2002 NSAF Nonresponse Analysis

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The text below is a portion of the complete document.

1. INTRODUCTION

This report analyses the characteristics of nonrespondents to the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF). Conducted in 1997, 1999 and 2002, the NSAF provides a comprehensive look at the well-being of children and nonelderly adults, and it reveals sometimes striking differences among the 13 states studied in depth. The survey provides quantitative measures of child, adult, and family well-being in America, with an emphasis on persons in low-income families. To garner respondents living with and without household landline telephones, the NSAF used a random-digit dial (RDD) sample of telephone households and an area sample of nontelephone households. While numerous survey strategies were employed to reduce the number of nonrespondents, there was a steady decline in response rates throughout the three years of the NSAF data collection. As a result, this paper assesses the impact of nonresponse on the NSAF statistics, particularly the 2002 estimates. The next section of this report provides more information on the NSAF response rates, while this introduction reviews the nonresponse literature.

Response rates in many respects measure people's willingness to participate in a study. The most important factor in getting a good response rate is making additional contact attempts (Newcomer and Triplett 2004). Many organizations use a variety of contact attempt and refusal conversion strategies for each of their studies. There is no consensus, however, among survey organizations on the maximum number of contact attempts or the amount of refusal conversion needed.

Efforts to reduce the number of nonrespondents in a study are usually related to two factors: budget and time. Given a limited budget, making a large number of contact attempts or attempting to convert refusals can prove economically unfeasible. Similarly, a study that must be completed in a short period may not allow for enough time to make a large number of attempts.

Numerous studies have investigated the issue of how much additional effort an organization should make in attempting to reduce nonresponse. They support Kish's (1965) dicta that new responses must be numerous enough to justify the effort and that decreasing the proportion of nonresponse is important only if it also reduces its effect. The first assumption is an issue of cost and is addressed in this paper by looking at the costs of calling back telephone numbers versus using additional RDD telephone numbers to obtain the required number of completed interviews. The second assumption is an issue of whether the respondents reached after multiple call attempts or refusal conversion differs from respondents never refusing to cooperate. In sections 3 and 4, it will be become evident that those reached after refusal conversion and multiple call attempts do indeed differ.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.