To achieve high return among secondary respondents, primary respondents’ consent rates must be high. In the German Family Panel (pairfam), a large, randomly sampled panel study, primary respondents’ consent rates to surveying their parents were found to be low. Since we suspected that the underlying reason could be interviewer behavior, we tested in an experiment if placing the consent questions in the self-interview (CASI) part of the interview would increase consent rates. Results show that bypassing interviewers by asking respondents directly in the CASI section did not increase consent rates.
BlomAGde LeeuwEDHoxJJ (2011) Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse in the European Social Survey. Journal of Official Statistics27(2): 359–77.
2.
BrüderlJHuyer-MayBSchmiedebergC (2013) Interviewer Behavior and the Quality of Social Network Data. In: WinkerPPorstRMenoldN (eds), Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys - Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 149–64.
3.
BrüderlJHankKHuininkJNauckBNeyerFJWalperS…WilhelmB (2015a) The German Family Panel (pairfam) - ZA5678 Data file Version 6.0.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive. Available at: doi 10.4232/pairfam.5678.6.0.0.
4.
BrüderlJSchmiedebergCCastiglioniLArránz BeckerOBuhrPFußDSchumannN (2015b) The German Family Panel - Study Design and Cumulated Field Report (Waves 1 to 6): Release 6.0. Munich: pairfam Technical Paper No. 1.
5.
ChaplinJManglaJPurdonSAireyC (2005) The Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 (WERS 2004) - Technical Report (Cross-section and Panel Surveys). London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
6.
De LeeuwED (2001) Reducing Missing Data in Surveys - An Overview of Methods. Quality and Quantity35(2): 147–60. Available at: doi 10.1023/A:1010395805406.
7.
DykstraPAKalmijnMKnijnTCMKomterAELiefbroerACMulderCH (2012) Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study - A Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 2, Version 2.0. http://www.nkps.nl/CodeBook/CodeBookFrame.htm.
GrovesRMCouperMP (2012) Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
GrovesRMFowlerFJJrCouperMPLepkowskiJMSingerETourangeauR (2011) Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
HoxJJde LeeuwED (1994) A Comparison of Nonresponse in Mail, Telephone, and Face-to-face Surveys. Quality and Quantity28(4): 329–44.
13.
HuininkJBrüderlJNauckBWalperSCastiglioniLFeldhausM (2011) Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (pairfam) - Conceptual Framework and Design. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung-Journal of Family Research23(1): 77–101.
14.
KalmijnMLiefbroerAC (2011) Nonresponse of Secondary Respondents in Multi-actor Surveys - Determinants, Consequences, and Possible Remedies. Journal of Family Issues32(6): 735–66.
15.
MatschingerHBernertSAngermeyerMC (2005) An Analysis of Interviewer Effects on Screening Questions in a Computer Assisted Personal Mental Health Interview. Journal of Official Statistics21(4): 657–74.
16.
PaikASanchagrinK (2013) Social Isolation in America - An Artifact. American Sociological Review78(3): 339–60.
17.
PasteelsI (2015) How to Weight Survey Data with a Dyadic Multi-actor Design?Survey Insights - Methods from the Field. Weighting - Practical Issues and “How to” Approach. Available at: doi:10.13094/SMIF-2015-00007
18.
SchaferWBoermaWKringosDde MaeseneerJGreszSHeinemannSGroenewegenP (2011) QUALICOPC, A Multi-country Study Evaluating Quality, Costs and Equity in Primary Care. BMC Family Practice12(115). Available at: doi:10.1186/1471-2296-12-115.
19.
SchröderJCastiglioniLBrüderlJKriegerU (2013) Der Einfluss der Beziehungsqualität auf die Teilnahme sekundärer Respondenten - Ergebnisse mit dem Beziehungs-und Familienpanel. Comparative Population Studies-Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft37(3-4): 567–90.
20.
TourangeauRKreuterFEckmanS (2012) Motivated Underreporting in Screening Interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3): 453–69. Available at: doi:10.1093/poq/nfs033.
21.
Van der ZouwenJvan TilburgT (2001) Reactivity in Panel Studies and its Consequences for Testing Causal Hypotheses. Sociological Methods & Research30(1): 35–56.
