1. bookVolume 30 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)
    Special Issue on Establishment Surveys
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2001-7367
First Published
01 Oct 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Does the Length of Fielding Period Matter? Examining Response Scores of Early Versus Late Responders

Published Online: 11 Dec 2014
Volume & Issue: Volume 30 (2014) - Issue 4 (December 2014)<br/>Special Issue on Establishment Surveys
Page range: 651 - 674
Received: 01 Dec 2012
Accepted: 01 Sep 2014
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2001-7367
First Published
01 Oct 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

This article discusses the potential effects of a shortened fielding period on an employee survey’s item and index scores and respondent demographics. Using data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, we investigate whether early responding employees differ from later responding employees. Specifically, we examine differences in item and index scores related to employee engagement and global satisfaction. Our findings show that early responders tend to be less positive, even after adjusting their weights for nonresponse. Agencies vary in their prevalence of late responders, and score differences become magnified as this proportion increases. We also examine the extent to which early versus late responders differ on demographic characteristics such as grade level, supervisory status, gender, tenure with agency, and intention to leave, noting that nonminorities and females are the two demographic characteristics most associated with responding early.

Keywords

American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2009. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Sixth Edition. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ResourcesforResearchers/StandardDefinitions/StandardDefinitions2009new.pdf (accessed January 27, 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Baruch, Y. and B.C. Holtom. 2008. “Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in Organizational Research.” Human Relations 61: 1139-1160. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863.10.1177/0018726708094863Search in Google Scholar

Bates, N. and K. Creighton. 2000. “The Last Five Percent: What Can We Learn from Difficult/Late Interviews?” In Proceedings of the Section on Government Statistics: American Statistical Association, August 13, 2000. 120-125. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Search in Google Scholar

Baur, E.J. 1947. “Response Bias in a Mail Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 11: 595-600. DOI: http:/dx.doi.org/10.1086/265895.10.1086/265895Search in Google Scholar

Borg, I. and T. Tuten. 2003. “Early versus Later Respondents in Intranet-Based, Organizational Surveys.” Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 4: 134-145.Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, R.J. and D. Ruppert. 1988. Transformation and Weighting in Regression. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.10.1007/978-1-4899-2873-3Search in Google Scholar

Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Filion, F. 1975. “Estimating Bias Due to Nonresponse in a Mail Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 39: 482-492. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268245.10.1086/268245Search in Google Scholar

Gannon, M.J., J.C. Nothern, and S.J. Carroll. 1971. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents Among Workers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 55: 586-588. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031907.10.1037/h0031907Search in Google Scholar

Green, K.E. 1991. “Reluctant Respondents: Differences Between Early, Late, and Nonresponders to a Mail Survey.” The Journal of Experimental Education 59: 268-276. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1991.10806566.10.1080/00220973.1991.10806566Search in Google Scholar

Groves, R.M. and M. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York, NY: Wiley. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118490082.index.10.1002/9781118490082.indexSearch in Google Scholar

Groves, R.M., E. Singer, and A. Corning. 2000. “Leverage-Saliency Theory of Survey Participation: Description and an Illustration.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 299-308. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/317990.10.1086/31799011114270Search in Google Scholar

De Leeuw, E. and W. de Heer. 2002. “Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: a Longitudinal and International Comparison.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by RobertM. Groves, et al. New York, NY: Wiley. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033.10.1093/poq/nfl033Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R.A., C.M. Endo, and J.M. Armer. 1970. “The Use of Potential Nonrespondents for Studying Nonresponse Bias.” Pacific Sociological Review 13: 103-109. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1388313.10.2307/1388313Search in Google Scholar

Erickson, T.J. 2005. “The 21st Century Workplace: Preparing for Tomorrow’s Employment Trends Today.” (Testimony submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, May 26, 2005). Available at: http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/index.cfm?year¼2005&month¼05 (accessed December 2012).Search in Google Scholar

Jacoby, J. and M.S. Matell. 1971. “Three-Point Likert Scales are Good Enough.” Journal of Marketing Research 8: 495-500. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150242.10.2307/3150242Search in Google Scholar

Kalton, G.F. and I. Flores-Cervantes. 2003. “Weighting Methods.” Journal of Official Statistics 19: 81-97.Search in Google Scholar

Kraut, A.I. 1996. Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Search in Google Scholar

Kreuter, F. 2013. Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118596869.ch1.10.1002/9781118596869.ch1Search in Google Scholar

Little, R.J.A. and D.B. Rubin. 2002. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Second ed. New York, NY: Wiley. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1697.10.1002/sim.1697Search in Google Scholar

Macey, W.H. and B. Schneider. 2008. “The Meaning of Employee Engagement.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1: 3-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.xSearch in Google Scholar

Mayer, C.S. and R.W. Pratt., Jr. 1966. “A Note on Nonresponse in a Mail Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 637-646. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267461.10.1086/267461Search in Google Scholar

Newman, S.W. 1962. “Differences between Early and Late Respondents to a Mailed Survey.” Advertising Research 2: 37-39.Search in Google Scholar

Pace, R.C. 1939. “Factors Influencing Questionnaire Returns from Former University Students.” Journal of Applied Psychology 23: 388-397. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063286.10.1037/h0063286Search in Google Scholar

Rogelberg, S.G. and J.M. Stanton. 2007. “Understanding and Dealing with Organizational Survey Nonresponse.” Organizational Research Methods 10: 195-209. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693.10.1177/1094428106294693Search in Google Scholar

Schwirian, K.P. and H.R. Blaine. 1966. “Questionnaire-Return Bias in the Study of Blue- Collar Workers.” Public Opinion Quarterly 30: 656-663. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/267463.10.1086/267463Search in Google Scholar

Sonquist, J.A., E.L. Baker, and J.N. Morgan. 1974. Searching for Structure. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2011. 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Governmentwide Management Report. Washington, DC: OPM. Available at: http:// www.fedview.opm.gov/2011/Published (accessed January 27, 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, J. 2013. “Adaptive Contact Strategies in Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys.” Survey Research Methods 7: 45-55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118596869.ch7.10.1002/9781118596869.ch7Search in Google Scholar

Weeks, M.F. 1987. “Optimal Call Scheduling for a Telephone Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 540-549. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269056. 10.1086/269056Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo