Guilbert P, Beltzer N, Gautier A, Warszawski J, Riandey B
Direction des affaires scientifiques, Institut national de prévention et d'éducation pour la santé (Inpes), Saint-Denis, France.
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2011 Apr;59(2):91-6. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2010.11.003. Epub 2011 Mar 11.
Survey non-response rates are important quality indicators. Refusal rates can induce non-response bias in health survey estimates. However, comparisons across surveys highlight inconsistencies in the use of survey outcome categories and in the calculation of response rates. In this paper we discuss the relevance of these indicators and suggest other survey quality indicators.
Outcome rates from two French random-digit dialing (RDD) telephone surveys are compared : the Nicolle survey on infectious diseases of 4112 individuals conducted in 2006, and the HIV knowledge, attitude, belief and practices (KABP) survey of 5071 individuals in 2004. Based on the same protocol, we describe in details the way the two RDD samples were drawn and how non-response rates were estimated.
Non-response rates were different: 36% in Nicolle survey and 18% in KABP survey. However, the quantity of telephone numbers required to obtain one interview was higher in the KABP survey: 2.8 telephone numbers versus 2.1 in the Nicolle survey. The participation rates, aggregating together refusals, break-off and non-reachable numbers, were equivalent for the two surveys. This result occurred because of a greater proportion of unreached calls in the KABP surveys, which is not integrated into the non-response rates commonly used.
Survey non-response rate is insufficient to estimate the quality of a survey. The need for other indicators has been previously stressed in the literature, notably with the adoption and utilization of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) standard definitions of four indicators. But these indicators are quite complex for evaluating non-response bias between surveys. In addition to the classical refusal rate, two other indicators are proposed in this paper: participation rate (number of complete interviews divided by the number of eligible and of unknown eligibility units) and a liking contact rate (number of unreachable units because of a long absence, break-off or non-answer divided by the number of eligible and of unknown eligibility units). The sum of these three indicators is equal to 100% and thus easier to manipulate when comparing surveys.
调查无应答率是重要的质量指标。拒绝率可能会在健康调查估计中导致无应答偏差。然而，不同调查之间的比较凸显了在调查结果类别使用和应答率计算方面的不一致性。在本文中，我们讨论了这些指标的相关性，并提出了其他调查质量指标。
比较了两项法国随机数字拨号（RDD）电话调查的结果率：2006年对4112人进行的关于传染病的尼科尔调查，以及2004年对5071人进行的艾滋病毒知识、态度、信念和行为（KABP）调查。基于相同的方案，我们详细描述了两个RDD样本的抽取方式以及无应答率的估计方法。
无应答率不同：尼科尔调查为36%，KABP调查为18%。然而，KABP调查中获得一次访谈所需的电话号码数量更高：2.8个电话号码，而尼科尔调查为2.1个。两项调查将拒绝、中断和无法接通的号码汇总在一起后的参与率相当。出现这种结果是因为KABP调查中无法接通的电话比例更高，而这并未纳入常用的无应答率中。
调查无应答率不足以评估一项调查的质量。文献中此前已强调需要其他指标，特别是采用和运用美国民意研究协会（AAPOR）对四个指标的标准定义。但这些指标在评估不同调查之间的无应答偏差时相当复杂。除了经典的拒绝率外，本文还提出了另外两个指标：参与率（完成访谈的数量除以符合条件和资格未知的单位数量）和喜好联系率（因长期无人接听、中断或无应答而无法接通的单位数量除以符合条件和资格未知的单位数量）。这三个指标的总和等于100%，因此在比较调查时更易于操作。
