Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-xnzfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-14T11:35:07.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote Choice in the 2015 Federal Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Charles Breton ,
Fred Cutler ,
Sarah Lachance  and
Alex Mierke-Zatwarnicki
Charles Breton*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Fred Cutler*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Sarah Lachance*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Alex Mierke-Zatwarnicki*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T1Z1, email: cbreton@mail.ubc.ca (corresponding author)
Department of Political Science, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T1Z1, email: fred.cutler@ubc.ca (corresponding author)
Department of Political Science, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T1Z1, email: s.lachance@alumni.ubc.ca
Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge St., Cambridge MA 02138, email: amierkezatwarnicki@g.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Election studies must optimize on sample size, cost and data quality. The 2015 Canadian Election Study was the first CES to employ a full mixed-mode design, aiming to take advantage of the opportunities of each mode while preserving enough commonality to compare them. This paper examines the phone interviews conducted by ISR-York and the online questionnaires from panellists purchased from a sample provider. We compare data quality and representativeness. We conduct a comprehensive comparison of the distributions of responses across modes and a comparative analysis of inferences about voting. We find that the cost/power advantages of the online mode will likely make it the mode of choice for subsequent election studies.

Résumé

Les études électorales doivent optimiser la taille des échantillons, leur coût et la qualité des données. L’Étude électorale canadienne de 2015 a été la première ÉÉC qui a adopté un plan à mode de collecte mixte, visant à tirer parti des possibilités de chacun des modes tout en préservant suffisamment d’éléments communs pour permettre la comparaison. Cet article examine les interviews téléphoniques menées par l'Institut de recherche sociale (IRS) de l'Université York et les questionnaires des répondants en ligne achetés auprès d'un fournisseur d’échantillons. Nous comparons la qualité des données et la représentativité. Nous effectuons une comparaison complète des distributions des réponses selon les modes et une analyse comparative des inférences au sujet du vote. Nous constatons que du point de vue des avantages coûts-efficacité, il est probable que le mode en ligne représentera le mode de choix des études électorales ultérieures.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 1005 - 1036
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, Christopher. H. 2005. “Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 22: 327–39.10.1080/07388940500339167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen and Schaffner, Brian. 2014. “Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison.” Political Analysis 22: 285–303.10.1093/pan/mpt025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, A.J., Margolis, Michele F. and Sances, Michael W.. 2014. “Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 739–53.10.1111/ajps.12081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biemer, Paul P. 2010. “Total survey error: Design, implementation, and Evaluation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 817–48.10.1093/poq/nfq058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bytzek, Evelyn and Bieber, Ina E.. 2016. “Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal Election Study.” Electoral Studies 43: 41–51.10.1016/j.electstud.2016.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Linchiat and Krosnick, Jon. A.. 2009. “National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the internet comparing sample representativeness and response quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73: 641–78.10.1093/poq/nfp075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSimone Justin., A., Harms, P.D. and DeSimone, Alice J.. 2014. “Best practice recommendations for data screening.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: 171–81.10.1002/job.1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, Donald A., Smyth, Jolene D. and Christian, Leah M.. 2014. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781394260645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, Cutler, Fred and Soroka, Stuart S.. 2012. “Who Responds to Election Campaigns? The Two-Moderator Model Revisited.” Paper presented at the conference Duty and Choice: Participation and Preferences in Democratic Elections, Université de Montréal, January 20.Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, Cutler, Fred, Soroka, Stuart S., Stolle, Dietlind and Bélanger, Éric. 2013. “Riding the orange wave: leadership, values, issues, and the 2011 Canadian election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46: 863–97.10.1017/S0008423913000875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, Robert M. and Lyberg, Lars. 2010. “Total survey error: Past, present, and future.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 849–79.10.1093/poq/nfq065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Richard G.C. and Brady, Henry E.. 2002. “The rolling cross-section design.” Electoral Studies 21: 283–95.10.1016/S0261-3794(01)00022-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuter, Frauke, Presser, Stanley and Tourangeau, Roger. 2009. “Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and Web surveys the effects of mode and question sensitivity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 847–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, P. and Rubenson, D.. 2015. “The Local Parliament Survey.” http://www.localparliament.ca/ June 1, 2017).Google Scholar
Pasek, Josh. 2016. “When will Nonprobability Surveys Mirror Probability Surveys? Considering Types of Inference and Weighting Strategies as Criteria for Correspondence.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28: 269–91.10.1093/ijpor/edv016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, Mark and Johnston, Richard G.C.. 2008. “Campaign trial heats as election forecasts: Measurement error and bias in 2004 presidential campaign polls.” International Journal of Forecasting 24 (2): 272–84.10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, Emanuela and Lillini, Roberto. 2015. “Undercoverage Bias in Telephone Surveys in Europe: The Italian Case.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 29 (1): 133–56.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C. and Whiteley, Paul. 2007. “Does mode matter for modeling political choice? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study.” Political Analysis 15: 257–85.10.1093/pan/mpl010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Eunjung, Johnson, Timothy P. and Rao, Kumar. 2012. “Survey mode effects on data quality: Comparison of web and mail modes in a US national panel survey.” Social Science Computer Review 30: 212–28.10.1177/0894439311404508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Laura B. and Crête, Jean. 2011. “Studying Political Behavior: A comparison of internet and telephone survey.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 23 (1): 24–55.10.1093/ijpor/edq025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vannieuwenhuyze, Jorre, Loosveldt, Geert and Molenberghs, Geert. 2010. “A method for evaluating mode effects in mixed-mode surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 1027–45.10.1093/poq/nfq059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Breton supplementary material

Figures A1-A4 and Tables A1-A2

Download Breton supplementary material(File)
File 879 KB