4 ms·
Representative of the population under study. In practice, "extra variables" are naturally present in every study. For example, surveying mall-goers in the mo
by psyklic 4y ago
Representative of the population under study.
In practice, "extra variables" are naturally present in every study.
For example, surveying mall-goers in the morning vs evening. Or surveying people at one end of the mall vs the other. These variables are likely far more confounding than "must send a followup email".
People asked in the evening might be more annoyed, but you shouldn't assume this a priori and decide to skip surveying them. Just as "busy people" in the studied population might forget to initially respond to an email and need a reminder.
Just as a personal anecdote, I've dealt with this issue quite a lot. In my surveys, the people who respond initially are almost always eager to give glowing reviews. If we didn't send follow-ups, we would have extremely positively biased results. Maybe it is true that sending reminders makes respondents slightly more negative than they normally would be. However, we'd completely exclude "unsatisfied people" otherwise and the survey results would be worthless.
- pdonis 4y ago> "extra variables" are naturally present in every study That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that if you ask people a second time to respond, that's an extra variable you created, not one that was naturally there already. It's not a good idea to create extra variables in the course of doing the study. It's true that the people who respond to the survey without any further prompting are not necessarily going to be representative of the entire population. But that doesn't mean you can "fix" that by further prompting. What it actually means is that surveys are a tool with only limited usefulness. That's just an inherent, inconvenient truth about surveys.