Improving gambling survey research using dual-frame sampling of landline and mobile phone numbers

Gambling prevalence studies are typically conducted within a single (landline)&nbsp;telephone sampling frame. This practice continues, despite emerging evidence that significant&nbsp;differences exist between landline and mobile (cell) phone only households. This study&nbsp;utilised a dual-frame (landline and mobile) telephone sampling methodology to cast light on&nbsp;the extent of differences across groups of respondents in respect to demographic, health, and&nbsp;gambling characteristics. A total of 2,014 participants from across Australian states and&nbsp;territories ranging in age from 18 to 96 years participated. Interviews were conducted using&nbsp;computer assisted telephone interviewing technology where 1,012 respondents from the&nbsp;landline sampling frame and 1,002 from the mobile phone sampling frame completed a&nbsp;questionnaire about gambling and other health behaviours. Responses across the landline&nbsp;sampling frame, the mobile phone sampling frame, and the subset of the mobile phone&nbsp;sampling frame that possessed a mobile phone only (MPO) were contrasted. The findings&nbsp;revealed that although respondents in the landline sample (62.7 %) did not significantly&nbsp;differ from respondents in the mobile phone sample (59.2 %) in gambling participation in the&nbsp;previous 12 months, they were significantly more likely to have gambled in the previous&nbsp;12 months than the MPO sample (56.4 %). There were no significant differences in internet&nbsp;gambling participation over the previous 12 months in the landline sample (4.7 %), mobile&nbsp;phone sample (4.7 %) and the MPO sample (5.0 %). However, endorsement of lifetime&nbsp;problem gambling on the NODS-CLiP was significantly higher within the mobile sample&nbsp;(10.7 %) and the MPO sample (14.8 %) than the landline sample (6.6 %). Our research&nbsp;supports previous findings that reliance on a traditional landline telephone sampling&nbsp;approach effectively excludes distinct subgroups of the population from being represented inresearch findings. Consequently, we suggest that research best practice necessitates the use&nbsp;of a dual- rame sampling methodology. Despite inherent logistical and cost issues, this&nbsp;approach &nbsp;needs to become the norm in gambling survey research.</span

The Online Panels Benchmarking Study: a Total Survey Error comparison of fndings from probability-based surveys and nonprobability online panel surveys in Australia

The pervasiveness of the internet has led online research, and particularly online research undertaken via nonprobability online panels, to become the dominant mode of sampling and data collection used by the Australian market and social research industry. There are broad-based concerns that the rapid increase in the use of nonprobability online panels in Australia has not been accompanied by an informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages of probability and nonprobability surveys. The 2015 Australian online Panels Benchmarking Study was undertaken to inform this debate, and report on the fndings from a single national questionnaire administered across three different probability samples and fve different nonprobability online panels. This study enables us to investigate whether Australian surveys using probability sampling methods produce results different from Australian online surveys relying on nonprobability sampling methods, where accuracy is measured relative to independent population benchmarks. In doing so, we build on similar international research in this area, and discuss our fndings as they relate to coverage error, nonresponse error, adjustment error and measurement error

Building a probability-based online panel: Life in Australia™

Life in Australia™ was created to provide Australian researchers, policy makers, academics and businesses with access to a scientifically sampled cross-section of Australian resident adults at a lower cost than telephone surveys. Panellists were recruited using dual-frame landline and mobile random digit dialling. The majority of panellists choose to complete questionnaires online. Representation of the offline population is ensured by interviewing by telephone those panellists who cannot or will not complete questionnaires online. Surveys are conducted about once a month, covering a variety of topics, most with a public opinion or health focus. Full panel waves yield 2000 or more completed surveys. Panellists are offered a small incentive for completing surveys, which they can choose to donate to a charity instead. This paper describes how Life in Australia™ was built and maintained before the first panel refreshment in June 2018. We document the qualitative pretesting used to inform the development of recruitment and enrolment communications materials, and the pilot tests used to assess alternative recruitment approaches and the comparative effectiveness of these approaches. The methods used for the main recruitment effort are detailed, together with various outcome rates. The operation of the panel after recruitment is also described. We assess the performance of the panel compared with other probability surveys and nonprobability online access panels, and against benchmarks from high-quality sources. Finally, we assess Life in Australia™ from a total survey error perspective

Weighting strategies for combining data from dual-frame telephone surveys: Emerging evidence from Australia

Until quite recently, telephone surveys have typically relied on landline telephone numbers. However, with the increasing popularity and affordability of mobile phones, there has been a surge in households that do not have landline connections. Additionally, there has been a decline in the response rates and population coverage of landline telephone surveys, creating a challenge to collecting representative social data. Dual-frame telephone surveys that use both landline and mobile phone sampling frames can overcome the incompleteness of landline-only telephone sampling. However, surveying mobile phone users introduces new complexities in sampling, nonresponse measurement and statistical weighting. This article examines these issues and illustrates the consequences of failing to include mobile-phoneonly users in telephone surveys using data from Australia. Results show that there are significant differences in estimates of populations’ characteristics when using information solely from the landline or mobile telephone sample. These biases in the population estimates are significantly reduced when data from the mobile and landline samples are combined and appropriate dual-frame survey estimators are used. The optimal choice of a dual-frame estimation strategy depends on the availability of good-quality information that can account for the differential patterns of nonresponse by frame.This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (project number LP130100744 “Enhancing social research in Australia using dual-frame telephone surveys”)

Patron offending and intoxication in night time entertainment districts (POINTED) : a study protocol

