ArticleSociological methods & research2019
Sources of Variance in the Accuracy of Interviewer Observations.
Article in Sociological methods & research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for clustering for self-reported outcomes in the design and analysis of population-based surveys: A case study of estimation of prevalence of epilepsy in Nairobi, Kenya.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Interviewers' Evaluations of Respondents' Performance in Telephone Interviews: Behavior, Response Quality Indicators, and Characteristics of Respondents and Interviewers.Public opinion quarterly · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In face-to-face surveys, interviewer observations are a cost-effective source of paradata for nonresponse adjustment of survey estimates and responsive survey designs. Unfortunately, recent studies have suggested that the accuracy of these observations can vary substantially among interviewers, even after controlling for household-, area-, and interviewer-level characteristics, limiting their utility. No study has identified sources of this unexplained variance in observation accuracy. Motivated by theoretical expectations from the observer bias literature, this study analyzed more than 45,000 open-ended justifications provided by interviewers in the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) for their observations on two key features of all sampled NSFG households: presence of children and expected probability of household response. The study finds that variability among interviewers in the cues used to record these observations (evident from the open-ended justifications) explains much of the previously unexplained variance in observation accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.