What data collection method is most likely to generate the largest nonresponse?

Which of the following data collection methods is most likely to generate the largest nonresponse? A)Personal interviews B)Mail surveys C)Telephone surveys D)Direct observation

Final answer: Among the given options, mail surveys are most likely to generate the largest non-response due to factors like people not taking the time to respond, potential inaccuracies, and issues with mailing lists.

Explanation:

Mail surveys are the data collection method most likely to generate the largest non-response. This is primarily because many individuals may not take the time to respond to mail surveys. They may view them as less urgent or important compared to other forms of communication.

Furthermore, there is a potential for inaccuracies in mail surveys. Since the respondent is not interacting with an interviewer directly, there is a higher chance of misinterpretation or incomplete responses. The lack of immediate feedback or clarification can lead to data that is less accurate.

Issues with mailing lists can also contribute to non-response in mail surveys. If the mailing list is outdated or contains incorrect information, the survey may never reach the intended recipient. This can further lower response rates and impact the quality of the data collected.

In comparison, personal interviews, telephone surveys, and direct observation typically have higher response rates. Personal interviews and telephone surveys allow for immediate interaction, making it harder for individuals to avoid participation. Direct observation does not rely on active participation from the observed individual, eliminating the issue of non-response.

Overall, mail surveys stand out as the method most likely to generate the largest nonresponse among the options provided. Understanding the factors contributing to non-response can help researchers improve survey design and increase participation rates.

← Moral reasoning understanding motivation and incentives The lion king expectations vs acceptance →