Assessing mode effects in a national crime victimization survey using structural equation models: Social desirability bias and acquiescence

Journal of Official Statistics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 49-63

  Heerwegh, Dirk ^a   Loosveldt, Geert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Hybrid survey; Mail survey; Multimode survey; Telephone survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953160726     PISSN: 0282423X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. AAPOR (2008). Standard definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 5th Edition. Lenexa, KS: AAPOR: AAPOR http://www.aapor.org/uploads/Standard_Definitions_07_08_Final.pdf
2. Biemer, P.P. (2001). Nonresponse Bias and Measurement Bias in a Comparison of Face to Face and Telephone Interviewing. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 295-320.
3. Billiet, J.B. and McClendon, M.J. (2000). Modeling Acquiescence in Measurement Models for Two Balanced Sets of Items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608-628.
4. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of Questionnaire Administration Can Have Serious Effects on Data Quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281-291.
5. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling With LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, N.J. Erlbaum.
6. Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
7. de Leeuw, E.D. (1992). Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face Surveys. Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties.
8. de Leeuw, E.D. (2005). To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 233-255.
9. Denscombe, M. (2006). Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect. An Evaluation Based on Completion Rates and Data Contents of Near-Identical Questionnaires Delivered in Different Modes. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 246-254.
10. Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley.
11. Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., and Yan, T. (2005). An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 370-392.
12. Groves, R.M. and Kahn, R.L. (1979). Surveys by Telephone: a National Comparison With Personal Interviews. New York, NY: Academic Press.
13. Hox, J., de Leeuw, E.D., and Vorst, H. (1995). Survey Participation As Reasoned Action; a Behavioral Paradigm for Survey Nonresponse? Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 48, 52-67.
14. Jöreskog, K.G. (2005). Structural Equation Modeling With Ordinal Variables Using LISREL. Retrieved March 10, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf.
15. Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Response Strategies for Coping With the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236.
16. Krosnick, J.A. and Alwin, D.F. (1987). An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-219.
17. McClendon, M.J. (1991). Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Survey Interviews. Sociological Methods and Research, 20, 60-103.
18. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2007). Mplus. Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables. User's Guide, (Fourth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
19. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., and Rasinski, K.A. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. van de Vijver, F. and Leung, K. (1997). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Voogt, R.J.J. and Saris, W.E. (2005). Mixed Mode Designs: Finding the Balance Between Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 367-387.
22. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J., and Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for Acquiescence in the Assessment of the Construct Equivalence of Likert-Type Score Items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 702-722.