Risky alcohol consumption is the subject of considerable community concern in Australia and internationally, particularly the risky drinking practices of young people consuming alcohol in the night-time economy. This study will determine some of the factors and correlates associated with alcohol-related risk-taking, offending and harm in and around licensed venues and night-time entertainment precincts across five Australian cities (three metropolitan and two regional). The primary aim of the study is to measure levels of pre-drinking, drinking in venues, intoxication, illicit drug use and potentially harmful drinking practices (such as mixing with energy drinks) of patrons in entertainment areas, and relating this to offending, risky behaviour and harms experienced. The study will also investigate the effects of license type, trading hours, duration of drinking episodes and geographical location on intoxication, offending, risk-taking and experience of harm. Data collection involves patron interviews (incorporating breathalysing and drug testing) with 7500 people attending licensed venues. Intensive venue observations (n=112) will also be undertaken in a range of venues, including pubs, bars and nightclubs. The information gathered through this study will inform prevention and enforcement approaches of policy makers, police and venue staff.<br /

Can we count on who we call?

&nbsp; One in five Australians are not contactable via a landline telephone – What are the implications for your telephone survey estimates? • As in other parts of the world, one of the issues facing Australian survey researchers is the increasing proportion of households without a landline telephone connection. According to a December 2011 report from the Australian Communications Media Authority, the proportion of adults without a landline telephone connection has more than trebled in the last 5 years –from 6% to 19%. The vast majority of these persons (96%) form the ‘mobile phone only’ population. This growing trend in the proportion of ‘mobile phone only’ persons is being seen around the world. In the US for example, a National Center for Health Statistics survey found that in the first six months of 2011, three in 10 persons were only contactable via their cell phone. Extensive international and emerging Australian research indicates that the non-coverage of mobile phone only persons via traditional landline sample frames is a source of non-ignorable bias, to which Australian survey researchers have been slow to respond. The methodological response to this phenomenon is to undertake ‘dual-frame’ surveys. Dual-frame surveys include randomly generated landline telephone numbers and randomly generated mobile phone numbers in the sample frame to ensure a near complete coverage of the population (i.e. only missing the estimated &lt;2% of people not contactable via either a landline or mobile phone). The Social Research Centre (a privately owned survey research and social research organisation based in Melbourne) is the leading exponent of dual-frame surveys in Australia. The Social Research Centre has hosted two highly successful workshops devoted to this issue in March 2011 and July 2012 and undertaken several dual-frame surveys, including the first Social Research Centre Dual-Frame Omnibus Survey in December, 2011. Among other things, the findings from the first Omnibus Survey showed that mobile phone only respondents are typically younger than landline users, more likely to be male, have lower socio-economic status, higher levels of participation in education, are more geographically mobile, and more likely to be Aboriginal or born overseas. A higher proportion of mobile phone only respondents also reported mental health problems, binge and heavy drinking, smoking, legal and illicit drug use, problem gambling and financial hardship, and had fewer social supports. Many of these initial findings reflect those in the US research literature and have been replicated in ensuing dual-frame studies undertaken by the Social Research Centre. The findings reinforce the view that there are significant and non-ignorable biases in telephone surveys that rely solely on landline sample frames. While major research organisations such as the Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, the Cancer Council Victoria and the Australian National Preventative Health Agency have all commissioned dual-frame surveys in recent times, this is still an emerging methodology. To further expand knowledge in this area, the Social Research Centre is planning to conduct a second Dual-frame omnibus survey in early 2013. This second survey will enable the further exploration of this methodology and provide an opportunity for researchers to include key measures of interest to this omnibus survey so as to better understand the impact of the ‘mobile phone only’ population on their established survey estimates. The survey will comprise 1,000 interviews with persons via a traditional landline RDD sample and 1,000 interviews with persons via a mobile phone RDD sample frame. A sample of these dimensions will yield approximately 250-300 interviews with the ‘mobile phone only’ persons. While understanding that for some subscribers their questions and results may need to be treated as ‘commercial-in-confidence’ wherever possible we would like to share all of the data collected with all subscribers. Our preference is to allow subscribers to seek to be granted a royalty free, non-transferable, non-exclusive licence to use, reproduce, copy, circulate or publish findings from the survey. The Social Research Centre will be responsible for coordinating the survey, compiling the survey questionnaire, data collection and data processing and producing and disseminating the final data set and support materials. A detailed methodological report will also be provided to each subscriber. The University of Queensland, Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) will be responsible for obtaining ethical clearance for the survey via the UQ Human Research Ethics Committee. Our intention is to share the learnings from this survey as widely as possible and to use the results for both research and advocacy purposes. The first step is to ascertain whether there is enough support to make this second dual-frame omnibus survey viable. If you are interested in possibly including some questions please contact Darren Pennay by close of business 16 November, 2012. The cost per question, assuming a national sample of n=2,000, will be $3,000 (excl GST) for a closed question and$3,440 (excl GST) for an open ended question. To find out more please contact [email protected] or go to the news page on the Social Research Centre’s web-site (www.srcentre.com.au/news-events/news). ___________________________________________________________________________ Darren Pennay is Managing Director and Head of Research Strategy at the Social Research Centre and Adjunct Professor at the Institute of Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. &nbsp; Image: fd / flick

Australians rate the most significant events in their lifetimes and show the 'fair go' is still most-valued

Every little while, we have a panic about history. We're having one right now, over Australia Day. A few months back, inspired by an American panic, we had one over statues