Olga Maslovskaya, Gabriele Durrant, Peter WF Smith

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 WELL-BEING AND ADJUSTMENT OF SPONSORED AGING IMMIGRANTS Shireen Surood, PhD Supervisor, Research & Evaluation Information & Evaluation Services Addiction.
Advertisements

1 The Effect of Benefits on Single Motherhood in Europe Libertad González Universitat Pompeu Fabra May 2006.
Population and migration analysis from the 2011 Census Lorraine Ireland and Vicky Field Census Analysis Unit, Population Statistics Division, ONS 17 July.
Linking lives through time Marital Status, Health and Mortality: The Role of Living Arrangement Paul Boyle, Peteke Feijten and Gillian Raab.
1 What happens if you offer a mobile option to your web panel? Results from a pilot study comparing a desktop and mobile device survey Vera Toepoel (Utrecht.
Intergenerational contributions to childcare across Europe Alison Smith University of Edinburgh.
Microeconomic factors influencing housing tenure choice Differences between European countries Analysis based on CHER database (Consortium of Household.
Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship between Migration and Health Status Study of Adult Population of Indonesia Salut Muhidin, Dominic Brown & Martin.
Old, Sick and Alone ? Living arrangements, health and well- being among older people RGS-IBG Annual International Conference London, 2006 Harriet Young.
Determinants of Vegetarianism and Meat Consumption Frequency Eimear Leahy, Seán Lyons & Richard Tol.
Who emits most? An analysis of UK households’ CO2 emissions and their association with socio-economic factors Milena Büchs & Sylke V. Schnepf with Nick.
Living arrangements, health and well-being: A European Perspective UPTAP Meeting 21 st March 2007 Harriet Young and Emily Grundy London School of Hygiene.
Additional analysis of poverty in Scotland 2013/14 Communities Analytical Services July 2015.
Changing Economic Vulnerability of Thai elderly in 2002 & 2007 (Target Journal: IPSR Journal) ANLAYA SMUSENEETO.
Male Method Choice in Bangladesh: Does It Matter Who Makes The Decision? Mohammad Amirul Islam Sabu S. Padmadas Peter W.F. Smith Division of Social Statistics.
Who supports whom? Co-residence between young adults and their parents Maria IacovouMaria Davia Funded by JRF as part of the Poverty among Youth: International.
Out-migration of Young Adults and Living Arrangements of the Elderly in Rural China: The Case of Chaohu Merril Silverstein Andrus Gerontology Center University.
Living arrangements, health and well-being: A European Perspective UPTAP-ONS Meeting Southampton University 19 th December 2007 Harriet Young and Emily.
Consistency in reporting contraception between spouses in Bangladesh: evidence from recent demographic and health survey Mohammad Amirul Islam Sabu S.
Mismatches and matches in address information from the Census and the BSO: A longitudinal perspective Ian Shuttleworth and Brian Foley, Queen’s.
Analysis of the characteristics of internet respondents to the 2011 Census to inform 2021 Census questionnaire design Orlaith Fraser & Cal Ghee.
Income Convergence in South Africa: Fact or Measurement Error? Tobias Lechtenfeld & Asmus Zoch.
Dr Grant Blank Prepared for the General Online Research conference, Cologne, Germany, 5 March 2014 Who uses Twitter? Representativeness of Twitter Users.
Man-Yee Kan, University of Oxford Heather Laurie, University of Essex Who is doing the housework in multicultural.
How Do Taxes and Benefits Shape Popular Support for Redistribution?
James R. Elliott & Junia Howell
2008 Roper Public Opinion Poll on PBS
Small but Significant: Innovation, impact and evidence: practical housing interventions to improve older people’s health and wellbeing   Debora Price,
Factors Influencing Response Rates to ALSPAC Questionnaires
Childfree? Or happy family?.
Rabia Khalaila, RN, MPH, PHD Director, Department of Nursing
ISR.
Living in Fear, Living in Safety: A Cross-National Study
Decomposing the Long Term Decline of Internal Migration NI
A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples
Increased Physical Activity And Senior Center Participation
Instiute of Sociology, University of Lodz
Do not desire to have child
Expenditure of Low Economic Resource Households
Health Needs and Health Care Utilization among Rural, Low-Income Women
Liu, Guiping Max-Planck-Institute for Demographic Research
Introduction Results Conclusion Asthma Staff Asthma in Puerto Rico,
A comparative analysis of Spanish health literacy tools:
Ekwaro A Obuku, M.B., Ch.B, MSc, FICRS, FICRF
Sait Bayrakdar, Philipp Lersch, Sergi Vidal & Rory Coulter
Contraceptive Method Choice Among Married Women in West Java Province, Indonesia By. Rina Gustiana
Facebook ads as recruitment for online drug surveys: the Holy Grail?
Martina Mysíková, Štěpán Tourek, Martin Zelený
Factors associated with frequency of responding to electronic surveys among students attending a large minority-serving university: The Student Behavioral.
11/13/2018 Poverty and Deprivation in Central Europe: Concepts, Measurement and Application Frank (FH) Flinterman Faculty of Spatial Sciences University.
The second wave of the new design of the Dutch EU-SILC: Possibilities and challenges Judit Arends.
Jan Freeke Glasgow City Council
Chapter 2: The nonresponse problem
Profile Types of Home Buyers
The European Statistical Training Programme (ESTP)
Determinants Of Condom Use And HIV Status Disclosure To Sexual Partners Among Adults Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy At Ashaiman ART Clinic, Analysis.
The European Statistical Training Programme (ESTP)
The European Statistical Training Programme (ESTP)
Chapter 11: Adjustment for different types of nonresponse
-2014 Korea National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey-
EXAMPLE.
Engagement with Activity and Functional Status among Older Adults
Andrew Jenkins and Rosalind Levačić
Working Age Veterans of the UK Armed Forces
Survey Design.
Chapter 2: The nonresponse problem
Chapter 5: The analysis of nonresponse
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants
Stratification, calibration and reducing attrition rate in the Dutch EU-SILC Judit Arends.
InGRID March 28th, 2019 Panteion University
Presentation transcript:

