The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework
Open accessAbstract
Survey methodology has been and continues to be a pervasively used data-collection method in social science research. To better understand the state of the science, we first analyze response-rate information reported in 1014 surveys described in 703 articles from 17 journals from 2010 to 2020. Results showed a steady increase in average response rate from 48% in 2005 to 53% in 2010 to 56% in 2015 and 68% in 2020; a marked increase in the number of surveys per published article from 1.27 in 2015 to 1.79 in 2020; and that variables that predict response-rate fluctuations over time are related to research design (e.g. data-collection medium), participant motivation (e.g. incentives), and researcher motivation (i.e. number of surveys per article). Second, we propose complementary information on contemporary response-rate norms and benchmarks with a response-rate validity assessment framework to gather evidence on accuracy of inferences based on a particular response-rate level. Implementing this validation process involves gathering information on the researcher–participant relationship, participant qualifications and motivation, survey length and complexity, and cultural and national context. Future survey research should implement the validity assessment framework in addition to reporting the response-rate value to better indicate a sample’s quality, appropriateness, and representativeness.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Triandis, H. C. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.506 · Cited by 5,019
Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross‐National Consumer Research
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209528 · Cited by 4,750
Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260645 · Cited by 4,460
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256434 · Cited by 3,818
Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726708094863 · Cited by 3,462
Self-citationRESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN MANAGEMENT: CURRENT PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556348 · Cited by 1,186
Comparing Response Rates from Web and Mail Surveys: A Meta-Analysis
Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x08317085 · Cited by 1,159
Cited by
‘Better together’: Evidence on the joint adoption of circular economy and industry 4.0 technologies
Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Choi, T.-M., & Latan, H. (2022) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108581 · Cited by 122
Hasan, E. F., Alzuod, M. A., Al Jasimee, K. H., Alshdaifat, S. M., Hijazin, A. F., & Khrais, L. T. (2025) · Journal of Risk and Financial Management · doi:10.3390/jrfm18030147 · Cited by 49
Ng, J., Tong, M., Tsang, E. Y. M., Chu, K., & Tsang, W. (2025) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-025-04010-4 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Holtom, B., Baruch, Y., Aguinis, H., & A Ballinger, G.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-02-01
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1560-1584
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W4210376299
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 101.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00187267211070769
- The paper
- Holtom, B., Baruch, Y., Aguinis, H., & A Ballinger, G. (2022). Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070769
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.