IVR and web administration in structured interviews utilizing rating scales: Exploring the role of motivation as a moderator to mode effects

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 1-15

  Yang, Yongwei ^a   Callegaro, Mario ^b   Bhola, Dennison S ^c   Dillman, Don A ^d  

^a Gallup Inc   (United States)

^b GOOGLE INC   (United States)

^c Assessment Learning and Technology Solutions   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interactive voice response; Mode effects; Optimizing; Satisficing

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650051788     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645570903504161     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arvey, R.D., Strickland, W., Drauden, W., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695-716.
2. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-156.
3. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2006). Response biases in marketing research. In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 95-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Christian, L.M., Dillman, D.A., & Smyth, J.D. (2008). The effects of mode and format on answers to scalar questions in telephone and web surveys. In J.M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J.M. Brick, E.D. De Leeuw, L. Japec, P.J. Lavraka, et al. (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 250-275). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
5. Church, A.H. (2001). Is there a method to our madness? The impact of data collection methodology on organizational survey results. Personnel Psychology, 54, 937-969.
6. Corkrey, R., & Parkinson, L. (2002). Interactive voice response: Review of studies 1989-2000. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 342-353.
7. De Leeuw, E.D. (1992). Data quality in mail, telephone, and face to face surveys. Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.
8. DeMars, C.E. (2000). Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 55-77.
9. Dillman, D.A., & Mason, R.G. (1984, May). The influence of survey method on question response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Dalavan, WI.
10. Dillman, D.A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., et al. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.
11. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., & Christian, L.M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
12. Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment. New York: Dryden Press.
13. Gribble, J.N., Miller, H.G., Cooley, P.C., Catania, J.A., Pollack, L., & Turner, C.F. (2000). The impact of T-ACASI interviewing on reported drug use among men who have sex with men. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 869-890.
14. Groves, R.M. (1979). Actors and questions in telephone and personal interview surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 190-205.
15. Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (Eds.). (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
16. Jordan, A.A., Marcus, A.C., & Reeder, L.G. (1980). Response styles in telephone and household interviewing: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 210-222.
17. Krosnick, J.A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
18. Krosnick, J.A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W.R. (1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 70, 29-44.
19. Martin, E. (1984). The role of the respondent. In C.F. Turner & E. Martin (Eds.), Surveying subjective phenomena (Vol. 1, pp. 257-278). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Martin, B.A., Bowen, C.C., & Hunt, S.T. (2002). How effective are people at faking on personality questionnaires? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 247-256.
21. Miller Steiger, D., & Conroy, B. (2008). Interactive voice response. In E.D. De Leeuw, J.J. Hox, & D.A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 285-298). New York. Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Mingay, D.J. (2000, May). Is telephone audio computer-assisted self interviewing (T-ACASI): A method whose time has come? Paper presented at the 55th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and World Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, OR.
23. Sears, D.O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.
24. Srinivasan, R., & Hanway, S. (1999, May). A new kind of survey mode difference: Experimental results from a test of inbound voice recognition and mail surveys. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Pete Beach, FL.
25. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O.S., Chan, K.-Y., Lee, W.C., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of testing situation on item responding: Cause of concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943-953.
26. Tarnai, J., & Dillamn, D.A. (1992). Questionnaire context as a source of response differences in mail and telephone surveys. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research (pp. 115-129). New York: Springer-Verlag.
27. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Tourangeau, R., Steiger, D.M., & Wilson, D. (2002). Self-administered questions by telephone: Evaluating interactive voice response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 265-278.
29. Weekley, J.A., Ployhart, R.E., & Harold, C.M. (2004). Personality and situational judgment tests across applicant and incumbent settings: An examination of validity, measurement, and subgroup differences. Human Performance, 14, 433-461.
30. Wise, S.L., Bhola, D.S., & Yang, S.-T. (2006). Taking the time to improve the validity of low-stake tests: The effort-monitoring CBT. Educational Measurements: Issues and Practice, 25(2), 21-30.
31. Wise, S.L., & DeMars, C.E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1-17.
32. Wise, S.L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 163-183.
33. Wolf, L.F., & Smith, J.K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242.