Understanding the Decision to Participate in a Survey and the Choice of the Response Mode Anders Holmberg and Boris Lorenc European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, 2008

2 of 17 Content Introduction to the problem Background The design of the study –goals –setup –results Summary and tentative conclusions

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Mixed Mail-and-Web Surveys Swedish individual and household surveys with Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ) The problem: low use of the web alternative –belief in rationality of the web mode (editing, other quality aspects, cost, environment) –cannot publicly afford the Web mode only –possibly, a mode switch (more of which later) –goal: finding a solution with an increase in the proportion of web respondents and a cost reduction, without harming the response rate

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Background PAP (mail Q) as the standard mode for SAQ –cover letter, questionnaire, return envelope, in some cases separate instruction, incentives. –response rates – as elsewhere – fall gradually Web as an alternative mode for SAQ –introduced in the 2000’s for ind/hh surveys in Sweden –with the expectations of; easier input editing, higher response rate, cost reduction, and greater acceptance –carried out by including a paper sheet in the above, with an URL and login data Reminders

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Background (cont’d) Web as an alternative mode for SAQ (cont’d) –its use is optional, according to preference of external customer or internal statistical product The expectations were not fulfilled –mostly due to the web’s low use: in mail-and-web mixed mode surveys around 10-15% of the responses are collected through the web –no previous study of cost done, but impression of survey managers is that the costs are higher in the mixed mode than in the single paper mode. (Development cost of single use SAQ:s) Reasons?

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Entry on the labour market after graduation. Proportion of NR as well as web respondent were higher for men than women, (37% vs. 28%) and (23% vs. 11%) The proportion of NR is highest in the lowest and highest income class. No observed differences in choice of mode with regards to age and immigrant background. The Parent Survey

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Design of the Study A study was initiated to understand the reasons for the low proportion of web responses –conducted as a telephone follow-up –a simple random sample among the three groups in the parent survey: web respondents (W), paper respondents (P) and nonrespondents (NR) –sample sizes of about 310 in each group; the response rates 77%, 83% and 61% respectively

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Data collection results from interviews NRPWTotal Refusals8 %2% 4% Not accessed 32%16%21%23% Response proportion 61%83%77%74% Total100%

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Specific questions to each group of respondents Was the web alternative observed? Why/why not use the web questionnaire? Preferences regarding choice of response mode A follow-up question to the NR-group on their status of occupation. Design of the Study, the Interview questionnaire

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Results Web-mode visibility The main results –80% of paper respondents saw the web mode. Roughly 65% of paper respondents saw the web mode alt. in the first mail-out. Roughly 55% of the NR-group saw the web mode in the first mail-out. –75% of the paper respondents who saw the web mode alt. chose Simplicity of PAP as the reason to hold onto the mail mode (as did 60% of those paper respondents who, on another question, ranked web as the mode of highest preference) –25% of the paper respondents who saw the web alt. chose those alternatives that refer to unavailability of computer or Internet (permanent or temporal) as the reason

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Results: Choice of paper or web In an optional open-ended question, 20% of the paper respondents who saw the web mode alt., gave circumstantial reasons for using the PAP mode, namely immediate availability of PAP –security and privacy do not seem to be a concern Web respondents –Over 90 % of the web responders had the simplicity of the web as their main reason for choosing the web mode.

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Results: The Nonrespondents > 60 % of nonrespondents declared specific circumstances as their main reason for not responding, i.e. lack of time, forgetfulness, etc Approx. 8% decided not to take part in the parent survey as they had (fallaciously) interpreted themselves as being outside the target population.

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Results: Question on mode of preference NRPW Paper17 %53 %1 % Web52 %36 %90 % Telephone18 %2 %1 % Visit3 %1 %0 % Other, does not matter 10 %8 % Total100%

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Respondent Suggestions to increase web use Send survey invitations through Discard the paper questionnaire Make the web-option obvious and the only alternative Provide incentives for web responses Have functioning technical solutions

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Rome, Italy July 11, of 17 Summary Observations –The web option is not visible enough –The mail mode is considered simple (easily move around, change entries, break and continue) –Circumstantial reasons: the ‘what is at hand’ principle Conclusions/changes –Strategy change needed when SAQ is mailed –Marketing of the web alternative –Other technical solution when receiving web questionnaires –Construction environment.

Thank You! Anders Holmberg and Boris Lorenc