1 / 13

Who Is More Likely To Attend? A Study Of “No-Shows” In Qualitative Research

Who Is More Likely To Attend? A Study Of “No-Shows” In Qualitative Research. Benoit Allard Questionnaire Design Resource Centre Statistics Canada QUEST – April 2007. Overview. Background Why a “no-show” study? Methodology Results The future. Background.

jaime-boyle
Télécharger la présentation

Who Is More Likely To Attend? A Study Of “No-Shows” In Qualitative Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Who Is More Likely To Attend? A Study Of “No-Shows” In Qualitative Research Benoit Allard Questionnaire Design Resource Centre Statistics Canada QUEST – April 2007

  2. Overview • Background • Why a “no-show” study? • Methodology • Results • The future

  3. Background • Main questionnaire testing methods at QDRC: • Cognitive Interviews • Focus Groups • Recruitment mostly by private firms (for household survey testing) • Roughly 15% of recruits are “no-shows” • 1-2 per focus group on average, but • Attendance is variable

  4. Why a “no-show” study? • Questions: • Which recruiters do the best job? • Does payment influence turnout? • What factors influence attendance? • Improve turnout by: • Avoiding high-risk situations (combinations of factors having a high “no-show” rate) • Recruiting specifications • Choice of location/schedule • Over-recruiting

  5. Methodology • Quantitative study • Build a database of recruits • Data capture recruit lists (w/o identifiers) • Final list of individuals who accepted invitation • Since early 2005 • Frequency table analysis of “no-shows” • Ongoing

  6. Methodology (cont.) • Two levels of information • 1) About the testing activity • Topic of discussion • Type of testing (FG, 1-on-1) • Location (facility, respondent’s home) • Province • Date and time of testing • Payment amount • Recruiter

  7. Methodology (cont.) • Two levels of information (cont.) • 2) About the recruited person • Age • Sex • With/without spouse • Presence of children in the household • Work status • Income • Education • Attendance ← variable of interest

  8. Methodology (cont.) • Limitations • Blind to the recruiting process • Only household survey testing activities are covered • Little control over experimental design • Data generated by “production” work • But demographic variables are standardized

  9. The results • Which recruiters to hire? • Some recruiters do better than others • Results depend on region • Better turnout rates when using recruiters from within region • Hire multiple recruiters (each to work within their own region) rather than a single recruiter for the entire project • Renewal of standing offers for recruitment • Use results as part of evaluation

  10. The results (cont.) • Location of one-on-one interviews: • About 50% fewer no-shows if the interview is at the respondent’s home • Payment is typically lower • Interview at home rather than in a facility if conditions allow it • Beware of “intimidation” factor • Few observers allowed • Somewhat longer interview schedule • Travel cost are offset by facility savings

  11. The results (cont.) • Demographic factors • More likely to “no-show: • Young adults 18-25 years (24%) • Over-recruit • Cap their number in recruiting specs • Less likely to “no-show” • Seniors and retirees (<10%) • Minimal over-recruiting required • Family situation • Spouse, children not a factor (likely accounted for in the recruiting process)

  12. The results (cont.) • Time variables • Derived from captured date and time • Time of day, day of week, season • Few differences • Mondays (9%) • Morning (7%) vs. late afternoon (20%) • Not significant… yet

  13. The future • Investigate other variables / interactions • Case studies • Look at particular events with low turnout • 5-6 shows out of 10 recruits: bad luck or combination of unfavourable factors? • Keep gathering data • n is increasing, but… • Verify that effects are constant over time

More Related