Within-Household Selection Methods: A Critical Review and Experimental Examination

Probability samples are necessary for making statistical inferences to the general population (Baker et al. 2013). Some countries (e.g. Sweden) have population registers from which to randomly select samples of adults. The U.S. and many other countries, however, do not have population registers. Instead, researchers (i) select a probability sample of households from lists of areas, addresses, or telephone numbers and (ii) select an adult within these sampled households. The process by which individuals are selected from sampled households to obtain a probability-based sample of individuals is called within-household (or within-unit) selection (Gaziano 2005).Within-household selection aims to provide each member of a sampled household with a known, nonzero chance of being selected for the survey (Gaziano 2005; Lavrakas 2008). Thus, it helps to ensure that the sample represents the target population rather than only those most willing and available to participate and, as such, reduces total survey error (TSE). In interviewer-administered surveys, trained interviewers can implement a prespecified within-household selection procedure, making the selection process relatively straightforward. In self-administered surveys, within-household selection is more challenging because households must carry out the selection task themselves. This can lead to errors in the selection process or nonresponse, resulting in too many or too few of certain types of people in the data (e.g. typically too many female, highly educated, older, and white respondents), and may also lead to biased estimates for other items. We expect the smallest biases in estimates for items that do not differ across household members (e.g. political views, household income) and the largest biases for items that do differ across household members (e.g. household division of labor). In this chapter, we review recent literature on within-household selection across survey modes, identify the methodological requirements of studying within-household selection methods experimentally, provide an example of an experiment designed to improve the quality of selecting an adult within a household in mail surveys, and summarize current implications for survey practice regarding within-household selection. We focus on selection of one adult out of all possible adults in a household; screening households for members who have particular characteristics has additional complications (e.g. Tourangeau et al. 2012; Brick et al. 2016; Brick et al. 2011), although designing experimental studies for screening follows the same principles

Social environmental impacts on survey cooperation

Social environmental influences on survey cooperation are explored using data from six national household surveys in the United States matched to 1990 decennial census data. Consistent with the past literature on prosocial behavior, cooperation rates in these six surveys are found to be lower in urban, densely populated, high crime rate areas. Measures of social cohesion show no evidence of influencing cooperation. The influence of the environmental variables is then observed after introducing statistical controls for household structure, race, age of household members, presence of children, and socioeconomic attributes of households. Over half of the measured influence of the environmental variables is explained by these household-level attributes. These findings have practical import for survey administrators and are informative for the construction of a theory of survey participation.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43559/1/11135_2004_Article_BF00153986.pd

'Until the cows came home': Issues for early intervention activities? Parental perspectives on the early years learning of their children with Down syndrome

This article reports the views of parents of children with Down syndrome in the United Kingdom, and those of a parent-researcher, who have recently been or are currently involved in early intervention programmes. It reports on a series of semi-structured interviews with nine parents of eight children with Down syndrome and the reflective engagement of the parent-researcher. The parents reflect upon learning moments and activities with their child that have been most enjoyable, effective and easy to carry out, as well as those that were difficult or a potential cause of conflict. They also prioritise situations that had a positive impact upon their child's learning. This research adds a parental voice to evidence that suggests a need to place a greater emphasis on learning that comes from the child's interests and less upon developmental goals, and the positive impact this may have for both the parents and children currently being encouraged to engage in early intervention programmes