Cargando…

Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Minimising participant non-response in postal surveys helps to maximise the generalisability of the inferences made from the data collected. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on postal survey response rate and quali...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sahlqvist, Shannon, Song, Yena, Bull, Fiona, Adams, Emma, Preston, John, Ogilvie, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21548947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-62
_version_ 1782205484386746368
author Sahlqvist, Shannon
Song, Yena
Bull, Fiona
Adams, Emma
Preston, John
Ogilvie, David
author_facet Sahlqvist, Shannon
Song, Yena
Bull, Fiona
Adams, Emma
Preston, John
Ogilvie, David
author_sort Sahlqvist, Shannon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimising participant non-response in postal surveys helps to maximise the generalisability of the inferences made from the data collected. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on postal survey response rate and quality and to compare the cost-effectiveness of the alternative survey strategies. METHODS: In a pilot study for a population study of travel behaviour, physical activity and the environment, 1000 participants sampled from the UK edited electoral register were randomly allocated using a 2 × 2 factorial design to receive one of four survey packs: a personally addressed long (24 page) questionnaire pack, a personally addressed short (15 page) questionnaire pack, a non-personally addressed long questionnaire pack or a non-personally addressed short questionnaire pack. Those who did not return a questionnaire were stratified by initial randomisation group and further randomised to receive either a full reminder pack or a reminder postcard. The effects of the survey design factors on response were examined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 17% was achieved. Participants who received the short version of the questionnaire were more likely to respond (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.07). In those participants who received a reminder, personalisation of the survey pack and reminder also increased the odds of response (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.95). Item non-response was relatively low, but was significantly higher in the long questionnaire than the short (9.8% vs 5.8%; p = .04). The cost per additional usable questionnaire returned of issuing the reminder packs was £23.1 compared with £11.3 for the reminder postcards. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to some previous studies of shorter questionnaires, this trial found that shortening a relatively lengthy questionnaire significantly increased the response. Researchers should consider the trade off between the value of additional questions and a larger sample. If low response rates are expected, personalisation may be an important strategy to apply. Sending a full reminder pack to non-respondents appears a worthwhile, albeit more costly, strategy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3110121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31101212011-06-08 Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial Sahlqvist, Shannon Song, Yena Bull, Fiona Adams, Emma Preston, John Ogilvie, David BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Minimising participant non-response in postal surveys helps to maximise the generalisability of the inferences made from the data collected. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on postal survey response rate and quality and to compare the cost-effectiveness of the alternative survey strategies. METHODS: In a pilot study for a population study of travel behaviour, physical activity and the environment, 1000 participants sampled from the UK edited electoral register were randomly allocated using a 2 × 2 factorial design to receive one of four survey packs: a personally addressed long (24 page) questionnaire pack, a personally addressed short (15 page) questionnaire pack, a non-personally addressed long questionnaire pack or a non-personally addressed short questionnaire pack. Those who did not return a questionnaire were stratified by initial randomisation group and further randomised to receive either a full reminder pack or a reminder postcard. The effects of the survey design factors on response were examined using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: An overall response rate of 17% was achieved. Participants who received the short version of the questionnaire were more likely to respond (OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.07). In those participants who received a reminder, personalisation of the survey pack and reminder also increased the odds of response (OR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.95). Item non-response was relatively low, but was significantly higher in the long questionnaire than the short (9.8% vs 5.8%; p = .04). The cost per additional usable questionnaire returned of issuing the reminder packs was £23.1 compared with £11.3 for the reminder postcards. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to some previous studies of shorter questionnaires, this trial found that shortening a relatively lengthy questionnaire significantly increased the response. Researchers should consider the trade off between the value of additional questions and a larger sample. If low response rates are expected, personalisation may be an important strategy to apply. Sending a full reminder pack to non-respondents appears a worthwhile, albeit more costly, strategy. BioMed Central 2011-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3110121/ /pubmed/21548947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-62 Text en Copyright ©2011 Sahlqvist et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sahlqvist, Shannon
Song, Yena
Bull, Fiona
Adams, Emma
Preston, John
Ogilvie, David
Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title_full Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title_short Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
title_sort effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21548947
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-62
work_keys_str_mv AT sahlqvistshannon effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT songyena effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT bullfiona effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT adamsemma effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT prestonjohn effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT ogilviedavid effectofquestionnairelengthpersonalisationandremindertypeonresponseratetoacomplexpostalsurveyrandomisedcontrolledtrial