3 ms·
Mail wasn't involved except for picking random addresses from the list of known postal addresses. The interviewers went door-to-door. They also chose a househ
by vharuck 7y ago
Mail wasn't involved except for picking random addresses from the list of known postal addresses. The interviewers went door-to-door. They also chose a household resident over 14 at random, not just the door answerer. And a 50% successful response rate is pretty good for a random survey.
Really, though, I wish people who question survey methodology would mention specific problems with the methodology.
One problem I see is that part of the weighting is based on "ACORN" categories, which aren't well-defined and remind me of junk sold by marketing companies. Of course, I assume the data's based on actual demographics, so it might be good for weighting even if it's bad at explaining.
- cookie_monsta 7y agoWhere does it say that they chose a household resident over 14 at random, not just the door answerer and what would that process even look like?
- vharuck 7y agoIn the methodology PDF linked by another commenter up this chain[0]: >At each address respondents for interview were selected by asking the person who answered the door if it would be possible to interview the person normally resident at that household ages 14 or over with the next birthday. If birthdays weren't known by the door-answerer, then the interviewer picked a subject by first letter of the first name. But that only happened in 5% of cases. [0] https://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/methodology/ https://oxis.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/methodology/
- cookie_monsta 7y agoAh, yes. Thank you - I didn't see the pdf.