The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey
Abstract
Declining contact and cooperation rates in random digit dial (RDD) national telephone surveys raise serious concerns about the validity of estimates drawn from such research. While research in the 1990s indicated that nonresponse bias was relatively small, response rates have continued to fall since then. The current study replicates a 1997 methodological experiment that compared results from a “Standard” 5-day survey employing the Pew Research Center’s usual methodology with results from a “Rigorous” survey conducted over a much longer field period and achieving a significantly higher response rate. As with the 1997 study, there is little to suggest that unit nonresponse within the range of response rates obtained seriously threatens the quality of survey estimates. In 77 out of 84 comparable items, the two surveys yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable. While the “Rigorous” study respondents tended to be somewhat less politically engaged, they did not report consistently different behaviors or attitudes on other kinds of questions. With respect to sample composition, the Standard survey was closely aligned with estimates from the U.S. Census and other large government surveys on most variables. We extend our analysis of nonresponse to include comparisons with the hardest-to-reach respondents and with respondents who terminated the interview prior to completion.
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
Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys
Groves, R. M. (2006) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033 · Cited by 2,420
Cited by
Rubin, G. J., Amlot, R., Page, L., & Wessely, S. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2651 · Cited by 1,106
“26 Yet after a major incident, data on perceptions and behaviours must be collected quickly if they are to have any impact on policy.”
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H.-J., Barkan, S. E., Muraco, A., & Hoy-Ellis, C. P. (2013) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301110 · Cited by 965
Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020 · Cited by 758
Response Rates and Nonresponse Errors in Surveys
Johnson, T. P. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3532 · Cited by 701
Improving the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study Scale
Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2013) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.420 · Cited by 615
Metadata
- Authors
- Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 759-779
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2116942087
- Cited by
- 902
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 66.86
- 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: Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfl035
- The paper
- Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl035
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.