University of Bradford, UK.
Eval Health Prof. 2013 Sep;36(3):330-51. doi: 10.1177/0163278713496565. Epub 2013 Aug 1.
Nonresponse bias in survey research can result in misleading or inaccurate findings and assessment of nonresponse bias is advocated to determine response sample representativeness. Four methods of assessing nonresponse bias (analysis of known characteristics of a population, subsampling of nonresponders, wave analysis, and linear extrapolation) were applied to the results of a postal survey of U.K. hospital organizations. The purpose was to establish whether validated methods for assessing nonresponse bias at the individual level can be successfully applied to an organizational level survey. The aim of the initial survey was to investigate trends in the implementation of radiographer abnormality detection schemes, and a response rate of 63.7% (325/510) was achieved. This study identified conflicting trends in the outcomes of analysis of nonresponse bias between the different methods applied and we were unable to validate the continuum of resistance theory as applied to organizational survey data. Further work is required to ensure established nonresponse bias analysis approaches can be successfully applied to organizational survey data. Until then, it is suggested that a combination of methods should be used to enhance the rigor of survey analysis.
调查研究中的无回应偏差可能导致误导或不准确的发现，因此提倡评估无回应偏差，以确定回应样本的代表性。本研究将四种评估无回应偏差的方法（分析人口的已知特征、对无回应者进行抽样、波分析和线性外推）应用于英国医院组织的邮寄调查结果。目的是确定评估个体水平无回应偏差的经过验证的方法是否可以成功应用于组织水平的调查。最初调查的目的是调查放射技师异常检测方案实施的趋势，回应率为 63.7%（325/510）。这项研究发现，应用不同方法分析无回应偏差的结果之间存在冲突的趋势，我们无法验证连续抵抗理论在组织调查数据中的应用。需要进一步的工作来确保已建立的无回应偏差分析方法可以成功应用于组织调查数据。在那之前，建议使用多种方法来增强调查分析的严谨性。
