Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 583

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What (Not) to Expect When Surveying Executives: A Meta-Analysis of Top Manager Response Rates and Techniques Over Time

Cycyota, Cynthia S., Harrison, David A.·2006·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428105280770
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The authors developed hypotheses about the effectiveness of response rate techniques for organizational researchers surveying executives. Using meta-analytic procedures to test those hypotheses, the authors analyzed response rate data from 231 studies that surveyed executives and appeared in top management journals from 1992 to 2003. They found mean response rates to be declining over the period, yielding an overall 32% rate. Of the various methods suggested to increase response rates in other populations, none were found to be effective for executives. However, topical salience and sponsorship by an organization or person in the executive's social networks did bring about response rate increases. The authors provide recommendations about what (not) to do when trying to collectoriginal data from members of a firm's upper echelons.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428105280770

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 583

Metadata

Authors
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2006-04
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
133-160
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428105280770
OpenAlex
W2150656873
Cited by
583
References
14
FWCI
59.94
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

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.