Skip Navigation


International Journal of Public Opinion Research Advance Access originally published online on January 3, 2006
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2007 19(1):97-111; doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh120
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/1/97    most recent
edh120v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blohm, M.
Right arrow Articles by Koch, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.

The Influence of Interviewers’ Contact Behavior on the Contact and Cooperation Rate in Face-to-Face Household Surveys

Michael Blohm, Joop Hox and Achim Koch

Address correspondence to Michael Blohm, ALLBUS Dept., Center for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA), Postfach 122155, 68072 Mannheim, Germany, e-mail: blohm@zuma-mannheim.de

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In surveys, interviewers serve as the agents of data collection. Their task includes contacting the target persons, gaining their cooperation, and conducting the interviews according to the rules of standardized interviewing.

Interviewers are not equally successful at doing their job. They differ both in the quality of the data collected and in the response rate they achieve (Biemer & Lyberg, 2003, pp. 110–11, p. 156ff.). It is often difficult to distinguish to what extent these differences arise from differences among interviewers or from differences between the areas (and the target persons, living in these areas) assigned to the interviewers. Research using interpenetrated sample designs, however, has shown that interviewer effects can remain strong even when area effects are controlled (Campanelli & O’Muircheartaigh, 1999).

The reasons for the different response rates between interviewers are still not totally clear. In their summary of the research literature on this topic, Groves . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   REASONS WHY MODE OF CONTACT SHOULD MATTER
 

   METHOD
 
SAMPLING DESIGN
OUTCOME VARIABLES AND RESPONDENT VARIABLES
INTERVIEWERS AND INTERVIEWER VARIABLES
ANALYSIS MODEL AND ANALYSIS STRATEGY

   RESULTS
 
TARGET PERSONS’ VARIABLES
INTERVIEWER VARIABLES

   DISCUSSION
 

   APPENDIX A: OUTCOME AND RESPONDENT VARIABLES
 
OUTCOME VARIABLES
SUBJECT VARIABLES

   APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWER VARIABLES
 
BASIC DEMOGRAPHICS
CONTACT BEHAVIOR
DOORSTEP BEHAVIOR
JOB (INTERVIEWING)-RELATED VARIABLES

   APPENDIX C: DETAILS ON THE ANALYSIS MODEL
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?