In some survey research settings, it may be not attainable or optimal to interview individual respondents without involving bystanders or third parties in the interview. Due to complex living circumstances or group culture, respondents may be helped by others in answering questions. However, this involvement of third parties raises questions about data quality and poses a challenge to the data collection process. Recognizing this, a natural field experiment was embedded in an urban resettlement study in the Philippines that allowed for spontaneous third-party help during certain parts of the interview. Using an event history calendar, data were gathered on numbers (of household-related transitions), names (of community leaders), and dates (years of public services). Quality of data was assessed and compared for the “with help” and “without help” conditions. The results showed that third-party help did not negatively affect data quality but rather improved it for most issues.
AquilinoW. S.1993. Effects of spouse presence during the interview on survey responses concerning marriage. Public Opinion Quarterly57:358–76.
2.
BeckerS.SosaD.1992. An experiment using a month-by-month calendar in a family planning survey in Costa Rica. Studies in Family Planning23:386–91.
3.
BelliR. F.1998. The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar: Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory6:383–406.
4.
BelliR. F.CallegaroM.2009. The emergence of calendar interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale. In Calendar and Time Diary Methods in Life Course Research, eds. BelliR.StaffordP.AlwinD., 31–52. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BelliR. F.LeeE. H.StaffordF.ChouC.-H.2004. Calendar and question-list survey methods: Association between interviewer behaviors and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics20:185–18.
6.
BelliR. F.SmithL.AndreskiP.AgrawalS.2007. Methodological comparisons between CATI event history calendar and standardized conventional questionnaire instruments. Public Opinion Quarterly71:603–22.
7.
BoeijeH. R.2004. And then there were three: Self-presentational styles and the presence of the partner as a third person in the interview. Field Methods16:3–22.
8.
ConradF. G.SchoberM. F.2005. Promoting uniform question understanding in today’s and tomorrow’s surveys. Journal of Official Statistics21:215–31.
9.
de LeeuwE. D.2005. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics21:233–55.
10.
EdwardsS. L.SlatteryM. L.MaK.-N.1998. Measurement errors stemming from nonrespondents present at in-person interviews. Annals of Epidemiology8:272–77.
FreedmanD.ThorntonA.CamburnD.AlwinD.Young-De MarcoL.1988. The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. In Sociological Methodology, vol. 18, ed. CloggC. C., 37–68. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
GlasnerT.2011. Reconstructing event histories in standardized survey research: Cognitive mechanisms and aided recall technique. Amsterdam: The Netherlands: Uitgeverij BOXPress.
14.
GlasnerT.Van der VaartW.2009. Applications of calendar instruments in social surveys: A review. Quality and Quantity43:333–49.
15.
HarrisC. B.PatersonH. M.KempR. I.2008. Collaborative recall and collective memory: What happens when we remember together?Memory16:213–30.
16.
HofstedeG.1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
JacobsS. C.2002. Reliability and recall of unemployment events using retrospective data. Work, Employment and Society16:537–48.
18.
KarnsT. E.IrvinS. J.SuranicS. L.RivardoM. G.2009. Collaborative recall reduces the effect of a misleading post event narrative. North American Journal of Psychology11:17–28.
NelsonI. A.2010. From quantitative to qualitative: Adapting the life history calendar method. Field Methods22:413–28.
21.
NiehofA.1999. Household, Family, and Nutrition Research: Writing a Proposal. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Grafisch Service Centrum Van Gils B.V.
22.
SilverB. D.AbramsonP. R.AndersonB. A.1986. The presence of others and overreporting of voting in American national elections. Public Opinion Quarterly50:228–39.
23.
SmithT. W.1997. The impact of the presence of others on a respondent’s answers to questions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research9:33–47.
24.
StoneW.2001. Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life. Research paper no. 24. http://cedarscenter.com/resources/Measuring_Social_Capital.pdf(accessed June 10, 2014).
25.
TaietzP.1962. Conflicting group norms and the “third” person in the interview. American Journal of Sociology68:97–104.
26.
Van der VaartW.2004. The time-line as a device to enhance recall in standardized research interviews: A split ballot study. Journal of Official Statistics20:301–17.
27.
Van der VaartW.GlasnerT. J.2007. Applying a timeline as a recall aid in a telephone survey: A record check study. Applied Cognitive Psychology21:217–38.
