[Bianchi, A. and S. Biffignandi. 2014. “Responsive Design for Economic Data in Mixed-Mode Panels.” In Contribution to Sampling Statistics, edited by F. Mecatti, P.L. Conti, and M.G. Ranalli, 85–102. Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-05320-2_6]Search in Google Scholar
[Bianchi, A. and S. Biffignandi. 2017. “Representativeness in Panel Surveys.” To appear in Mathematical Population Studies.10.1080/08898480.2016.1271650]Search in Google Scholar
[Bianchi, A. and S. Biffignandi. Forthcoming. “Survey Experiments on Interactions: a Case Study of Incentives and Modes.” In Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment, edited by P.J. Lavrakas, E. de Leeuw, A. Holbrook, C. Kennedy, M.W. Traugott, and B.T. West. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.]Search in Google Scholar
[Biemer, P.P. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation and Evaluation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 817–848. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq058.10.1093/poq/nfq058]Search in Google Scholar
[Biemer, P.P. and L.E. Lyberg. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. New York: John Wiley.10.1002/0471458740]Search in Google Scholar
[Bowling, A. 2005. “Mode of Questionnaire Administration Can Have Serious Effects on Data Quality.” Journal of Public Health 27: 281–291.10.1093/pubmed/fdi03115870099]Search in Google Scholar
[Buck, N. and S. McFall. 2012. “Understanding Society: Design Overview.” Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 3: 5–17.10.14301/llcs.v3i1.159]Search in Google Scholar
[Calinescu, M. and B. Schouten. 2015. “Adaptive Survey Designs to Minimize Survey Mode Effects – a Case Study on the Dutch Labor Force Survey.” Survey Methodology 41(2) : 403–425.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chng, S., M. White, C. Abraham, and S. Skippon. 2016. “Commuting and Wellbeing in London: the Roles of Commute Mode and Local Public Transport Connectivity.” Preventive Medicine 88: 182–188. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.014.10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.04.01427090435]Search in Google Scholar
[Couper, M. 2011. “The Future of Modes of Data Collection.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75: 889–908. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr046.10.1093/poq/nfr046]Search in Google Scholar
[Evandrou, M., J. Falkingham, Z. Feng, and A. Vlachantoni. 2016. “Ethnic Inequalities in Limiting Health and Self-Reported Health in Later Life Revisited.” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 70: 653–662. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206074.10.1136/jech-2015-206074494119226787199]Search in Google Scholar
[Fan, W. and Z. Yan. 2010. “Factors Affecting Response Rates of the Web Surveys: a Systematic Review.” Computers in Human Behavior 26: 132–139.10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015]Search in Google Scholar
[Farrant, G. and C. O’Muircheartaigh. 1991. “Components of Nonresponse Bias in the British Election Surveys.” In Understanding Political Change, edited by A. Heath, J. Curtice, R. Jowell, S. Evans, J. Field, and S. Witherspoon, 235–249. London: Pergamon Press.10.1016/B978-0-08-037256-3.50021-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Fong, B. and J. Williams. 2011. “British Crime Survey: Feasibility of Boosting Police Force Area (PFA) Sample Sizes Using Supplementary Recontact Surveys.” Report for the Home Office, TNS-BMRB, London.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gaia, A. 2014. “Does a Mixed-Mode Design Increase Panel Attrition? Evidence from the UKHLS Innovation Panel.” Paper presented at the Internet Survey Methodology Workshop, Bolzano, December 1–3.]Search in Google Scholar
[Göritz, A. 2006. “Incentives in Web Studies: Methodological Issues and a Review.” International Journal of Internet Science 1: 58–70.]Search in Google Scholar
[Göritz, A. 2010. “Using Lotteries, Loyalty Points, and Other Incentives to Increase Participant Response and Completion.” In Advanced methods for conducting online behavioural research, edited by S. Gosling and J. Johnson, 219–233. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12076-014.10.1037/12076-014]Search in Google Scholar
[Göritz, A. 2015. “Incentive Effects.” In Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research, edited by U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, and P. Sturgis, 339–350. London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Griffin, D., D. Fischer, and M. Morgan. 2001. “Testing an Internet Response Option for the American Community Survey.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Montreal.” Quebec, Canada, May 17–20.]Search in Google Scholar
[Groves, R. and L. Lyberg. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 849–879. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065.10.1093/poq/nfq065]Search in Google Scholar
[Groves, R.M. and F. Peytcheva. 2008. “The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 167–189. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn011.10.1093/poq/nfn011]Search in Google Scholar