What do we know about mixed-device online surveys and mobile device use in the UK? Olga Maslovskaya, Gabriele Durrant, Peter WF Smith 14 March, 2017, NTTS conference, Brussels

Motivation Internet used daily by 82% of adults, smartphones are owned by 71% of adults in the UK (ONS 2016) Mixed-mode designs for cost savings (e.g., Understanding Society) Surveys moving to online designs with different devices as options for respondents UK 2021 Census – plan to collect 75% of household responses through online data collection Can no longer be expected that all participants would use PCs or laptops in online surveys No research on characteristics of people in mixed-device online surveys in the UK

Research Question What are the characteristics of people choosing to use different devices in online survey completion in the UK?

Literature Netherlands: de Bruijne and Wijnant 2014, Toepoel and Lugtig 2014 Germany: Bosnjak et al. 2013 US: Peterson 2012 Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, Chili, Colombia and Mexico: Revilla et al. 2016 UK: no studies yet

Previous Findings Toepoel & Lugtig ‘14 Bosnjak et al. ‘13 de Bruijne & Wijnant ‘14 Bosnjak et al. ‘13 Revilla et al. ‘16 Peterson ‘12 Age Y Y: B, Ch, C, S Gender N Y: S, P Education Ethnicity Employment status HH size/ composition Y: (P, A) Children in HH HH income Urban/rural

Data Innovation Panel of Understanding Society Waves 7-8 (IP7 and IP8) Community Life Survey (CLS) 2014-2015 European Social Survey (ESS) – Round 6 – not publicly available but descriptive analysis conducted by the ESS 1958 National Child Development Survey (NCDS) Second Longitudinal Survey of Young People in England (LSYPE2) Wave 4 – not publically available yet but descriptive analysis was conducted by Kantar Public

Methods Descriptive analysis (proportions and Chi-square tests) Binary Logistic Regression Multinomial Logistic Regression

Device Used Variable 1 Main variable 1 Survey PC/laptop Mobile devices   Main variable 1 Survey PC/laptop Mobile devices IP7 621 (81.6%) 140 (18.4%) IP8 2030 (90.3%) 217 (9.7%) ESS6 540 (91.7%) 49 (8.3%) CLS 14-15 1606 (72.5%) 609 (27.5%) NCDS 5056 (86.5%) 790 (13.5%) LSYPE2 1737 (60.6%) 1128 (39.4%)

Device Used Variable 2 Main variable 2 Survey PC/laptop Tablet   Main variable 2 Survey PC/laptop Tablet Mobile phone IP7 IP8 2030 (90.3%) 184 (8.2%) 33 (1.5%) ESS6 CLS 14-15 1606 (72.5%) 567 (25.6%) 42 (1.9%) NCDS LSYPE2 1737 (60.6%) 485 (16.9%) 643 (22.4%)

