団体の基礎構造に関する調査（ポーランド）PL-JIGSコードブック

2016

The sampling frame of the FPN survey was population registers (Basisregistratie Personen, BRP). Newcomers who intend to remain longer than four months in the Netherlands are required to register in the municipality where they reside. Names and addresses of sample members were drawn by Statistics Netherlands, based on several criteria. The potential respondent:  was born in Poland and had at least one Polish parent  was registered in the Dutch population register (BRP) at the time of sampling  had registered for the first time in the Dutch population register between 1 st of January 2004 and the time of sampling (August 2014)  was between the age of 18 and 49 at the time of the most recent registration The age range differs from the one in the GGS (i.e. 18-79) and this difference is driven by the population characteristics-Polish migrants in the Netherlands are relatively young (mean age of 34) and including older persons in the sampling frame would not result in relevant data. The goal of the FPN was to gather information on approximately 1,000 respondents and to achieve a response rate of 50%. Based on these requirements, Statistics Netherlands drew a sample, using simple random sampling (all population members have the same probability of being selected into the sample), ensuring that Polish migrants residing all over the Netherlands were selected. This sample was drawn in two rounds. The first selection took place in August 2014 and it consisted of 2,631 persons (including a margin for not valid addresses). During the fieldwork, it became apparent that the number of addresses that were not correct (i.e. respondent did not live there) was higher than anticipated, and in November 2014 the second batch of addresses was drawn (1,500 addresses). In total 4,131 addresses were selected. Not all addresses drawn in the last round were used in the study. The precise description of the sending out procedure follows in section 5.3. Once the final sample was created, Statistics Netherlands passed the addresses on to GfK who contacted the sampled Polish migrants. Since the population registers do not include telephone numbers, GfK matched the sample with telephone numbers registered in databases used for marketing research. Start fieldwork Week 40 Week 46 Week 49 Week 51 Reminder letter Week 42 Week 49 Week 51 Week 2 Reminder card Week 43/44 Week 51 Week 52 Week 3 Telephone contact (if telephone number known) CAPI round Week 44-51 + Week 2-3 Week 2 Week 2 Week 4 End fieldwork Week 4 Week 12 Week 12 Week 14 Data release to EUR Week 17 Week 17 Week 17 Week 17 * These numbers differ from those mentioned earlier. After screening of sub-samples 1 and 2, it became evident some of the sample members changed their place of residence. The updated addresses from those two sub-samples formed a sub-sample 3. These updated addresses were subtracted from the totals in the sub-samples 1 and 2. Consequently, the number of sample members in sub-samples 1 and 2 differs from the number of initially drawn addresses.

2011

In two experiments, we analysed how different forms of verbalisation of the appearance of a perpetrator influenced future recognition of that perpetrator by witnesses and persons who had only been provided with a description of his appearance. During the first experiment, 75 participants watched a film showing a robbery, and then, depending on the group: 1) did not describe the perpetrator’s appearance, 2) provided a description, 3) described the perpetrator’s appearance, filling out a Face Rating Scale (FRS) which requires assessment of multiple characteristics of a face on rating scales. After two weeks, persons were supposed to recognise (identify) the perpetrator from among presented pictures. In the second experiment, participants (N = 50) received either a perpetrator’s description or a filled-in FRS scale and were also supposed to recognise the perpetrator from among presented pictures. Amongst persons who had seen the perpetrator, provision of a description did not reduce th...

2004

Journal of the Market Research Society, 1996

2021

European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 2017

Systematic errors can significantly affect the results of research. Interviewer errors and respondents (participants) errors constitute a large portion of systematic error sources. The purpose of this study is to show whether there is a difference between the results of the questionnaire marked by the respondent and the results of the questionnaire marked by the interviewer. For this purpose, the responses of 150 participants to the questionnaire were compared and analyzed. The findings of the analyze reveal that there is a difference between the results of the questionnaire marked by the interviewer and the results of the questionnaire marked by the respondent. Another result is that the reliability of the questionnaire data marked by the interviewer is lower than other group. This study is part of a research carried out with the support of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK-115K155) and the results provide preliminary information.

QUESTIONNAIRE I represent the Bucharest University for a pole we realise in over 100 localities in the country. We would like to know people's opinions on different problems or changes in the common everyday life. In order to discuss these problems, you were randomly chosen. Should you agree to answering our questions, we hope not to take more than 50 minutes of your time. The answers we will get won't be communicated to anybody in this present form. We are only interested in counting the persons which have an opinion or another. The results of this pole will be published in the press and, we hope, will help changing people's lives into better.

High non-response rates constitute a major threat to survey quality, since non-response bias is likely to be high. One of the possible ways to cope with this situation is to pay more attention to the organization and implementation of the fieldwork. This paper tried to study the role of fieldwork efforts in relation to survey participation. It focused in particular on the history of the contact procedure and the role played by the number of contact attempts on the one hand and the number of effective contacts on the other hand. Use was made of Belgian data from the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 2, a Europe-wide, longitudinal type of survey implemented in 2004-2005. Standardized contact forms used in the fieldwork implementation period are rich in data and contain detailed information on the contact process between the interviewer and sampled unit. Complementary use was made of the life table method, Cox regression model, and pathway analysis to analyze these forms. The research results obtained in this paper confirmed the importance of field work strategies as a determinant of survey cooperation. Its contribution was situated in the fact that it pointed to the importance of taking account of the full history of the contact procedure. It would seem to argue in favor of making a clear distinction in field work guidelines and in the analysis of contact forms later on between contactability and effective contacts (face-to face) and increasing the number of each category. Finally, based on our analysis some recommendations are made with regard to the fieldwork guidelines.

2012