Item omission in mail surveys has received little attention other than as a variable measuring response quality in questionnaire design studies. Few researchers have attempted to examine item omission as a nonrandom process. The authors re-evaluate the nature of item nonresponse and analyze item omissions within topical domains. Two independent surveys and a replication study are reported. The tendency to omit survey items is tested for generalizability across domains and between similar studies. Sociodemographic correlates are investigated and a longitudinal analysis by item is performed. The results indicate that item omission is apparently a nonrandom process at an aggregate level, but the magnitude of the relationship is weak. When the data are disaggregated by topical domain, significant systematic relationships become less apparent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongJ. Scott (1975), “Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(Spring), 111–16.
2.
ChildersTerry L., PrideWilliam M., and FerrellO. C. (1980), “A Reassessment of the Effects of Appeals on Response to Mail Surveys,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(August), 365–70.
3.
CraigC. Samuel, and McCannJohn M. (1977), “Marketing Energy to Residential Consumers of Electricity,” unpublished report, Graduate School of Business and Public Administration, Cornell University.
4.
CraigC. Samuel, and McCannJohn M. (1978), “Item Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: Extent and Correlates,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(May), 285–9.
5.
CronbachLee J. (1950), “Further Evidence on Response Sets and Test Designs,”Educational and Psychological Measurements, 10(Spring), 3–31.
6.
CunninghamWilliam H., and LopreatoSally Cook (1977), Energy Use and Conservation Incentives: A Study of Southwestern United States.New York: Praeger Publishers.
7.
DoldeWalter, and StaelinRichard, and YaoTsu (1980), “Estimating Response Rates for Different Market Segments from Questionnaire Data,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(May), 245–52.
8.
DuncanW. Jack (1979), “Mail Questionnaires in Survey Research: A Review of Response Inducement Techniques,”Journal of Management, 5(Spring), 39–56.
9.
FerberRobert (1966), “Item Nonresponse in a Consumer Survey,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(Fall), 399–415.
10.
FordNeil M. (1967), “The Advance Letter in Mail Surveys,”Journal of Marketing Research, 4(May), 202–4.
11.
FordNeil M. (1968), “Questionnaire Appearance and Response Rates in Mail Surveys,”Journal of Advertising Research, 8(September), 43–5.
12.
FullerCarol (1974), “Effects of Anonymity on Return Rate and Response Bias in a Mail Survey,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(June), 292–6.
13.
GleasonTerry C., and StaelinRichard (1975), “A Proposal for Handling Missing Data,”Psychometrika, 40(June), 229–52.
14.
HansenRobert A. (1980), “A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effect of Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives on Mail Survey Respondent Behavior,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(February), 77–83.
15.
HansenRobert A., and RobinsonLarry M. (1980), “Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Foot-in-the-Door Manipulations,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(August), 359–64.
16.
HansenRobert A., and ScottCarol A. (1977), “Improving the Representativeness of Survey Research: Some Issues and Unanswered Questions,” in Contemporary Marketing Thought, GreenbergBarnett A., and BellengerDanny N., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 401–4.
17.
HansenRobert A., and ScottCarol A. (1978), “Alternative Approaches to Assessing the Quality of Self Report Data,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, Keith HuntH., ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 99–102.
18.
HeberleinThomas A., and BaumgartnerRobert (1978), “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature,”American Sociological Review, 43(August), 447–62.
19.
HornikJacob (1982), “Impact of Pre-Call Request Form and Gender Interaction on Response to a Mail Survey,”Journal of Marketing Research, 19(February), 144–51.
20.
HoustonMichael J., and FordNeil M. (1976), “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys,”Journal of Marketing Research, 13(November), 397–403.
21.
HoustonMichael J., and JeffersonRobert W. (1975), “The Negative Effects of Personalization on Response Patterns in Mail Surveys,”Journal of Marketing Research, 12(February), 114–17.
22.
JanssensDaniel, and PessemierE. A. (1980), “Response Rates in Mail Surveys: A Review and Survey,” Paper No. 714, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University (January).
23.
JonesWesley H., and LindaGerald (1978), “Multiple Criteria Effects in a Mail Survey Experiment,”Journal of Marketing Research, 15(May), 280–4.
24.
KanuckLeslie, and BerensenConrad (1975), “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,”Journal of Marketing Research, 12(November), 440–53.
25.
KerinRoger A. (1974), “Personalization Strategies, Response Rate and Response Quality in a Mail Survey,”Social Science Quarterly, 55(June), 175–81.
26.
KimJae-on, and CurryJames (1977), “The Treatment of Missing Data in Multivariate Analysis,”Sociological Methods & Research, 6(November), 215–40.
27.
LindzeyGardner, and ByrneDonn (1968), “Measurement of Social Choice and Interpersonal Attractiveness,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, LindzeyGardner, and AronsonElliot, eds. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 452–525.
28.
LinskyArnold S. (1975), “Stimulating Responses to Mail Questionnaires: A Review,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(Spring), 82–101.
29.
McDanielSteven W., and RaoC. P. (1980), “The Effect of Monetary Inducement on Mail Questionnaire Response Quality,”Journal of Marketing Research, 17(May), 265–8.
30.
NevinJohn R., and FordNeil M. (1976), “Effects of a Deadline and a Veiled Threat on Mail Survey Responses,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(February), 116–18.
31.
NunnallyJum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
32.
O'ConnorP. J., SullivanGary L., and JonesWesley H. (1981), “An Evaluation of the Characteristics of Response Quality Induced by Follow-up Survey Methods,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, MitchellAndrew, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 257–60.
33.
PetersonRobert A. (1975), “An Experimental Investigation of Mail-Survey Responses,”Journal of Business Research, 3(July), 199–209.
34.
RorerLeonard G. (1965), “The Great Response-Style Myth,”Psychological Bulletin, 63(March), 129–56.
35.
StewartDavid W. (1982), “Filling the Gap: A Review of the Missing Data Problem,” in An Assessment of Marketing Thought & Practice, WalkerBruce J., BeardenWilliam O., DardenWilliam R., MurphyPatrick E., NevinJohn R., OlsonJerry C., and WeitzBarton A., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 395–9.
36.
WarwickDonald P., and LiningerCharles P. (1975), The Sample Survey: Theory and Practice.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
37.
WotrubaThomas R. (1966), “Monetary Inducements and Mail Questionnaire Response,”Journal of Marketing Research, 3(November), 398–400.
