nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.09.2010

Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers

verfasst von: Frederik Anseel, Filip Lievens, Eveline Schollaert, Beata Choragwicka

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 3/2010

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

This study expands upon existing knowledge of response rates by conducting a large-scale quantitative review of published response rates. This allowed a fine-grained comparison of response rates across respondent groups. Other unique features of this study are the analysis of response enhancing techniques across respondent groups and response rate trends over time. In order to aid researchers in designing surveys, we provide expected response rate percentiles for different survey modalities.

Design

We analyzed 2,037 surveys, covering 1,251,651 individual respondents, published in 12 journals in I/O Psychology, Management, and Marketing during the period 1995–2008. Expected response rate levels were summarized for different types of respondents and use of response enhancing techniques was coded for each study.

Findings

First, differences in mean response rate were found across respondent types with the lowest response rates reported for executive respondents and the highest for non-working respondents and non-managerial employees. Second, moderator analyses suggested that the effectiveness of response enhancing techniques was dependent on type of respondents. Evidence for differential prediction across respondent type was found for incentives, salience, identification numbers, sponsorship, and administration mode. When controlling for increased use of response enhancing techniques, a small decline in response rates over time was found.

Implications

Our findings suggest that existing guidelines for designing effective survey research may not always offer the most accurate information available. Survey researchers should be aware that they may obtain lower/higher response rates depending on the respondent type surveyed and that some response enhancing techniques may be less/more effective in specific samples.

Originality/value

This study, analyzing the largest set of published response rates to date, offers the first evidence for different response rates and differential functioning of response enhancing techniques across respondent types.

Vorheriger Artikel What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research

Nächster Artikel Sequential and Combined Effects of Recruitment Information on Applicant Reactions

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, and Journal of Managerial Psychology have been included in ISI Web of Science in 2005 and 2008, respectively.

Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. New York: Guilford Press.

Allen, C., Schewe, C. D., & Wijk, G. (1980). More on self-perception theory’s foot technique in the pre call/mail survey setting. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 498–502.CrossRef

Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal impact factors and self-citations: Implications for psychology journals. American Psychologist, 59, 49–51.CrossRefPubMed

Applebaum, H. (1986). The anthropology of work in industrial society. Anthropology of Work Review, 7, 25–32.CrossRef

Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421–438.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139–1160.CrossRef

Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships. R & D Management, 24, 229–247.CrossRef

Bruvold, N. T., Comer, J. M., & Rospert, A. M. (1990). Interactive effects of major response facilitators. Decision Sciences, 21, 551–562.CrossRef

Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.CrossRef

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2004). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Converse, P. R., Wolfe, E. W., Huang, X. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Response rates for mixed-mode surveys using mail and e-mail/Web. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 99–107.CrossRef

Creed, P. A., & Klisch, J. (2005). Future outlook and financial strain: Testing the personal agency and latent deprivation models of unemployment and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 251–260.CrossRefPubMed

Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2002). Enhancing survey response rates at the executive level: Are employee- or consumer-level techniques effective? Journal of Management, 28, 151–176.CrossRef

Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 133–160.CrossRef

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.CrossRefPubMed

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York: Wiley.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

Dillman, D. A. (2002). Navigating the rapids of change: Some observations on survey methodology in the early twenty-first century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 473–494.CrossRef

Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, C., Wentz, R., et al. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 324, 1–9.CrossRef

Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467–491.CrossRef

Gendall, P., Hoek, J., & Brennan, M. (1998). The tea bag experiment: More evidence on incentives in mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 347–351.

Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 2–31.CrossRef

Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-salience theory of survey participation: Description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.CrossRefPubMed

Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447–462.CrossRef

Hopkins, K. D., & Gullickson, A. R. (1993). Response rates in survey research: A meta-analysis of the effects of monetary gratuities. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 52–62.

McKee, D. O. (1992). The effect of using a questionnaire identification code and message about non-response follow-up plans on mail survey response characteristics. Journal of the Marker Research Society, 34, 179–191.

Paxson, M. C. (1995). Increasing survey response rates: Practical instructions from the total design method. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36, 66–73.

Rogelberg, S. G., Conway, J. M., Sederburg, M. E., Spitzmuller, C., Aziz, S., & Knight, W. E. (2003). Profiling active and passive nonrespondents to an organizational survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1104–1114.CrossRefPubMed

Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse: Introduction. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.CrossRef

Roth, P. L., & BeVier, C. A. (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey research: Norms and correlates, 1990–1994. Journal of Management, 24, 97–117.CrossRef

Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. T. (2008). Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249–271.CrossRef

Sills, S. J., & Song, C. Y. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of Web-based surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 22–30.CrossRef

Spitzmuller, C., Glenn, D. M., Barr, C. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Daniel, P. (2006). “If you treat me right, I reciprocate”: Examining the role of exchange in organizational survey–response. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 19–35.CrossRef

Trussel, N., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2004). The influence of incremental increases in token cash incentives on mail survey response—Is there an optimal amount? Public Opinion Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 349–367.CrossRef

Van den Berg, G. J., Lindeboom, M., & Dolton, P. J. (2006). Survey non-response and the duration of unemployment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 169, 585–604.

Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613–629.CrossRef

Yu, J., & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36–44.CrossRef

Titel: Response Rates in Organizational Science, 1995–2008: A Meta-analytic Review and Guidelines for Survey Researchers
verfasst von: Frederik Anseel
Filip Lievens
Eveline Schollaert
Beata Choragwicka
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2010
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9157-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design

Findings

Implications

Originality/value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2010

How Benefit Information and Demographics Influence Employee Recruiting in Mexico

Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes

Trait Entitlement and Perceived Favorability of Human Resource Management Practices in the Prediction of Job Satisfaction

Resistance to Socialization into Organizational Corruption: A Model of Deontic Justice

Moderating Effects of Self-Regulatory Focus on Source–Content Incongruity

The Alignment of Measures and Constructs in Organizational Research: The Case of Testing Measurement Models of Creativity

Premium Partner