Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Respondent’s Participation in “Isolated” Conditions:
Early Reports from the Minnesota Household Travel Survey
AAPOR ConferenceMay 17 – 20Orlando, Florida
Authors:Jason Minser, Abt SRBIDr. Mindy Rhindress, Abt SRBIMarci Schalk, Abt SRBI
*Special acknowledgement to Kyle Silkey for his contributions in data preparation.
Abt SRBI | pg 2
Inspiration
Abt SRBI | pg 3
Household Travel Survey (HTS) Overview
• Sponsoring agencies include MPOs, DOTs, and other planning agencies
• Comprehensive inventory of households’ 24‐hour travel
• Two phase study designRecruitment: Inventory of household, vehicle and person characteristics
Follow‐up: Inventory of individual household member travel for a 24 hour period
• Data used for travel demand forecasting
Abt SRBI | pg 4
Typical HTS Protocols
Advance Letter(Unmatched only or Both)
Recruitment(Phone and/or Web)
Reminder to Travel(Phone and/or Mail)
Follow‐up/Retrieval(Phone, Web, Mail)
Abt SRBI | pg 5
Points of Response / Non‐Response in HTS
Advance Letter(Unmatched only or Both)
Recruitment(Phone and/or Web)
Reminder to Travel(Phone and/or Mail)
Follow‐up/Retrieval(Phone, Web, Mail)
?
?
?
?
Abt SRBI | pg 6
Combatting HTS Non‐Response
• Quality of advance materials
• Sponsorship
• Multiple contacts
• Incentives (pre‐paid or promised)
• Respondents’ ascribed importance to survey topic
• Respondents’ perceptions of civic responsibility or duty
Abt SRBI | pg 7
However . . .
• In ideal world, all combatants would be addressed. Sometimes compromises need to be made to adhere to money and time restrictions
• As a result of these restrictions, we may create what we call conditions of "isolation"
Abt SRBI | pg 8
What are “Isolated” Conditions?
• Recruitment: Household received advance letter and completed a web‐based household questionnaire and did not provide a phone number for future contact
• Follow‐up: Household completed their travel inventory without a prompt from sponsoring agency or research firm
• Research question: What are the effects of “isolated” conditions on non-response?
Abt SRBI | pg 9
Case Study – 2010‐11 Minnesota HTS
• Address based sample design• Advance letters tailored to region and sponsorship
emphasized• Recruitment by phone (matched) and web
(unmatched)• Personalized cover letter and individual travel
diaries sent by USPS• Reminder calls made evening before scheduled
travel day (weekdays only)• Contingent incentive offered in follow‐up for
specific sub‐groups ($20)• Follow‐up completed by phone, web, and mail
Abt SRBI | pg 10
What we did . . .
• Examined variables used to study non‐response in the American Time Use Survey
BusynessSocial integration
• Added behavioral proxies for civic duty and survey topic
• Tested the effects in “isolated” conditions
• Analyzed at household level with un‐weighted data
Abt SRBI | pg 11
Proxies
Variable Measure SourceAverage Hours Worked Busyness Abraham et al. 2000
No. of HH Trips Busyness Abraham et al. 2000
HouseholdComposition Social Integration Abraham et al. 2000
Home Ownership Social Integration Abraham et al. 2000
# of Transit User in HH* Survey Topic New Measure
# of Community Activities* Civic Engagement New Measure
*Adjusted for Household Size
Abt SRBI | pg 12
Finding 1: Summary of Busyness
• Households are more likely to participate when. . .Average hours worked per week are 35 or more
Average number of trips per person is higher
• “Isolated” households appeared to be the busiestHighest number of average hours worked per week
The most trips per person
Abt SRBI | pg 13
Finding 1: Summary of Busyness
Recruitment Follow‐up
NonResponse to Follow‐upn=17,571
Totaln=25,470
Isolatedn=899
Telephonen=7,000
Totaln=7,899
HH Avg. Hrs work1,2**
< 34 hours per week (%) 59.6 48.9 20.2 25.8 25.2
>35 hours per week (%) 14.7 24.4 61.3 44.2 46.1
Not in Labor force4 (%) 25.7 26.7 18.5 30.0 28.7
# of HH Trips3,**
Avg. # of Trips/person 1.3 2.0 4.1 3.7 3.7
1 Phase 2 Respondents vs. Phase 2 Non-Respondents χ22 Phase 2 Isolated vs. Phase 2 Telephone χ23 T-Test4 Includes Unemployed, retired, and those not in the labor force* p < 0.05** p < 0.01
Abt SRBI | pg 14
Finding 2: Summary of Social Integration
• Family households responded at a higher rate in follow‐up
Potentially due to telephone contact and contingent incentive for larger households
• Singletons in “isolated” conditions responded at a higher rate on average
• Renters in “isolated” conditions responded at a higher rate than home owners
• Household composition and home ownership may not be good measures of social integration
Inverse effect as that found in ATUS study
May also suggest increased burden in family households
Abt SRBI | pg 15
Finding 2: Summary of Social Integration
Recruitment Follow‐up
NonResponse to Follow‐upn=17,571
Totaln=25,470
Isolatedn=899
Telephonen=7,000
Totaln=7,899
Household Composition1**,2**
Living Alone (%) 29.3 24.9 33.8 12.7 15.1
Other Non‐Family (%) 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.9 1.0
Family HH (%) 69.5 73.9 64.3 86.4 83.9
Home Ownership1**,2**
Own/buying (%) 85.4 86.4 80.4 92.2 90.9
Rent (%) 14.2 12.4 19.0 7.5 8.8
Other (%) 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3
1 Phase 2 Respondents vs. Phase 2 Non-Respondents χ22 Phase 2 Isolated vs. Phase 2 Telephone χ2* p < 0.05** p < 0.01
Abt SRBI | pg 16
Finding 3: Summary of New Measures
• Transit households no more likely to participate in follow‐up than non‐transit households
• Households’ civic‐ly engaged on travel day more likely to participate
Civic engagement highest in “isolated” households
Abt SRBI | pg 17
Finding 3: Summary of Added Behavioral Proxies
Recruitment Follow‐up
NonResponse to Follow‐upn=17,571
Totaln=25,470
Isolatedn=899
Telephonen=7,000
Totaln=7,899
# of Transit Users in
HH3,N.S.
# of HH Users 0.397 0.402 0.381 0.384 0.384
Civic Duty3**
# of Activities 0.108 0.145 0.266 0.220 0.225
1 Phase 2 Respondents vs. Phase 2 Non-Respondents χ22 Phase 2 Isolated vs. Phase 2 Telephone χ23 T-Test* p < 0.05** p < 0.01
Abt SRBI | pg 18
Discussion
• “Isolated” conditions had little impact on likelihood of participating
• “Isolated” households are . . .Living alone; busy; civic‐ly engaged; and concentrated in urban settings (findings not presented)
• Busy households do participateSimilar findings as American Time Use Study for measures of busyness
• Evidence “civic duty” may have been an important leverage in this case study
“Survey topic” little to no effect
Abt SRBI | pg 19
Next Steps
• Look more closely at measures of travel behavior
• Examine correlations between variables
• Better use of paradata as measures of burdenSurvey length timings Study participation duration (recruit to complete)
• Cross population comparisonsHelp control for Minnesota effect
Abt SRBI | pg 21
CitationsAbraham, Katherine G., Aaron Maitland, and Suzanne M. Bianchi. 2006. “Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey. Who is Missing from the Data and How Much Does it Matter?” Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5): 676‐703.
Groves, Robert M., Eleanor Singer, and Amy Corning. 2000. “Leverage‐Salience Theory of Survey Participation: Description and an Illustration.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3): 299‐308.
Groves, Robert M., Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko. 2004. “The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68 (1): 2‐31.
Singer, E., J. Van Hoewyk, N. Gebler, T. Raghunathan, and K McGonagle. The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates in Interviewer‐Mediated Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999, pp. 217‐230
Abt SRBI | pg 22
APPENDIXM12
Slide 22
M12 you need a thank you chart or somethingMindy, 5/16/2012
Abt SRBI | pg 23
Response CharacteristicsPhase 1 Phase 2
Total Sample (N=242,055) Matched%
Unmatched%
Matched%
Unmatched%
Addressed based sample 65.0 35.0 86.8 13.2
Recruitment Interview N=22,882 N=3,460
Phone 100.0 3.0 ‐‐ ‐‐
Web 0.0 97.0 ‐‐ ‐‐
Phase 1 Response Rate 14.5 4.1
Retrieval/Follow‐up N=11,700 N=1,945
Phone ‐‐ ‐‐ 14.7 3.9
Web ‐‐ ‐‐ 44.9 68.3
Mail ‐‐ ‐‐ 40.1 27.9
Multi ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.3 0.0
Phase 2 Response Rate ‐‐ ‐‐ 52.2 58.3
Abt SRBI | pg 24
Sponsorship/CustomizationSponsorship shifted with each market
Helplines to Abt SRBI and Metropolitan Council Customer Service
Caller identification was sponsoring agency
Advance materials included the same customization
Phone protocols were also customized for each market
Abt SRBI | pg 25
Analogous Case Study• Non‐Response in American Time Use Survey (Abraham
et al. 2006)
• Looked at influences on non‐responseBusyness—average hours worked per week Social integrations—household composition and home ownership
• FindingsBusier respondents responded at higher rate (45+ hours)Married householders responded at higher rates than those living aloneRenters had lower cooperation rates
• Multiple contacts suspected
M5
Slide 25
M5 I would title this slide 'what we know so far' and put in the findings and credit the study in a footnote. there's too much here on this study which is not your case study.
i think of this chart as a continuation of the prior chart
in fact these 3 go together and maybe can be combined to 2. i just think there is too much on theory. Mindy, 5/16/2012
Abt SRBI | pg 26
Telephone IntroductionIntroduction customized to market being contacted.
Hello, my name is <INSERT INTERVIEWER’S FIRST NAME> from Abt SRBI calling on behalf of
IF MARKET=1,2,3 SHOW “the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Transportation”. The Metropolitan Council is conducting a transportation study to better understand the daily travel characteristics of residents in the metro area.
IF MARKET=4 SHOW “the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is conducting a transportation study to better understand the daily travel characteristics of residents in the greater Twin Cities region.”)
IF MARKET=5 SHOW “the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is conducting a transportation study to better understand the daily travel characteristics of residents in the greater Twin Cities region.”
Are you a member of this household and at least 18 years old?
