This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by FITZGERALD, R. Articles by FULLER, L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

I Hear You Knocking But You Can't Come In

The Effects of Reluctant Respondents and Refusers on Sample Survey Estimates

University of California, Berkeley

LINDA FULLER

University of California, Berkeley

This article examines the effects of refusers and reluctant respondents to a general population survey on estimates of population distributions and multivariate relationships. Our data indicate that refusers do not constitute a simple random sample of respondents, and that efforts to correct for nonresponse by positing a "continuum of resistance" with refusers assumed to resemble reluctant respondents is not justified. Furthermore, we find that refusers and reluctant respondents can have serious effects on estimates of the relationship among variables. We do this by using analysis of covariance to assess the effect of callbacks on sample estimates and an imputation technique that can be used routinely in personal interview surveys to detect the magnitude and significance of refusal bias on final sample estimates.

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, 3-32 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124182011001001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. C. SCHAEFFER, J. A. SELTZER, and M. KLAWITTER Estimating Nonresponse and Response Bias: Resident and Nonresident Parents' Reports about Child Support Sociological Methods Research, August 1, 1991; 20(1): 30 - 59. [Abstract]