Address frames and mail surveys as complements or alternatives to rdd surveys l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 31

Address Frames and Mail Surveys as Complements (or Alternatives) to RDD Surveys PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Address Frames and Mail Surveys as Complements (or Alternatives) to RDD Surveys. Michael W. Link, Michael P. Battaglia, Martin R. Frankel, Larry Osborn, and Ali H. Mokdad . Second International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Miami, FL . Problems Facing RDD Surveys.

Download Presentation

Address Frames and Mail Surveys as Complements (or Alternatives) to RDD Surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Address frames and mail surveys as complements or alternatives to rdd surveys l.jpg

Address Frames and Mail Surveysas Complements (or Alternatives)to RDD Surveys

Michael W. Link, Michael P. Battaglia, Martin R. Frankel,

Larry Osborn, and Ali H. Mokdad

Second International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Miami, FL


Problems facing rdd surveys l.jpg

Problems Facing RDD Surveys

  • Growing Nonresponse

  • Frame coverage issues:

    • Households with no telephones (1.6%)

    • Cell phone only households (3.7%)

    • Households in zero-banks (3-4%)

  • Frame efficiency issues:

    • Proliferation of telephone numbers

    • Cell phone numbers in mixed-use exchanges

  • Other issues:

    • Erosion of geographic specificity at state and substate levels


Behavioral risk factor surveillance system brfss l.jpg

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

  • Monthly state-based RDD survey of health issues

  • 50 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands

  • 300,000 adult interviews conducted in 2005

  • Faced with declining response rates

  • Need to identify best future design (frame & mode)


Usps delivery sequence file dsf as an alternative sampling frame l.jpg

UNITED STATES

POSTAL SERVICE

KIPKE

BOB

GRAPHICS

KIPKE

BOB

GRAPHICS

2000

2001

USPS Delivery Sequence File (DSF) as an alternative sampling frame

  • File contains

    • All delivery point addresses serviced by USPS

    • Identifies address type

      • Residential vs business

      • City style vs PO box vs other types

    • Format conforms to USPS addressing standards

  • Initial assessments for survey use:

    • Highest coverage in urban areas

    • Potential for coverage to improve in rural areas


Potential drawbacks of dsf l.jpg

Potential Drawbacks of DSF

  • Unknown level of coverage:

    • Excludes households with no USPS mail delivery

    • Must purchase through list vendor (not USPS)

      • Updates/list maintenance may vary

      • Some exclude addresses on request

  • Includes simplified addresses:

    • City, state, zip code only

  • Other potential problems:

    • Seasonal units, PO Boxes and multi-drop addresses


Key questions to address l.jpg

MAIL

Bob's.ppt

http://www.geocities.com/bkip20002/index.html

Copyright 2002

-All Rights Reserved-

Key questions to address

  • How do RDD and DSF-based mail surveys compare in terms of:

    • frame efficiency

    • response rates

    • respondent demographics

    • Estimates on key health issues

  • Can DSF-based mail surveys reach households without telephones and cell phone-only households?


Brfss 2005 dsf mail survey pilot l.jpg

BRFSS 2005 DSF mail survey pilot

  • Six states: CA, IL, NJ, NC, TX, WA

  • Sampling frame: access to Delivery Sequence File (DSF) provided by Marketing Systems Group

  • Mode: mail survey with telephone verification for respondent selection

  • Mail survey fielded March 15-May 15, 2005

  • Compared to monthly RDD surveys from March-May, 2005


Brfss 2005 dsf pilot sample design l.jpg

BRFSS 2005 DSF pilot: sample design

  • Probability sample from DSF household frames in each state

  • Excluded business addresses identified by USPS or Marketing Systems Group

  • Included seasonal units, vacant units, PO Boxes, throwback units, and drop point units

  • Stratified each state sample by county and address type

  • Drew 1,680 addresses per state using systematic random sampling


Split sample treatment groups l.jpg

Split sample treatment groups

  • Postcard (after 7 days)

  • Second questionnaire mailing (after 2 weeks)

  • Surname on address label

  • Alternative within household selection methods:

    • any adult (non-probability)

    • next birthday

    • all adults


Frame coverage assessment and characteristics l.jpg

Frame coverage assessment and characteristics


Percentage of counties with 10 under coverage by state l.jpg

Percentage of Counties with >10% Under-coverage by State

% counties with

>10% under-coverage

NJ

CA

IL

WA

TX

NC


Percentage of counties with 10 under coverage by pct urban l.jpg

Percentage of Counties with >10% Under-coverage by Pct. Urban

% counties with

>10% under-coverage

25-49%

50-74%

75+%

< 25%

% of adults in county living in urban area


Brfss dsf pilot types of addresses l.jpg

BRFSS DSF Pilot:Types of Addresses


Response rates l.jpg

Response rates


Design factors and probability of completed interview from total cases adjusted odds ratios l.jpg

Design factors and probability of completed interview from total cases(adjusted odds ratios)


Comparison of rdd telephone and dsf mail survey response rates l.jpg

Comparison of RDD telephone and DSF mail survey response rates


Within household selection l.jpg

Within household selection


Comparison of equalized weighted gender distributions female l.jpg

Comparison of “Equalized” Weighted Gender Distributions: % Female


Other demographics of dsf mail survey respondents l.jpg

Other demographics of DSF mail survey respondents


Percent some college or more l.jpg

Percent some college or more

71.8

58.4

53.8


Percent white l.jpg

Percent white

69.5

67.7

64.9


Percent household income 50 000 l.jpg

Percent household income > $50,000

48.6

46.4

43.8


Comparison of survey estimates l.jpg

Comparison of Survey Estimates


Comparison of survey estimates24 l.jpg

Comparison of Survey Estimates

Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p < .001

Note: Data weighted for sample design and post-stratified to sex-age totals for each state. Final weights were ratio adjusted to equalize the number of cases across states. Logistic regression models adjusted for state of residence, sex, race, age, education, and having health care coverage.


Reaching cell only and non telephone households l.jpg

Reaching cell-only andnon-telephone households


Type of household telephone access l.jpg

Type of householdtelephone access

1 Based on interviews NHIS conducted July – December, 2004. Source: Stephen J.Blumberg, Julian V. Luke, and Marcie L. Cynamon (2005). “The Prevalence and Impact of Wireless Substitution: Updated Data from the 2004 National Health Interview Survey.” Presented at the 2005 American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL.


Effect of household telephone access on mail survey estimates l.jpg

Effect of household telephone access on mail survey estimates

Figures are adjusted odds ratios. Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p < .001

Note: Data weighted for sample design and post-stratified to sex-age totals for each state. Final weights were ratio adjusted to equalize the number of cases across states. Logistic regression models adjusted for state of residence, sex, race, age, education, and having health care coverage.


Advantages of address based design l.jpg

Advantagesof address-based design

  • In low response rate states the address-based mail survey approach can yield response rates similar to RDD rates

    • Telephone follow-up of non-respondents should raise rates

  • Approach reaches households without land-line telephones

  • Weighted prevalence estimates were similar for 5 of 8 risk factors

  • Facilitates geocoding and mapping


Disadvantages of address based design l.jpg

Disadvantagesof address-based design

  • Coverage in rural areas is a potential problem

  • Mail survey limits number of questions and complexity of survey

  • Mail survey alone does not yield higher response rates than RDD

  • Less control over within household selection

  • Mail survey respondents tend to have higher SES


Next steps l.jpg

Next Steps

  • 2006 “production level” pilot study in 6 states

  • Test alternative sampling approaches:

    • RDD sample reverse-matched for addresses

    • Address-based sample matched for telephone numbers

  • Test mixed-mode design:

    • If address available: mail survey with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents

    • If no address available: telephone survey


Contact michael link mlink@cdc gov www cdc gov brfss l.jpg

Contact:Michael [email protected]/brfss


  • Login