Results: Descriptive Analysis - Availability and Significance of Variables ESS CLS NCDS LSYP2 Age Y* Y N/A Pension age Gender Marital status Ethnicity* Religion Education Employment status Accommodation Tenure

Results: Descriptive Analysis 2 - Availability and Significance of Variables ESS CLS NCDS LSYPE2 HH income Y Y* N/A Number of cars Urban/ rural GOR Country of residence HH size Children in HH General health Internet use Frequency of Internet use

Summary of Descriptive Results Younger – mobile devices, older – PCs and laptops – consistent with all other studies Female – mobile devices – consistent with other studies Employed – mobile devices, unemployed – PCs and laptops – consistent with other studies Higher income – mobile phones – consistent with other studies Larger households – mobile devices – consistent with Revilla et al. (2016) but not with Toepoel and Lugtig (2014) Children in household – mobile devices – consistent with other studies Education not significant – consistent with other studies

Modelling Results IP7 (N=695): Binary Logistic Regression (tablet=1) Variable Category Coefficient (SE) Gender Male Female 0.540 (0.207)** Marital Status Single Married -0.078 (0.238) Divorced or separated -0.188 (0.376) Widowed 1.367 (0.461)** Tenure Owned outright or with mortgage Rented from local authority or housing association 0.423 (0.325) Rented privately 0.841 (0.339)*

Modelling Results NCDS (N=5,844): Binary Logistic Regression - predicted probabilities of using tablets Significant effects: Gender Frequency of Internet use Gender*Frequency of Internet use

Modelling Results IP8 (N=2,214): Multinomial Logistic Regression Variable Category Tablet Phone PC/laptop Gender Male Female 0.500 (0.163)** 0.549 (0.395) -0.500 (0.163) ** 0.049 (0.422) Employment Unemployed Employed 0.355 (0.177)* 0.820 (0.344) -0.355 (0.177)* 0.465 (0.466) HH income 4th quartile 1st quartile -0.692 (0.236)** 0.003 (0.698) 0.692 (0.236)** 0.694 (0.730) 2nd quartile -0.594 (0.220)** 0.817 (0.561) 0.594 (0.220)** 1.412 (0.595)* 3rd quartile -0.557 (0.209)** 0.679 (0.553) 0.557 (0.209)** 1.235 (0.584)*

Modelling Results CLS (N=2,125): Multinomial Logistic Regression Variable Category Tablet Phone PC/laptop Gender Male Female 0.539 (0.106)*** 0.031 (0.332) -0.539 (0.106)*** -0.508 (0.340) Employment Unemployed Employed 0.378 (0.136)** 0.580 (0.435) -0.378 (0.136)** 0.202 (0.446) Children in HH Yes No -0.846 (0.130)*** -0.882 (0.371)* 0.846 (0.130)*** -0.035 (0.380)

Modelling Results CLS – continued Variable Category Tablet Phone PC/laptop Age 70+ 16-19 -0.278 (0.320) 1.384 (1.270) 0.278 (0.320) 1.662 (1.292) 20-29 -0.424 (0.249) 2.266 (1.096)* 0.424 (0.249) 2.691 (1.113)* 30-39 0.048 (0.243) 1.553 (1.150) -0.048 (0.243) 1.505 (1.164) 40-49 0.142 (0.235) 0.412 (1.215) -0.142 (0.235) 0.270 (1.227) 50-59 -0.008 (0.224) 0.714 (1.178) 0.008 (0.224) 0.722 (1.190) 60-69 0.155 (0.200) 0.659 (1.169) -0.155 (0.200) 0.503 (1.179)

Conclusions This is the first study to look at characteristics of respondents in different device group in mixed-device online surveys in the UK Significant variables in different surveys: age of respondent, gender, marital status, employment status, religion, household composition/size, children in household, household income, number of cars, and frequency of Internet use Results are useful for targeting of certain groups more efficiently for survey participation, might help increase response rates and reduce costs Results are instrumental in better understanding of trends in different device use in preparation for the UK 2021 Census

Limitations Sample sizes are too small for mobile device use in some surveys (respondents were discouraged to use mobile devices or mobile devices were blocked) Data is not publically available for the analysis for some surveys

Future Work Would be useful to repeat analysis on larger datasets which will soon become available (e.g., Understanding Society Wave 8) Data quality issues by mode and by device used within online mode of data collection should be addressed