ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society)2018
Can incentives improve survey data quality in developing countries?: results from a field experiment in India.
Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society), 2018. 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.
- Global 1 km × 1 km gridded revised real gross domestic product and electricity consumption during 1992-2019 based on calibrated nighttime light data.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Data Collection as Disruption: Insights from a Longitudinal Study of Young Adulthood.American sociological review · 2019Article
- A protocol for a multi-site, spatially-referenced household survey in slum settings: methods for access, sampling frame construction, sampling, and field data collection.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We report results of an experiment designed to assess whether the payment of contingent incentives to respondents in Karnataka, India, impacts the quality of survey data. Of 2276 households sampled at the city block level, 934 were randomly assigned to receive a small one-time payment at the time of the survey, whereas the remaining households did not receive this incentive. We analyse the effects of incentives across a range of questions that are common in survey research in less developed countries. Our study suggests that incentives reduced unit non-response. Conditionally on participation, we also find little impact of incentives on a broad range of sociodemographic, behavioural and attitudinal questions. In contrast, we consistently find that households that received incentives reported substantially lower consumption and income levels and fewer assets. Given random assignment and very high response rates, the most plausible interpretation of this finding is that incentivizing respondents in this setting may increase their motivation to present themselves as more needy, whether to justify the current payment or to increase the chance of receiving resources in the future. Therefore, despite early indications that contingent incentives may raise response rates, the net effect on data quality must be carefully considered.
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.