An overview of the scales’ characteristics for 10 well-established face-to-face social science surveys

Marc Asensio Manjon, RECSM, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Melanie Revilla, RECSM, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Wiebke Weber, RECSM, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain


Many studies were conducted to help researchers designing high quality surveys. Testing theoretical considerations, these studies create empirical evidence that should serve for guidance. However, we often come across surveys that do not follow those literature recommendations. While this might be due to the trade-offs between data quality, comparability (across time or countries), and costs, in this paper, we provide information about the scales used in practice by 10 well-established social science face-to-face surveys. We found that: 1) agree/disagree scales are used in all 10 surveys but in a maximum of 15.7% of the items; 2) most attitude or belief …


, , , ,

No Comments

Optimizing Advance Letters: Findings From a Cognitive Pretest

Silke Martin, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
Anouk Zabal, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
Sanja Kapidzic, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
Timo Lenzner, GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany


In many surveys, advance letters are the first point of contact with target persons. The letters have multiple objectives, such as informing about the survey request, gaining trust, and evoking participation. Numerous previous quantitative and experimental studies have varied the content and layout of advance letters to examine effects on outcome rates and nonresponse bias. In contrast, studies on advance letters using qualitative approaches are rather scarce, although they can provide more information on how respondents process advance letters and perceive certain aspects of advance letters. The present study implemented a cognitive pretest in which 20 participants evaluated three advance …


, , , ,

No Comments

Cost Efficiency of Incentives in Mature Probability-based Online Panels

Oliver Lipps, FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne & University of Bern, Switzerland
Julien Jaquet, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Lukas Lauener, FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne, Switzerland
Anke Tresch, FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne & University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Nicolas Pekari, FORS (Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences), Lausanne, Switzerland


Little is known about the trade-off between response rates and sample selection on the one hand and costs of different incentives on the other hand in mature online panel surveys. In wave 5 of the Panel Survey of the Swiss Election Study (Selects), a conditional CHF 20 (cash) is used for the politically least interested, while the remaining sample is randomized in two incentive groups: a conditional CHF 10 (cash) and a lottery (5×300 CHF). In the two experimental groups, there are only small differences regarding sample composition, and response rates are only slightly higher in the more expensive cash …


, , , , ,

No Comments

Are you listening? Examining the level of multitasking and distractions and their impact on data quality in a telephone survey

Adam Stefkovics, Harvard University, USA & Center for Social Sciences, Hungary


Earlier studies suggest that multitasking and distractions are common in telephone surveys. When respondents engage in secondary activities or are being distracted, they may not be able to fully engage in the cognitive process of answering survey questions. As a result, multitasking may harm data quality. To assess the level of multitasking and distractions and their impact on data quality I draw on self-reports from a telephone survey (N=1000) conducted in Hungary in 2021. The results show that the majority of respondents were multitasking, whereas only 7.5 percent got distracted during the survey. Few factors predicted multitasking and distractions, while …


, , , ,

No Comments

Binary response format or 11-point scale? Measuring justice evaluations of earnings in the SOEP

Jule Adriaans, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany
Philipp Eisnecker, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany
Carsten Sauer, Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany
Peter Valet, Department of Sociology, University of Bamberg, Germany


Questions on justice of earnings are regularly fielded in large-scale surveys but insights into the role of response formats on measures of the justice of earnings are missing. This problem is illustrated by the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), which, in 2017, changed its question on the justice of one’s own earnings from a binary response scale to an 11-point scale. Meanwhile, the share of respondents evaluating their earnings as just dropped considerably, leaving unclear how methodological and substantive effects are intertwined. Addressing this gap, we analysed a survey experiment in the 2016 Innovation Sample of the SOEP (SOEP-IS). In …


, , , ,

No Comments

An Experiment Comparing Concurrent and Sequential Choice+ Mixed-Mode Data Collection Protocols in a Self-Administered Health Survey

Taylor Lewis, RTI International, Washington DC, USA
Naomi Freedner, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
Charlotte Looby, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA


In self-administered web and paper mode surveys, the Choice+ protocol, which offers both modes concurrently but with a differentially higher incentive for responding by web, has been shown to increase the share of responses obtained by web and to increase response rates overall relative to a concurrent design with equal incentive amounts. This protocol was initially adopted for the 2020 Healthy Chicago Survey. After observing fewer than 20% of the 2020 completes coming via paper, however, an experiment was fielded in the 2021 administration to evaluate a sequential variant of the Choice+ protocol in which the paper mode was only …


, , , ,

No Comments

Family Forms Survey: Identifying Donor-Conceived Offspring, Donors, and Recipients in a National Panel

Rachel Arocho[*1], Elizabeth B. Lozano[2,3], Rebecca L. Hansen[1], Rhea Rehani[2], Abigail F. Thompson[1], Taylor G. Fleming[2], Elizabeth C. Cooksey[4]

1 Utah Valley University *corresponding author
2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3 California Northstate University College of Health Sciences
4 CHRR at The Ohio State University


Complicated families, such as those created through gamete donation, deserve scientific study to best understand their experiences and develop evidence-based support. However, research on donor-conceived (DC) offspring has often been stymied by a lack of representative and general samples; samples in this area have often relied on clinical populations and biased means of sampling. Gamete donors have been similarly hard to find, and recipient parents have also often been recruited through self-selected groups. Additionally, given the rise of popular discussion around donor conception in media, greater understanding of public familiarity with DC issues is needed. Thus, our project had two …


, , , ,

No Comments

The effect of advance letters on survey participation: The case of Ireland and the European Social Survey

Daniel Capistrano, University College Dublin, Ireland
Mathew Creighton, University College Dublin, Ireland


This study examined the effects of advance letters on individual participation in the 2018 round of the European Social Survey in Ireland. As participation rates in household surveys have been in decline in many countries, understanding the impact of engagement strategies, such as prior contact, are crucial for fieldwork planning and overall quality of data collection. Based on a natural experiment, we assessed the likelihood of individuals to take part in the survey comparing those who have received an advance letter with those who did not receive it. Contrary to previous evidence on the effectiveness of prior contact, our results …


, , ,

No Comments

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License