Forewarned is Forearmed? A Survey-Experiment concerning the Impact of Pre-Notification Letters on Response in a Postal Survey

Abstract

The use of pre-notification letters is thought to increase the response rate of postal surveys. The empirical evidence for that claim, however, is not conclusive. In this research note we assessed the impact of pre-notification by means of data from a large-scale survey-experiment conducted in Flanders (N: 4000). Three outcomes were studied: overall response rate, timing of the response and quality of the response. No significant positive impact was found on the overall response rate and quality of response. However evidence indicated that respondents who received a pre-notification letter were more inclined to respond earlier.

Keywords

Response rate postal surveys pre-notification letter

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albaum

Smith

S.M.

2012. ‘Why people agree to participate in surveys’, pp. 179–94 in Gideon

, (ed.) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer.

Baruch

1999. ‘Response rate in academic studies – a comparative analysis’, Human Relations 52(4): 421–38.

Baruch

Holtom

B.C.

2008. ‘Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research’, Human Relations 61(8): 1139–60.

Childers

T.L.

Skinner

S.J.

1996. ‘Toward a conceptualization of mail survey response behavior’, Psychology and Marketing 13(2): 185–209.

Chiu

Brennan

1990. ‘The effectiveness of some techniques for improving mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis’, Marketing Bulletin 1: 13–18.

Cycyota

C.S.

Harrison

D.A.

2002. ‘Enhancing survey response rates at the executive level: Are employee- or consumer-level techniques effective?’, Journal of Management 28(2): 151–76.

De Leeuw

E.D.

Callegaro

Hox

J.J.

Korendijk

Lensvelt-Mulders

2007. ‘The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys’, Public Opinion Quarterly 71(3): 413–43.

Dillman

D.A.

1991. ‘The design and administration of mail surveys’, Annual Review of Sociology 17: 225–49.

Dillman

D.A.

2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

10.

Edwards

Roberts

Clarke

DiGuiseppi

Pratap

Wentz

Kwan

2002. ‘Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review’, BMJ 324(7347): 1183. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183.

11.

Edwards

Roberts

Clarke

M.J.

Diguiseppi

Wentz

Kwan

Pratap

2009. ‘Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires’, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): MR000008. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4.

12.

Groves

R.M.

Cialdini

R.M.

Couper

M.P.

1992. ‘Understanding the decision to participate in a survey’, Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 475–95.

13.

Groves

R.M.

Lyberg

2010. ‘Total survey error: Past, present, and future’, Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 849–79.

14.

Higgins

J.P.T.

Thompson

S.G.

Deeks

J.J.

Altman

D.G.

2003. ‘Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses’, BMJ 327(7414): 557–60.

15.

Picavet

2001. ‘National health surveys by mail or home interview: Effects on response’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 55(6): 408–13.

16.

Porter

S.R.

2004. ‘Raising response rates: What works?’, New Directions for Institutional Research 121: 5–21.

17.

Smith

S.M.

Albaum

2005. Fundamentals of Marketing Research. London: Sage.

18.

Wenemark

Persson

Brage

H.N.

Svensson

T. T.

Kristenson

2011. ‘Applying motivation theory to achieve increased response rates, respondent satisfaction and data quality’, Journal of Official Statistics 27(2): 393–414.

19.

West

B.T.

2013. ‘An examination of the quality and utility of interviewer observations in the National Survey of Family Growth’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 176(1): 211–25.

20.

Wright

1995. ‘The effect of pre-notification on mail survey response rates: An experimental result’, Marketing Bulletin 6: 59–65.