PDF herunterladen
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2016; 66(07): 280-282
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108565
Fragen aus der Forschungspraxis
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Verwendung von geldwerten Belohnungen (Incentives) in persönlichen Umfragen vor dem Hintergrund sinkender Ausschöpfungsraten

Use of Monetary Incentives in Face-to-Face Surveys in Light of Decreasing Response Rates
Klaus Pforr
GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, B2,1, 68159 Mannheim
,
Beatrice Rammstedt
GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, B2,1, 68159 Mannheim
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
07. Juli 2016 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints
Was wird erklärt?

Da Bevölkerungsumfragen in Deutschland zunehmend mit dem Problem niedriger Ausschöpfungsquoten konfrontiert sind, werden vermehrt monetäre Incentives eingesetzt. Hier soll ein Überblick zur Befundlage von Vor- und Nachteilen monetärer Incentives sowie eine Empfehlung zu den Umständen der Vergabe von Incentives gegeben werden.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Schnell R. Nonresponse in Bevölkerungsumfragen: Ausmaß, Entwicklung und Ursachen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich; 1997
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Schoeni RF, Stafford F, McGonagle K et al. Response rates in national panel surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2013; 645: 60-87
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Brick JM, Williams D. Explaining Rising Nonresponse Rates in Cross-Sectional Surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2013; 645: 36-59
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63: 581-592
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Schnell R. Survey-Interviews: Methoden standardisierter Befragungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag; 2012
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Church AH. Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly 1993; 57: 62-79
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Edwards PRI, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ 2002; 324: 1183-1192
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Rumpf H. Was ist ein Odds Ratio?. Psychother Psych Med 2010; 60: 190-191
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Göritz AS. Incentives in web studies: Methodological issues and a review. International Journal of Internet Science 2006; 1: 58-70
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gelman A, Stevens M, Chan V. Regression Modeling and Meta-Analysis for Decision Making: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Incentives in Telephone Surveys. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 2003; 21: 213-225
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Singer E, van Hoewyk J, Gebler N et al. The effect of incentives on response rates in interviewer-mediated surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 1999; 15: 217-230
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mercer A, Caporaso A, Cantor D et al. How Much Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2015; 79: 105-129
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Simmons E, Wilmot A. Incentive Payment on Social Surveys: a Literature Review. Social Survey Methodology Bulletin 2004; 53: 1-11
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Scherpenzeel A, Toepoel V. Recruiting a probability sample for an online panel: Effects of contact mode, incentives and information. Public Opinion Quarterly 2012; 76: 470-490
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Laurie H, Lynn P. The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys. In: Lynn P, ed. Methodology of longitudinal surveys. Chichester: Wiley; 2009: 205-223
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Goldenberg KL, McGrath D, Tan L. The Effects of Incentives on the Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. American Statistical Association; 2007: 5985-5999 http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2009/Files/400053.pdf
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Jäckle A, Lynn P. Respondent incentives in a multi-mode panel survey: Cumulative effects on nonresponse and bias. Survey Methodology 2008; 34: 105-117
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Laurie H. The effect of increasing financial incentives in a panel survey: An experiment on the british household panel survey, wave 14. Colchester: University of Essex; 2007
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Blohm M, Koch A. Respondent Incentives in a National Face-to-Face Survey: Effects on Outcome Rates, Sample Composition and Fieldwork Efforts. Methoden, Daten, Analysen (MDA) 2013; 7: 89-122
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Wetzels W, Schmeets H, van den Brakel J et al. Impact of Prepaid Incentives in Face-to-Face Surveys: A Large-Scale Experiment with Postage Stamps. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2008; 20: 507-516
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Fick P, Diehl C. Incentivierungsstrategien bei Minderheitenangehörigen: Ergebnisse eines Methodenexperiments. Methoden, Daten, Analysen (MDA) 2013; 7: 59-88
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Göritz AS. Using lotteries, loyalty points, and other incentives to increase participant response and completion. In: Gosling SD, Johnson JA, eds. Advanced methods for conducting online behavioral research. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2010: 219-233
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Pforr K, Blohm M, Blom AG et al. Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly 2015; 79: 740-768
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Blom AG, Gathmann C, Krieger U. Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population: The German Internet Panel. Field Methods 2015; 27: 391-408
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Börsch-Supan A, Krieger U, Schröder M. Respondent incentives, interviewer training and survey participation. München: Munich Center for the Economics of Ageing (MEA); 2013
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Singer E, van Hoewyk J, Maher MP. Does the payment of incentives create expectation effects?. Public Opinion Quarterly 1998; 62: 152-164
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Schupp J. Die verborgenen Kosten monetärer Anreize: Lohnt sich Motivierung durch Incentivierung?. DIW-Wochenbericht 2012; 79: 20
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Grant RW. Strings attached: Untangling the ethics of incentives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2011
    Suche in Google Scholar