RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:117-34. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.525297.
Using list-assisted random digit dialing (RDD) with telephone data collection and address-based sampling (ABS) with mail questionnaires are two survey designs that yield probability based inference, yet they are so different that they can yield entirely different results. The 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the effect of these different designs on a variety of survey estimates and, even more importantly, the effect on individual sources of survey error. Understanding the difference in error structure between the two designs is important to survey practitioners in order to select the optimum design, and to data users who can anticipate which results may be affected and how. We first compared estimates between the two designs and then estimated the different sources of error. In addition to identified differences in estimates, we found that for some estimates the two designs can yield similar results merely due to the effect of similar biases. The error components were quite different between the two designs--while the ABS design yields almost complete coverage of the population compared to the RDD design, it was subjected to substantially higher nonresponse bias.
使用列表辅助随机数字拨号 (RDD) 进行电话数据收集和基于地址的抽样 (ABS) 进行邮件问卷调查是两种产生基于概率推断的调查设计,但它们非常不同,可能会产生完全不同的结果。2007 年健康信息国家趋势调查 (HINTS) 提供了一个独特的机会,可以评估这些不同设计对各种调查估计的影响,更重要的是,评估对个别调查误差源的影响。了解这两种设计之间误差结构的差异对于调查从业者选择最佳设计以及对于可以预测哪些结果可能受到影响以及如何受到影响的数据使用者非常重要。我们首先比较了两种设计之间的估计值,然后估计了不同的误差源。除了估计值的明显差异外,我们还发现对于某些估计值,两种设计由于相似偏差的影响,可能会产生相似的结果。两种设计之间的误差成分差异很大——虽然 ABS 设计与 RDD 设计相比几乎完全覆盖了人口,但它受到了更高的非响应偏差的影响。