1 / 28

Kathy Downey, Dee McCarthy, William McCarthy, and Brian Meekins U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Encouraging the Use of Alternative Modes of Electronic Data Collection: Results of Two Field Studies. Kathy Downey, Dee McCarthy, William McCarthy, and Brian Meekins U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

redford
Download Presentation

Kathy Downey, Dee McCarthy, William McCarthy, and Brian Meekins U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Encouraging the Use of Alternative Modes of Electronic Data Collection: Results of Two Field Studies Kathy Downey, Dee McCarthy, William McCarthy, and Brian Meekins U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent official policy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

  2. BLS Internet Data Collection • First begun in the 2002 survey year • Termed the “IDCF” – Internet Data Collection Facility • Uniform and secure structure for employers to submit data for BLS surveys • Designed to look very similar to the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses data collection booklet • Savings in mail costs, print costs, data entry costs

  3. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses • Federal/State cooperative survey • Sample of 230,000 establishments per year (private, State and local gov’t.) • Data collected based on OSHA logs – information on illness/injury: • Total recordable cases, • Cases with days away from work (with more about demographics and case characteristics), • Cases with days of job transfer or restriction • Hardcopy is 12 pages, envelope and insert • Web form looks similar to hardcopy form

  4. Internet Data Collection: Number of Days-Away-From-Work Cases Submitted

  5. Purpose of Tests Expanding use of IDCF to • Reduce processing time • Capture narrative text of days-away-from-work cases • Lower printing and postage costs

  6. Tests • 2005 SOII: January – June 2006 • 1st mailing: January 2006 • 1st non-response mailing: Feb 14 • 2nd non-response mailing: April 5 • Handed over to States for calls (end test): May 9 • Close-out: June 26 • 2006 SOII: January – July 2007 • 1st mailing: January 4 2007 • 1st non-response mailing: March 2 • 2nd non-response mailing: April 20 • Handed over to States for calls (end test): TBD • Close-out: July 17

  7. 2005 Test: Sample • 2,000 units in each of three tests and a control group • 6,688 units that used IDCF in 2004 and were in 2005 sample – termed INET units and received the Test 2 booklet

  8. 2005 Test: Booklets • Test 1 • 4 page booklet with electronic options* and a phone number to request standard booklet – all 3 mailings • Test 2 plus INET • 4 page booklet with electronic options* and a phone number for help – all 3 mailings • Test 3 • 4 page booklet with electronic options and a phone number for help – received standard booklet on second nonresponse mailing • Control group • standard booklet *use IDCF or send an e-mail to get an electronic copy of the survey

  9. Analyses • Performance • Response rate • # resp / “viables” (excludes OOB, OOS, duplicates) • Internet response rate • # internet resp / “viables” • Burden • Percentage of units contacting Help phone number • Added processing time and costs

  10. 2005 Internet Data Collection: Establishments and Days-Away-From-Work Cases

  11. Survey Year 2005 Tests Results(at end of test – May 9, 2006)

  12. Survey Year 2005 Tests Results(Final)

  13. Survey Year 2005 Tests Results(at end of test – May 9, 2006)

  14. Why 2006 Test? • Expand test to larger sample (88,421 units vs. 12,688 units) on a State-level basis • Use States to more fully resemble national implementation • Eliminate calls to National Office (switch to State for help) • Estimate data entry burden for States • Improve how respondents access IDCF (move to permanent IDs)

  15. 2006 Test • Test Sample • 16 States • 8 State partners: CA, DC, FL, IL, MD, NC, NY, VA • 8 States by Reg. office: CO, ID, MS, ND, NH, OH, PA, SD • 13,297 INET units • Total: 88,421 units received the electronic options booklet • Sampling was modified in the 2006 survey year to allocate more sample to establishments predicted to have cases • Use only test 2 scenario - 4 page booklet with electronic options* and a phone number for help – all 3 mailings

  16. 2006 Internet Data Collection: Establishments and Days-Away-From-Work Cases

  17. Survey Year 2006 Results(through April 15, 2007)

  18. Survey Year 2006 Results(through April 15, 2007)

  19. Survey Year 2006 Results(through April 15, 2007)

  20. Going back to Purpose of Test… • Reduce processing time • Capture narrative text of days-away-from-work cases • Lower printing and postage costs

  21. 2006 Test: Lowered Processing Time (IDCF benchmark)

  22. 2006 Test: Captured More Case Narratives (Percent as of May 3)

  23. 2006 Test: Lowered Cost (IDCF benchmark) Per Year - If assumed all cases submitted by IDCF, and sample of 230,000

  24. Another Option: E-mail Data Collection • First begun in the 2004 survey year • Microsoft Word template received from e-mail request • Filled in template transmitted to State specific e-mail address that routes the form through BLS and to the correct State agency

  25. Another Option: E-mail Data Collection

  26. Conclusions • Was successful • 53% used IDCF when offered, another 8.5% use E-mail • INET group getting bigger • Capturing more case narratives • Explore why not getting higher response rate overall (8 pts) • Will run another study of 16 States, plus 4 more • Change instruction booklet to maybe look less like survey

More Related