The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
A meta-analysis of prior studies of techniques designed to induce mail survey response rates was conducted. Research encompassing 184 effects (study outcomes) in 115 studies (articles) for 17 predictors of response rate was examined. The average effect size across all manipulations was r=.065, indicating an average increase of about 6.5 percent in response rates for manipulations. Effect sizes for specific predictors and two potential moderators of effects were examined. Results indicated that repeated contacts in the form of preliminary notification and follow-ups, appeals, inclusion of a return envelope, postage, and monetary incentives, were effective in increasing survey response rates. Significant effect sizes for the predictors ranged from an increase in response of 2 percent to 31 percent. Implications of the results for the conduct of mail surveys and future research on mail survey response behavior are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Cited by
Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals
Asch, D. A., Jedrziewski, M. K., & Christakis, N. A. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00126-1 · Cited by 2,110
Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard: A Preliminary Look at Cyberbullying
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006) · Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice · doi:10.1177/1541204006286288 · Cited by 1,701
One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331 · Cited by 1,558
E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review
Sheehan, K. B. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x · Cited by 1,441
Missing Data: Five Practical Guidelines
Newman, D. A. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114548590 · Cited by 1,411
Metadata
- Authors
- Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 613
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1969736152
- Cited by
- 566
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/269284
- The paper
- Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1086/269284
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
