Kenneth E. Wallen a,b,c , Adam C. Landon a,b , Gerard T. Kyle a,b,c ,

1. Kenneth E. Wallena,b,c, Adam C. Landona,b, Gerard T. Kylea,b,c, Michael A. Schuetta,c, Jeremy Leitzd, & Ken Kurzawskid Sampling Efficacy & Bias in Mode of Response for Survey-Based Research a Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences , Texas A&M University b Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Lab , Texas A&M University c Applied Biodiversity Science NSF-IGERT Program , Texas A&M University d Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

2. Background ‘’89 ‘90 ‘93 ‘97 ‘01 ‘04 ‘08 ‘12

3. Background

4. Background

5. Background

6. Background

7. Background

8. Background

9. Background

10. Background

11. Background

12. Response Rates • Why do we care about response rates? • Need (desire) to reduce survey error… the difference between the estimate using the collected data and the true value of the variables in the population • Non-response error… emerges when those who do not respond differ from those who respond • Mail questionnaires are costly… printing, postage & labor

13. Trends in Response Rates • All modes of collection area are on the decline • Mixed-mode designs (mail/web) have demonstrated success for reducing non-response error • Respondents to mail and web-based collection modes are different demographically and with their use of technology • Mixed-mode benefit is twofold… opportunity in preferred manner & remind respondent of the opportunity to respond

14. Texas Recreational Anglers • Heterogeneous • Demographics • Motivations • Preferred resources • Target species • Avidity • Expenditures • Imperative to reduce non-response error to obtain data that is reflective of the angling population to make informed decisions that will impact this population

15. Study Purpose • Compare three modes of questionnaire administration in terms of: • Response rate • Respondent characteristics

16. Survey Methodology • Data Collection • Sample drawn randomly from TPWD database of licensed fresh/saltwater anglers • Three modes of contact commencing the last week of September, 2012 • Mixed-mode (n=4,000) • Email-Only (n=4,000) • Combination (n=1,000) • Web-based questionnaire was designed/administered thru Qualtrix with the URL: WWW.TPWD-SURVEY.ORG

17. Mixed-Mode • Initial contact: Invitation letter with web push • One week follow-up: Thank you/reminder postcard with web push • Two week follow-up: Second contact letter to non-respondents with web push • Three week follow-up: Survey packet to non-respondents… cover letter (with web push), questionnaire, and postage-paid reply envelope

18. Email-Only • Four email invitations, one week apart • Similar to the cover letter sent to the Mixed-Mode group, the email invitations outlined the study purpose and invited respondents to complete the questionnaire online • Both a URL to be entered into respondents’ browser and hyperlinked icon (“Take Survey”) were provided for respondents to access the questionnaire

19. Combination • A combination of contacts replicating the “Mixed Mode” and “Email Only” methods • Eight invitations (4 hardcopy, 4 email invitations) were sent to respondents, one week apart • The sending of email and postal invitations were synchronized to arrive simultaneously; i.e., email invitations were sent approximately two days following the mailing of hard copies

20. Survey Response • Effective Response Rates Mixed-mode 20.0% (697/3486) Email-only 29.9% (784/2685) Combination 63.4% (407/640)

21. Survey Response • 53.8% of Mixed-mode respondents completed hard copies of the questionnaire • 29.5% of Combination respondents completed hard copies

22. Survey Analysis • Multinomial Logistic Regression Model (logit) • Dependent variable: survey response mode • Null-model Approach • Independent Variables • Socio-demographics, motivations, & avidity • Reference group: Mixed-mode Ø = Mixed-mode 1 = Combination 2 = Email only Age + gender + income + race + ethnicity + motivation + avidity

23. Income

24. Income

25. Gender

26. Within Groups – Socio-demographics

27. Motives Notes. 1Mean score value is on a scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important). Like superscripts indicate significant differences at p ≤ 0.01 (Scheffe post-hoc analysis). ** p-value < 0.01 ***p-value < 0.001

28. Avidity

29. Within Groups - Motivation

30. Discussion – Response Rates • Combination (surface mail & email) yielded strongest response rate • Lowest non-response error? • Respondents (or non-respondents) are reluctant to go from the paper invitation to their computer or device

31. Discussion - Socio-demographics • Socio-demographic variation • Variations in age • Web-based respondents slightly higher household incomes • Men more inclined than women to complete online

32. Discussion – Motivation & Avidity Motivation • On items where there was significant variation web-based respondents considered these facets more important • Avidity • Some indication that hard copy respondents most avid

33. Next Steps • 2015 Survey of licensed Texas Anglers • Mixed-Mode – Mail survey packet with a web push • Incentive – “lifetime license”

34. Acknowledgements • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • Robin Riechers • John Taylor