies that have compared within-household respondent selection procedures, with respect to demographic representativeness, cooperation or response rates, and costs. Although there is an increasing need to hold down costs yet maintain quality and accuracy as response rates are falling, little systematic, accessible evidence exists to guide choice of respondent selection method.


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
 Public Opin QHome page
M. D. Martinez, K. D. Wald, and S. C. Craig
Homophobic Innumeracy?: Estimating the Size of the Gay and Lesbian Population
Public Opin Q, December 1, 2008; 72(4): 753 - 767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.