| Date post: | 26-Mar-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| Upload: | lillian-farley |
| View: | 213 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
1
Impact of Changes in the Telephone Environment
On RDD Telephone Surveys
Mary Cay MurrayAbt Associates Inc
Erin Foster Abt Associates Inc
Jessica CardoniAbt Associates Inc
Chris BeckerAbt Associates Inc
Paul BuckleyConsultant
Marcie CynamonNational Center for Health Statistics
2
Changes in the Telephone Environment
Topics:
Out-of-scope lines
Answering machines
Privacy manager devices
Do-Not-Call lists
Database: The National Immunization Survey, (Q1/98-Q4/02)
3
The National Immunization Survey (NIS)Data collection conducted quarterly since April of 1994
Sponsored by the National Immunization Program and the National Center for Health Statistics, both of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National study—data collection in 78 non-overlapping Immunization Action Plan (IAP) Areas:
50 states, 27 metropolitan areas, and the District of Columbia
Yearly, 10 million telephone calls made to identify households with 35,000 age-eligible children
4
NIS, Continued
Measures vaccination coverage of children between the ages of 19 and 35 months
3,000,000 sample telephone numbers drawn per year
List-assisted design
Processed through GENESYS-IDplus® before CATI screening
1,000,000 households contacted per year
5
Growth in Out-of-Scope Lines
Growth across Quarters
Non-working Numbers by Census Division
6
NIS: Estimated Out-of-Scope Percentages by Quarter
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Q1/1998
Q2/1998
Q3/1998
Q4/1998
Q1/1999
Q2/1999
Q3/1999
Q4/1999
Q1/2000
Q2/2000
Q3/2000
Q4/2000
Q1/2001
Q2/2001
Q3/2001
Q4/2001
Q1/2002
Q2/2002
Q3/2002
Q4/2002
Estimated Out-of-Scope Percentages by Quarter
Total Non-w orking Total Business Total Fax/Modem
7
Census Divisions
8
NIS: Non-working Numbers by Census Division
Percent Non-working by Census Division
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Quarter
Census 1 New England
Census 2 Middle Atlantic
Census 3 East North Central
Census 4 West North Central
Census 5 South Atlantic
Census 6 East South Central
Census 7 West South Central
Census 8 Mountain
Census 9 Pacif ic
9
NIS: Non-working Numbers by Census Division – Q4/00 and Q4/02
Table 1. Percent Non-working by Census DivisionQ4/2000 Q4/2002
New England 31.21% 34.41%Middle Atlantic 29.55% 31.89%East North Central 37.34% 40.73%West North Central 40.45% 45.09%South Atlantic 31.60% 34.12%East South Central 31.45% 36.13%West South Central 35.13% 40.23%Mountain 36.44% 39.95%Pacific 33.14% 35.18%
10
NIS: Answering Machines
Next, we will examine the trends in the prevalence and use of answering machines.
11
NIS: Percent Ever Answering Machine by Quarter
20.4%19.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Q1/
2000
Q2/
2000
Q3/
2000
Q4/
2000
Q1/
2001
Q2/
2001
Q3/
2001
Q4/
2001
Q1/
2002
Q2/
2002
Q3/
2002
Q4/
2002
Quarter
Ever Answering Machine
12
NIS: Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Quarter
1.03%
2.82%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
Q1/1998 Q3/1998 Q1/1999 Q3/1999 Q1/2000 Q3/2000 Q1/2001 Q3/2001 Q1/2002 Q3/2002
Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Quarter
13
NIS: Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Census Division by Quarter
Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Census Division
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Q1/20
00
Q2/20
00
Q3/20
00
Q4/20
00
Q1/20
01
Q2/20
01
Q3/20
01
Q4/20
01
Q1/20
02
Q2/20
02
Q3/20
02
Q4/20
02
Census 1 NewEngland
Census 2 MiddleAtlantic
Census 3 East NorthCentral
Census 4 WestNorth Central
Census 5 SouthAtlantic
Census 6 East SouthCentral
Census 7 WestSouth Central
Census 8 Mountain
Census 9 Pacif ic
14
NIS: Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Census Division – Q1/00 and Q4/02
Table 2. Percent Finalized Answering Machines by Census DivisionQ1/2000 Q4/2002
New England 1.67% 3.04%Middle Atlantic 1.56% 3.06%East North Central 1.32% 2.66%West North Central 0.88% 1.66%South Atlantic 1.72% 3.57%East South Central 1.10% 3.05%West South Central 1.22% 2.64%Mountain 1.23% 2.22%Pacific 1.58% 2.65%
15
Privacy Managers in the NIS
What do we mean by Privacy Manager?
A call-screening device that works with caller-ID to manage all incoming calls.
16
Coding Rules for Privacy Manager Calls
If the line rang with no answer by the household, but the interviewer identified the study when asked to do so by the Privacy Manager, the case is coded as PM ring-no-answer;
If the Privacy Manager denied the call, the case is coded as a PM hang-up-during-introduction;
If the call is sent to an answering machine, the case is coded as answering machine.
17
NIS: Percent Identified Privacy Manager by Quarter
0.79%
1.73%
0.00%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
1.00%
1.25%
1.50%
1.75%
Q201 Q301 Q401 Q102 Q202 Q302 Q402
Percent Identified Privacy Manager
18
NIS: Identified Privacy Manager by Census Division by Quarter
Identified Privacy Manager by Census Division
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
Q2/01 Q3/01 Q4/01 Q1/02 Q2/02 Q3/02 Q4/02
Quarter
Census 1 NewEngland
Census 2 MiddleAtlantic
Census 3 EastNorth Central
Census 4 WestNorth Central
Census 5 SouthAtlantic
Census 6 EastSouth Central
Census 7 WestSouth Central
Census 8Mountain
Census 9 Pacif ic
19
NIS: Identified Privacy Manager by Census Division – Q2/01 and Q4/02
Table 3. Percent Identified Privacy Manager by Census DivisionQ2/2001 Q4/2002
New England 0.15% 1.01%Middle Atlantic 0.21% 1.26%East North Central 1.49% 2.08%West North Central 0.68% 0.78%South Atlantic 0.85% 2.41%East South Central 1.33% 2.82%West South Central 0.70% 2.29%Mountain 0.95% 1.11%Pacific 0.41% 0.89%
20
NIS: Privacy Manager by Census Division, Log
Log of Identified Privacy Manager by Census Division
0.1%
1.0%
10.0%
Q2/01 Q3/01 Q4/01 Q1/02 Q2/02 Q3/02 Q4/02
Quarter
Census 1 NewEngland
Census 2 MiddleAtlantic
Census 3 EastNorth Central
Census 4 WestNorth Central
Census 5 SouthAtlantic
Census 6 EastSouth Central
Census 7 WestSouth Central
Census 8Mountain
Census 9 Pacif ic
21
NIS: Identified Privacy Manager OutcomesOutcomes of Identified Privacy Manager Cases
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Q201 Q301 Q401 Q102 Q202 Q302 Q402
Household Likely household Answering Machine
Business Non-contact Non-working
22
State Do-Not-Call Lists
These lists do not apply to surveys such as the NIS
Telephone numbers on these lists are likely to be households
Identified by Marketing Systems Group
23
NIS: State Do-Not-Call Lists
2.4% 2.4%
3.1%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Q2/2002 Q3/2002 Q4/2002
Percent Identified as State Do-Not-Call List byMarketing Systems Group's Genesys ID Plus
24
NIS: State Do-Not-Call Lists by Census Division – Q2/02 and Q4/02
Table 4. State Do-Not-Call Lists by Census DivisionQ2/2002 Q4/2002
New England 3.21% 3.17%Middle Atlantic 3.23% 5.52%East North Central 2.87% 4.31%West North Central 3.47% 4.19%South Atlantic 1.28% 1.42%East South Central 6.15% 8.89%West South Central 0.67% 0.70%Mountain 1.13% 2.69%Pacific 1.06% 1.11%
25
NIS: Final Outcomes of Do-Not-Call List Cases
Final Outcomes of State Do-Not-Call List Cases
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Q2/02 Q3/02 Q4/02
Household Business Non-working Likely household Answering Machine Non-contact
26
NIS Do-Not-Call List
Maintained cumulatively since 1998
Telephone numbers can be sampled again across quarters in the NIS
27
NIS Do-Not-Call List: Percent of Lines by Quarter
0.48%
0.97%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
Q1/
1999
Q2/
1999
Q3/
1999
Q4/
1999
Q1/
2000
Q2/
2000
Q3/
2000
Q4/
2000
Q1/
2001
Q2/
2001
Q3/
2001
Q4/
2001
Q1/
2002
Q2/
2002
Q3/
2002
Q4/
2002
Percent of Total Lines Requesting No Call List
28
Conclusions
Increase in non-working numbers leads to fewer household lines in samples
Answering Machines continue to be used to screen calls and increasingly to avoid participating in surveys
Privacy Managers are growing, but still a small portion of total sample
Cases on state do-not-call lists are generally cooperative
“Take me off your list” is an easy way to opt out of a survey
