TY - JOUR
T1 - Editors and researchers beware
T2 - Calculating response rates in random digit dial health surveys
AU - Martsolf, Grant R.
AU - Schofield, Robert E.
AU - Johnson, David R.
AU - Scanlon, Dennis P.
PY - 2013/4
Y1 - 2013/4
N2 - Objective To demonstrate that different approaches to handling cases of unknown eligibility in random digit dial health surveys can contribute to significant differences in response rates. Data Source Primary survey data of individuals with chronic disease. Study Design We computed response rates using various approaches, each of which make different assumptions about the disposition of cases of unknown eligibility. Data Collection Data were collected via telephone interviews as part of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) consumer survey, a representative survey of adults with chronic illnesses in 17 communities and nationally. Principal Findings We found that various approaches to estimating eligibility rates can lead to substantially different response rates. Conclusions Health services researchers must consider strategies to standardize response rate reporting, enter into a dialog related to why response rate reporting is important, and begin to utilize alternate methods for demonstrating that survey data are valid and reliable.
AB - Objective To demonstrate that different approaches to handling cases of unknown eligibility in random digit dial health surveys can contribute to significant differences in response rates. Data Source Primary survey data of individuals with chronic disease. Study Design We computed response rates using various approaches, each of which make different assumptions about the disposition of cases of unknown eligibility. Data Collection Data were collected via telephone interviews as part of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) consumer survey, a representative survey of adults with chronic illnesses in 17 communities and nationally. Principal Findings We found that various approaches to estimating eligibility rates can lead to substantially different response rates. Conclusions Health services researchers must consider strategies to standardize response rate reporting, enter into a dialog related to why response rate reporting is important, and begin to utilize alternate methods for demonstrating that survey data are valid and reliable.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875056067&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875056067&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01464.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01464.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 22998192
AN - SCOPUS:84875056067
SN - 0017-9124
VL - 48
SP - 665
EP - 676
JO - Health Services Research
JF - Health Services Research
IS - 2 PART1
ER -