Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:10:51.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issue Attitudes and Survey Continuity across Interview Mode in the 2000 NES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Brian J. Fogarty,
Nathan J. Kelly and
H. Whitt Kilburn
Brian J. Fogarty
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–3265. e-mail: fogarty@email.unc.edu
Nathan J. Kelly
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260–4120. e-mail: nkelly@buffalo.edu
H. Whitt Kilburn
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599–3265. e-mail: wkilburn@email.unc.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can researchers draw consistent inferences about the U.S. public's issue attitudes when studying survey results from both the in-person and telephone interview modes of the 2000 National Election Studies (NES) survey? We address this question through an analysis contrasting the distribution of issue attitudes across modes in the dual sample design of the 2000 NES. We find clear differences across mode even when applying a method devised by the NES to improve comparability by recoding issue attitude scales from the in-person mode. We present an alternative method of recoding these scales, which substantially improves comparability between modes. Through an analysis of the covariance structure of the issues and simple models of vote choice, we discuss the implications of the results for the study of issue attitudes in the 2000 NES.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 2005, pp. 95 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Political Methodology 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aquilino, William S. 1994. “Interview Mode Effects in Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 210–240.Google Scholar
Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Kinder, Donald R., Rosenstone, Steven J., Sapiro, Virginia, National Election Studies. 2001. National Election Studies, 2000: Pre-/Post-Election Study [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies.Google Scholar
Calsyn, Robert J., Roades, Laurie A., and Calsyn, Dylan S. 1992. “Acquiescence in Needs Assessment Studies of the Elderly.” Gerontologist 32: 246–252.Google Scholar
Gfroerer, Joseph C., and Hughes, Arthur L. 1991. “The Feasibility of Collecting Drug Abuse Data by Telephone.” Public Health Reports 106: 384–393.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2003. “Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125.Google Scholar
Johnson, Timothy P. Jr. Hougland, James G., and Clayton, Richard R. 1989. “Obtaining Reports of Sensitive Behavior: A Comparison of Substance Use Reports from Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews.” Social Science Quarterly 70: 174–183.Google Scholar
Jordan, Lawrence A., Marcus, Alfred C., and Reeder, Leo G. 1980. “Response Styles in Telephone and Household Interviewing: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 210–222.Google Scholar
Klecka, William R., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. 1978. “Random Digit Dialing: A Comparison to Personal Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42: 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. “Response Strategies for Dealing with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, Edith D., and van der Zouwen, Johannes. 1988. “Data Quality in Telephone and Face to Face Surveys: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.” In Telephone Survey Methodolgy, eds. Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L. E., Massey, J. T., Nicholls, W. L., and Waksberg, J. New York: Wiley. 283–299.Google Scholar
Mulry-Liggan, Mary H. 1983. “A Comparison of a Random Digit Dialing Survey and the Current Population Survey.” In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association. 214–219.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and MacDonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Voting.” American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornberry, Owen T. 1987. An Experimental Comparison of Telephone and Personal Health Interview Surveys. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Wessel, Christina, Rahn, Wendy, and Rudolph, Thomas. 2000. An Analysis of the 1998 NES Mixed-Mode Design 2000 [cited 2004]. (Available from http://www.umich.edu/∼nes.)Google Scholar
Wolfe, Lee M. 1979. “Characteristics of Persons with and without Home Telephones.” Journal of Marketing Research 16: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar