1. Fieldwork Issues Eurostat 21-22 June, 2010 Pat Mayhew

2. EVA group asked to consider six issues
Mode of data collection & selection of respondents
Length of interview
Interview (recall) period
Time limit for data transmission
Age limits for respondents
Training of interviewers, confidentiality and ethics

3. Revision of paper for the April Task Force meeting
Reflects discussion of fieldwork issues at April meeting
Takes account of comments that came in after the meeting (including some of the comments from Italy & France)
Additional section on training of interviewers, confidentiality, and ethics

4. 1A – Mode of interview – use in the pilots
Variety of modes across the countries;
several countries tried more than one mode
Partly or solely
CATI 11
CAPI 8
PAPI 5
CAWI tests 2
Postal (Germany) 1
Self-interviewing
(mainly Section G)
PAPSI & CASI & CAWI

5. 1A – Mode of interview – pilot outcomes
Most modes worked farily well
Except for Section G
No conclusive pattern for response rates
Recontacting procedures differed
But PAPI & CAPI rates a bit higher than CATI
CAWI rate in Finland low (25%)
Postal survey in Germany – 49% response (incentive)

6. 1A – Mode of interview - costs
CAWI might be cheapest
PAPI likely to be most expensive (data processing)
CAPI costs roughly double that of CATI
Though differential may be reduced somewhat by heavier use of mobile phones

7. 1A – Mode of interview - quality
CAWI – some concerns
CATI & CAPI quality much on a par?
PAPI quality poorer

8. 1A – Mode of interview – questionnaire implications
Present questionnaire devised for CAPI & CATI
Postal or PAPI will need substantial work
One ‘mode neutral’ questionnaire difficult

9. 1A – Mode of interview – other issues (CATI problems)
CATI capacity a problem in some countries
Mobile phones poses problems for traditional CATI in some countries without mobile registers
Can the industry respond?
Unregistered numbers for landlines....
Legal restrictions on random digit dialling....
Is CATI a suitable mode for measuring violent and sexual victimisation (France)
But used elsewhere

10. 1A – Mode of interview – CAWI
Some support for having CAWI as an option
Likely to be heavily developed in next couple of years
Netherlands & Belgium developing CAWI in victimisation surveys
But there seems to be a CAWI mode effect
Requiring reweighting

11. 1A – Mode of interview
RECOMMENDATIONS (1)
Interview mode optional
But standardised mode preferable
CATI seems best option (fair degree of consensus)
Though may not be possible for some countries
Mobile phones need to be included
Legislation issues need to be sorted out

12. 1A – Mode of interview
RECOMMENDATIONS (2)
Further tests of CAWI should be taken on board
Consideration needed of format of PAPI and postal questionnaires
Full details of mode need to be presented by countries

13. 1B – Selection of respondent(s) - one or two
One randomly selected respondent
can be from national register of persons, or
random person selected from a household register
But young respondents might not be best placed to answer about household crime
Alternative: ‘most responsible’ adult for household crimes and randomly selected respondent for personal crimes
France & Germany support
But more expensive
And would reduce response rates

14. 1B – Selection of respondent – Substitution
Increases response rate
But compromises randomness of sample

15. 1B – Selection of respondent – Proxy interviewing
Problematic
For personal victimisation
And attitudinal information

16. 1B – Selection of respondent(s)
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend one respondent per household asked about both household and personal crime
Well-established and cost efficient approach
We advise against any substitution
We advise against any proxy interviewing

17. 2 – Length of interview - issues
Lengthier interviews cost more
And can lead to higher refusals
When respondents told average interview length
And when respondents get ‘fed-up’
Experience shows 20 minutues is maximum for CATI
Likely to be the same for CAWI
Questionnaire used in pilots was too long

18. 2 – Length of interview – current questionnaire
Initial and subsequent cuts covered by Jan van Dijk
Current questionnaire about 20 minutes +
Reducing average questionnaire length would
Cut costs for a given sample size
Give bigger samples for a given cost
Allow room for ‘rotating’ or ‘one-off’ modules

19. 1 and 2 reduces information and complicates analysis
2 – Length of interview
OPTIONS
Reducing ‘ask-all’ questions – e.g.
Attitudinal / perceptions questions
Asking attitudinal / perceptions questions of sub-samples
1 and 2 reduces information and complicates analysis

20. 2 – Length of interview
MORE RADICAL THIRD OPTION
Core 2,000 (?) EU-SS sample – all questions
Allowing basic cross-sectional analysis
Plus extended sample for victimisation experience only (with core variables)
Reduction of 30% (?) on length of core questionnaire
Better estimates of victimisation
Sub-national estimates

21. 2 – Length of interview – options for further reductions
If new questions needed, current ones would need cutting
Little ‘flesh on the bone’... But...
Omit one of the ‘worry’ questions
Omit burglary to second home
Value of property stolen / damaged in burglary
Whether victims received information from the police
Whether offender under influence of alcohol
Whether incident due to ethnic origin
Who was involved in card abuse
Avoidance behaviour at night

