The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
The total survey error (TSE) paradigm provides a theoretical framework for optimizing surveys by maximizing data quality within budgetary constraints. In this article, the TSE paradigm is viewed as part of a much larger design strategy that seeks to optimize surveys by maximizing total survey quality; i.e., quality more broadly defined to include user-specified dimensions of quality. Survey methodology, viewed within this larger framework, alters our perspectives on the survey design, implementation, and evaluation. As an example, although a major objective of survey design is to maximize accuracy subject to costs and timeliness constraints, the survey budget must also accommodate additional objectives related to relevance, accessibility, interpretability, comparability, coherence, and completeness that are critical to a survey's “fitness for use.” The article considers how the total survey quality approach can be extended beyond survey design to include survey implementation and evaluation. In doing so, the “fitness for use” perspective is shown to influence decisions regarding how to reduce survey error during design implementation and what sources of error should be evaluated in order to assess the survey quality today and to prepare for the surveys of the future.
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
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Introduction to Statistical Quality Control
Sauter, R. M., & Montgomery, D. C. (1992) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1269251 · Cited by 7,842
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,345
Survey Errors and Survey Costs.
Faulkenberry, G. D., & Groves, R. M. (1990) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289634 · Cited by 1,438
Introduction to Variance Estimation.
King, B. F., & Wolter, K. M. (1987) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289497 · Cited by 1,377
Gryna, F. M. (1970) · Cited by 904
Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires
(2004) · doi:10.1002/0471654728 · Cited by 855
An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement
Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/269029 · Cited by 825
To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys.
de Leeuw, E. D. (2005) · Journal of Official Statistics · Cited by 808
Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods
Gardner, M. M. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2000.10486054 · Cited by 772
Cited by
Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison
Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. F. (2014) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpt025 · Cited by 573
Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey
Diaz, F., Gamon, M., Hofman, J. M., Kıcıman, E., & Rothschild, D. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145406 · Cited by 131
Strain, T., Fitzsimons, C., Kelly, P., & Mutrie, N. (2016) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3774-6 · Cited by 131
Toepoel, V., & Lugtig, P. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439318784882 · Cited by 30
Mulvany, J. L., Hetherington, V. J., & VanGeest, J. B. (2019) · The Foot · doi:10.1016/j.foot.2019.05.005 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Biemer, P. P.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 817-848
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2108770903
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 40.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfq058
- The paper
- Biemer, P. P. (2010). Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq058
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.