Nonresponse rates in household surveys in the Netherlands are high. As low response rates are generally assumed to increase nonresponse bias, doubts have arisen concerning the value of survey research. The costs of fieldwork have substantially increased in recent years and will increase even more to compensate for the unfavorable response trends. This article describes a survey in which high response rates were attained and which measures were taken to achieve this. It also studies the differences between respondents who are hard to reach and those who are reluctant to participate in a survey. Additional data from a follow-up survey among refusers cast doubt on the assumption that reluctant respondents are similar to refusers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aarts, K., and H. Van der Kolk. 1999. Tegen de stroom in? Non-respons en Hawthorne effecten in het Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek. Paper presented at the NVMC spring conference, De waan van de Dag, Utrecht, the Netherlands, April.
2.
Campanelli, P. S., and S. Purdon. 1997. Can you hear me knocking? An investigation into the impact of interviewer on survey responserates. London: Survey Methods Centreat SCPR.
3.
De Heer, W. 1999. International response trends, results of an international survey. Journal of Official Statistics15 (2): 129–142.
4.
De Heer, W. 2000.Survey practices in European countries. In Measuring adult literacy. The International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) in the European context, edited by Siobhn Carey, 43–64. London: Office for National Statistics.
5.
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
6.
Esomar. 2003. Research in the Netherlands: The strength is in online research. ESOMAR Research World11 (1): 4–6.
7.
Fellegi, I. P. 2001. Comment. Journal of Official Statistics17 (1): 43–50.
Goyder, J. 1987. The silent minority: Nonrespondents on sample surveys. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
10.
Groves, R. M., and M. P. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.
11.
Groves, R. M., and K. A. McGonagle. 2001. A theory-guidedinterview training protocol regarding survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics17 (2): 249–266.
12.
Guadagnoli,E., and S. Cunningham.1989.The effects of nonresponse and late response on a survey of physician attitudes. Evaluation & the Health Professions12 (3): 318–328.
13.
Hansen, M. H., and W. N. Hurwitz. 1946. The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association41:517–529.
14.
Houtkoop-Steenstra,H., and H. van den Bergh. 2000.Effects of introductionsin large-scale telephone survey interviews. Sociological Methods & Research28 (3): 281–300.
15.
Lemay, M., and C. Durand. 2002. The effect of interviewer attitude on survey cooperation. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique76:27–44.
16.
Lin, I.-F., and N. C. Schaeffer. 1995. Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation. Public Opinion Quarterly59:236–258.
17.
Lynn,P. C., P. Clarke, J. Martin, and P. Sturgis. 2002.The effects of extended interviewer efforts on nonresponse bias. In Survey nonresponse, edited by Robert M. Groves, Don A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little, 135–148. New York: Wiley.
18.
Schouten, B., J. Bethlehem, and I. Stoop. 2002. Respondents, persuadable non-respondents and persistent non-respondents: A comparison. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Copenhagen, the Netherlands, August.
19.
Singer, E., R. M. Groves, and A. D. Corning. 1999. Differential incentives. Beliefs about practices, perceptions of equity, and effects on survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly63:251–260.
20.
Te Riele, S. 2002. Vertekening door non-respons: hoe nauwkeurig zijn de uitkomsten van persoonsenqutes? Heerlen, the Netherlands: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Retrieved from www.cbs.nl/nl/publicaties/artikelen/algemeen/non-respons/non-respons.pdf.
21.
Van Leest, J., and W. Burhenne. 1997. Respons en non-respons in het Aanvullend Voorzieningengebruikonderzoek(AVO), Werkdocument42, Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Retrieved from www.scp.nl/boeken/werkdocumenten/doc42/nl/acrobat/default.htm.
22.
Väisänen, P. 2002. Diary nonresponse in the Finnish time use survey. Paper presented at the Thirteenth International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Copenhagen, the Netherlands, August.
