Is web interviewing a good alternative to telephone interviewing? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Web interviewing is becoming increasingly popular worldwide, because it has several advantages over telephone interviewing such as lower costs and shorter fieldwork periods. However, there are also concerns about data quality of web surveys. The aim of this study was to compare the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands web and telephone samples on demographic and smoking related variables to assess differences in data quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Wave 1 of the ITC Netherlands Survey was completed by 1,668 web respondents and 404 telephone respondents of 18 years and older. The two surveys were conducted in parallel among adults who reported smoking at least monthly and had smoked at least 100 cigarettes over their lifetime.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both the web and telephone survey had a cooperation rate of 78%. Web respondents with a fixed line telephone were significantly more often married, had a lower educational level, and were older than web respondents without a fixed line telephone. Telephone respondents with internet access were significantly more often married, had a higher educational level, and were younger than telephone respondents without internet. Web respondents were significantly less often married and lower educated than the Dutch population of smokers. Telephone respondents were significantly less often married and higher educated than the Dutch population of smokers. Web respondents used the "don't know" options more often than telephone respondents. Telephone respondents were somewhat more negative about smoking, had less intention to quit smoking, and had more self efficacy for quitting. The known association between educational level and self efficacy was present only in the web survey.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Differences between the web and telephone sample were present, but the differences were small and not consistently favourable for either web or telephone interviewing. Our study findings suggested sometimes a better data quality in the web than in the telephone survey. Therefore, web interviewing can be a good alternative to telephone interviewing.</p

Gendered Risk Perceptions Associated with Human-Wildlife Conflict: Implications for Participatory Conservation

This research aims to foster discourse about the extent to which gender is important to consider within the context of participatory approaches for biological conservation. Our objectives are to: (1) gender-disaggregate data about stakeholders' risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in a participatory conservation context, and (2) highlight insights from characterizing gendered similarities and differences in the way people think about HWC-related risks. Two communal conservancies in Caprivi, Namibia served as case study sites. We analyzed data from focus groups (n = 2) to create gendered concept maps about risks to wildlife and livelihoods and any associations of those risks with HWC, and semi-structured interviews (n = 76; men = 38, women = 38) to measure explicit risk attitudes associated with HWC. Concept maps indicated some divergent perceptions in how groups characterized risks to wildlife and livelihoods; however, not only were identified risks to wildlife (e.g., pollution, hunting) dissimilar in some instances, descriptions of risks varied as well. Study groups reported similar risk perceptions associated with HWC with the exception of worry associated with HWC effects on local livelihoods. Gendered differences in risk perceptions may signal different priorities or incentives to participate in efforts to resolve HWC-related risks. Thus, although shared goals and interests may seem to be an obvious reason for cooperative wildlife management, it is not always obvious that management goals are shared. Opportunity exists to move beyond thinking about gender as an explanatory variable for understanding how different groups think about participating in conservation activities

Effect of Heavy Winter Rodent Infestation on Perennial Forage Plants

This material was digitized as part of a cooperative project between the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries.The Journal of Range Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact [email protected] for further information.Migrated from OJS platform August 202

Comparison of US Panel Vendors for Online Surveys

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of panel surveys, little is known about the differences in data quality across panels. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize panel survey companies and their respondents based on (1) the timeliness of response by panelists, (2) the reliability of the demographic information they self-report, and (3) the generalizability of the characteristics of panelists to the US general population. A secondary objective was to highlight several issues to consider when selecting a panel vendor. METHODS: We recruited a sample of US adults from 7 panel vendors using identical quotas and online surveys. All vendors met prespecified inclusion criteria. Panels were compared on the basis of how long the respondents took to complete the survey from time of initial invitation. To validate respondent identity, this study examined the proportion of consented respondents who failed to meet the technical criteria, failed to complete the screener questions, and provided discordant responses. Finally, characteristics of the respondents were compared to US census data and to the characteristics of other panels. RESULTS: Across the 7 panel vendors, 2% to 9% of panelists responded within 2 days of invitation; however, approximately 20% of the respondents failed the screener, largely because of the discordance between self-reported birth date and the birth date in panel entry data. Although geographic characteristics largely agreed with US Census estimates, each sample underrepresented adults who did not graduate from high school and/or had annual incomes less than US $15,000. Except for 1 vendor, panel vendor samples overlapped one another by approximately 20% (ie, 1 in 5 respondents participated through 2 or more panel vendors). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this head-to-head comparison provide potential benchmarks in panel quality. The issues to consider when selecting panel vendors include responsiveness, failure to maintain sociodemographic diversity and validated data, and potential overlap between panels