22. 2 – Length of interview
RECOMMENDATIONS
While current EVA Group questionnaire is nearly acceptable, consideration should be given to reducing it more
Further thought needs to be given to:
Cost savings of Options 1 & 2
Information loss of Options 1 & 2
Cost and methodolgical implications of Option 3

23. 3 – Recall period and timing of fieldwork
ISSUES
Memory loss = shorter recall period is preferable
But risks ‘forward telescoping’ – especially more serious incidents
Also need enough victimisation incidents = longer recall period
12 months a fair compromise for main recall period
Gives 1-year prevalence and incidence victimisation estimates

24. 3 – Recall period and timing of fieldwork
Unless fieldwork is very early in the year, the last calendar year is difficult
Fieldwork later in the year means rethinking the ‘annual’ estimate
Two options
This year (2013) or last year (2012)
But problems of memory loss and forward telescoping
12 months from the date of interview
The better solution

25. 3 – Recall period and timing of fieldwork
Previous questionnaire
Current questionnaire
Standardised recall period – all incidents 
Last 5 years
Details for ‘last incident’ over 5 years
Last calendar year & how often
This (current) year
This year (2013) / last year (2012)
If 2012, before or after date of interview
If in last 12 months, how often

26. 3 – Recall period and timing of interview
RECOMMENDATIONS
Last five years / last 12 months best option
Last 12 months suit most fieldwork preferences
This spans 2012 and 2013
Fieldwork timing should be standardised as far as possible
In the 2nd semester of 2013

27. 4 – Time limit for data transmission
EU-SS results need to be timely
Some current surveys
LFS – 3 months after data collection ends
ICT – 3 months after date collection ends
EU-SILC – 12 months later
DG JLS want top line results published by end 2014
Demanding schedule if fieldwork in second half of 2013
Especially if CAWI used and reweighting is needed

28. 4 – Time limit for data transmission
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is being proposed that data is disseminated in two stages
Some tables by October 2014 (with micro-data files)
Further tables later

29. 5 – Age limit for respondents
THE PILOTS
Little consistency
Most pilots 16+ with no upper age limit
Some 18+ only
A few age 15+
Most no upper age limit, but some had a limit
and some had limit for Section G

30. 5 – Age limit for respondents RECOMMENDATIONS
Age range should be standardised
Start at age 16
No upper age limit
Fair consensus on this at Task Force meeting in April

31. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
In the pilots, most interviewers were trained, though not all on the survey specifically
For the main fieldwork all interviewers should be trained
Should include training on the EU-SS.
Experienced interviewers preferable

32. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
Some key elements are:
The need for a professional manner
Adequate keyboard skills for CATI & CAPI
Ensuring ‘informed consent’
Correct respondent selection
Understanding interviewer instructions
Allaying fears about confidentiality

33. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
TRAINING Cont’d
Features of the EU-SS should be emphasised
Most people will engage well
Survey does not cover every crime
Victimisation not randomly distributed
Accurate location of incidents in time
The screener / Victim Form format
Avoid double counting of incidents
Household versus personal victimisations

34. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
TRAINING Cont’d
Not appropriate to be too prescriptive...
But what be useful is:
Role playing
Simulations (‘real life’ interviews)
Group discussions
Consistent training across countries
Centrally prepared training video?

35. Confidentiality & ethics
6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
Confidentiality & ethics
Assume national statistical agencies have codes of conduct
And have effetive arrangements for secure storage of data
And that interviewers adhere to tight rules about confidentiality of data
Particularly disclosure of information about respondents
Ensuring respondents know that their information is treated confidentially

36. Confidentiality & ethics
6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
Confidentiality & ethics
Interviewers
Interviewers need to be treated ethically
Need to be given opportunities for debriefing
Should be offered support if necessary

37. Confidentiality & ethics
6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
Confidentiality & ethics
Respondents
Respondents should not be pressured
Should be treated respectfully
Should not be placed in a situation where disclosure of sensitive information might cause problems
be given opportunity to reschedule
Offered the chance to receive a summary of results?

38. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
RECOMMENDATIONS
Interviewers should be experienced and well-trained, with ‘bespoke’ training on the EU-SS
Agencies & interviewers should have strict procedures for the security of data, particularly micro data
Interviewers should be supported and debriefed

39. RECOMMENDATIONS - RESPONDENTS
6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
RECOMMENDATIONS - RESPONDENTS
Respondents should
feel their information is confidential
not feel pressured into being interviewed
not be put in a position be of revealing sensitive information in inappropriate conditions
Be offered information about support if necessary

40. 6 – Training, confidentiality & ethics
RECOMMENDATIONS
Age range should be standardised
Start at age 16
has general consensus
No upper age limit

41. Thank you