SURVEY RESPONSE RATES IN THE FOREST PRODUCTS LITERATURE FROM 2000 TO 2015
Keywords:
Response rate, mail survey, internet survey, interview survey, nonresponse bias testsAbstract
A literature analysis was conducted to synthesize typical response rates from forest-products-industry-based survey studies published from 2000 to mid-2015. One hundred and ninety-five surveys published in several forest products and forestry journals and proceedings (mostly North American based) were analyzed. Overall, the typical response rate was found to be about 26.0% (median) to 31.6% (mean). The median survey size in terms of number surveyed was 543.0, and the median for responses received was 131.5. Several factors were found to influence response rates and numbers surveyed. The results indicated that response rates were highest for surveys conducted at the regional or international level, that were interview based, and that were geared toward consumers. The majority of the surveys conducted were mail based (79.0%) and were directed at manufacturers (51.8%) followed by loggers (15.4%) and engineers (14.4%). There was no indication that the year of publication had an effect on observed response rates. Most studies reported testing for nonresponse bias (64.4%), with early vs late respondent comparisons being the most common method used. These results can be used as a benchmark for whathave been typical response rates for survey-based research in the forest products industry.
References
REFERENCES
Anseel F, Lievens F, Schollaert E, Choragwicka B (2010) Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3):335-349.
Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14(3):396-402.
Barclay S, Todd C, Finlay I, Grande G, Wyatt P (2002) Not another questionnaire! Maximizing the response rate, predicting non-response and assessing non-response bias in postal questionnaire studies of GPs. Family Practice 19(1):105-111.
Baruch Y (1999) Response rate in academic studies - a comparative analysis. Human Relations 52(4):421-438.
Baruch Y, Holtom BC (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations 61(8):1139-1160.
Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E (2005) Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(1):87-98.
Erdogan BZ, Baker MJ (2002) Increasing mail survey response rates from an industrial population: A cost-effectiveness analysis of four follow-up techniques. Industrial Marketing Management 31(1):65-73.
Fell D, Hansen EN, Punches J (2002) Segmenting single-family home builders on a measure of innovativeness. Forest Products Journal 52(6):28-34.
Harzing AW (2000) Cross-national industrial mail surveys: Why do response rates differ between countries? Industrial Marketing Management 29(3):243-254.
Kallis MJ, Giglierano JJ (1992) Improving mail response rates with express mail. Industrial Marketing Management 21(1):1-4.
Kanuk L, Berenson C (1975) Mail surveys and response rates: a literature review. Journal of Marketing Research 12(4):440-453.
Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. The Guilford Press, New York. 427 pp.
Martins Y, Lederman RI, Lowenstein CL, Joffe S, Neville BA, Hastings BT, Abel GA (2012) Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: A structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey. British Journal of Cancer 106(6):1021-1026.
Ott RL (1993) An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. 4th ed. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA. 1051 pp.
Powers TL, Bendall Valentine D (2009) Response quality in consumer satisfaction research. Journal of Consumer Marketing 26(4):232-240.
Price JH, Murnan J, Dake JA, Dimmig J, Hayes M (2004) Mail survey return rates published in health education journals: An issue of external validity. American Journal of Health Education 35(1):19-23.
Shaw M, Bednall D, Hall J (2002) A proposal for a comprehensive response-rate measure (CRRM) for survey research. Journal of Marketing Management 18(5-6):533-554.
Sheehan KB (2001) E‐mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 6(2):0.
Sinclair M, O’Toole J, Malawaraarachchi M, Leder K (2012) Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: Postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12:132.
Skalland B (2011) An alternative to the response rate for measuring a survey's realization of the target population. Public Opinion Quarterly 75(1):89-98.
Wiseman F, Billington M (1984) Comment on a standard definition of response rates. Journal of Marketing Research 21(3):336-338.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
