AAPOR standard definition 8th edition
Venue
AAPOR (2015)
Publication Year
2015
Authors
Tom E. Smith, Rob Daves, Paul J. Lavrakas, Mick P. Couper, Timothy P. Johnson, Sara Zuckerbraun, Katherine Morton, David Dutwin, Mario Callegaro, Mansour Fahimi
BibTeX
Abstract
Background: For a long time, survey researchers have needed more comprehensive and
reliable diagnostic tools to understand the components of total survey error. Some
of those components, such as margin of sampling error, are relatively easily
calculated and familiar to many who use survey research. Other components, such as
the influence of question wording on responses, are more difficult to ascertain.
Groves (1989) catalogues error into three other major potential areas in which it
can occur in sample surveys. One is coverage, where error can result if some
members of the population under study do not have a known nonzero chance of being
included in the sample. Another is measurement effect, such as when the instrument
or items on the instrument are constructed in such a way to produce unreliable or
invalid data. The third is nonresponse effect, where nonrespondents in the sample
that researchers originally drew differ from respondents inways that are germane to
the objectives of the survey. Defining final disposition codes and calculating
survey outcome rates is the topic for this booklet. Often it is assumed — correctly
or not — that the lower the response rate, the more question there is about the
validity of the sample. Although response rate information alone is not sufficient
for determining how much nonresponse error exists in a survey, or even whether it
exists, calculating the rates is a critical first step to understanding the
presence of this component of potential survey error. By knowing the disposition of
every element drawn in a survey sample, researchers can assess whether their sample
might contain nonresponse error and the potential reasons for that error. With this
report AAPOR offers a tool that can be used as a guide to one important aspect of a
survey's quality. It is a comprehensive, well-delineated way of describing the
final disposition of cases and calculating outcome rates for surveys conducted by
telephone (landline and cell), for personal interviews in a sample of households,
for mail surveys of specifically named persons (i.e., a survey in which named
persons are the sampled elements), and for Web surveys. AAPOR urges all
practitioners to use these standardized sample disposition codes in all reports of
survey methods, no matter if the project is proprietary work for private sector
clients or a public, government or academic survey. This will enable researchers to
find common ground on which to compare the outcome rates for different surveys.
The eighth edition (2015) was edited by Smith who chaired the committee of Daves,
Lavrakas, Couper, and Johnson. The revised section on establishment surveys was
developed by Sara Zuckerbraun and Katherine Morton. The new section on dual-frame
telephone surveys was prepared by a sub-committee headed by Daves with Smith, David
Dutwin, Mario Callegaro, and Mansour Fahimi as members.