[Jäckle, A. 2016. “Mode Effects on Measurement in Understanding Society.” Paper presented at the International Panel Survey Methods Workshop, Berlin, June 20–21. Available at: http://www.diw.de/en/diw_01.c.534396.en/program_psmw2016.html (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Jäckle, A. and P. Lynn. 2008. “Respondent Incentives in a Multi-Mode Panel Survey: Cumulative Effects on Nonresponse and Bias.” Survey Methodology 34: 105–117.]Search in Google Scholar
[Jäckle, A., P. Lynn, and J. Burton. 2015. “Going Online with a Face-to-Face Household Panel: Effects of a Mixed Mode Design on Item and Unit Non-Response.” Survey Research Methods 9(1): 57–70. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18148/srm/2015.v9i1.5475.]Search in Google Scholar
[Janssen, B. 2006. “Web Data Collection in a Mixed Mode Approach: An Experiment.” Paper presented at the European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics (Q2006), Cardiff, April 24–26. Available at: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140721132900/http://ons.gov.uk/about/newsroom/events/q2006––european-conference-on-quality-in-survey-statistics-24-26-april-2006/agenda/session-19-wednesday.pdf (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Klausch, T., J. Hox, and B. Schouten. 2015a. “Selection Error in Single- and Mixed Mode Surveys of the Dutch General Population.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 178(4): 945–961. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12102.10.1111/rssa.12102]Search in Google Scholar
[Klausch, T., B. Schouten, and J.J. Hox. 2015b. “Evaluating Bias of Sequential Mixedmode Designs Against Benchmark Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research : 1–34. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124115585362.10.1177/0049124115585362]Search in Google Scholar
[Kreuter, F. 2013. “Facing the Nonresponse Challenge.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645: 23–35. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456815.10.1177/0002716212456815]Search in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J.A. and D.F. Alwin. 1987. “An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 201–219. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/269029.10.1086/269029]Search in Google Scholar
[Lagerstrøm, B. 2008. “Cost Efficiency in a Mixed-Mode Survey – Evidence from the Norwegian Rent Market Survey.” Paper presented at the 19th International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Ljubljana, September 15. Available at: http://www.nonresponse.org/db/3/558/Biblliography/Cost%20efficiency%20in%20a%20mixed-mode%20survey%20Evidence%20from%20the%20Norwegian%20Rent%20Marked%20Survey/?&p1=308&p2=74&p3=551 (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Laurie, H. and P. Lynn. 2009. “The Use of Respondent Incentives on Longitudinal Surveys.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 205–233. Chichester: Wiley.10.1002/9780470743874.ch12]Search in Google Scholar
[Leesti, T. 2010. “Canadian Labour Force Survey Internet Data Collection Pilot Test.” Paper presented at the Fifth Workshop on Labour Force Survey Methodology, Paris, April 15–16.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Leeuw, E.D. 2005. “To Mix or not to Mix Data Collection in Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics 21: 233–255.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lugtig, P. 2014. “Panel Attrition: Separating Stayers, Fast Attriters, Gradual Attriters, and Lurkers.” Sociological Methods and Research 43(4): 699–723. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113520305.10.1177/0049124113520305]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. 2009. “Sample Design for Understanding Society.” Understanding Society Working Paper 2009-01, ISER, University of Essex, Colchester. Available at: www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/research/publications/working-paper/understandingsociety/2009-01 (accessed 16 March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. 2013. “Alternative Sequential Mixed-Mode Designs: Effects on Attrition Rates, Attrition Bias and Costs.” Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1: 183–205. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt015.10.1093/jssam/smt015]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. 2014. “Targeted Response Inducement Strategies on Longitudinal Surveys.” In Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research, edited by U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, and P. Sturgis. Routledge/Psychology Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. Forthcoming. “Tackling Panel Attrition.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, edited by D.L. Vannette and J.A. Krosnick. Palgrave.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. and A. Jäckle. Forthcoming. “Mounting Multiple Experiments on Longitudinal Social Surveys: Design and Implementation Considerations.” In Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment, edited by P.J. Lavrakas, E.E. de Leeuw, A. Holbrook, C. Kennedy, M.W. Traugott, and B.T. West. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. and P. Lugtig. 2017. “Total Survey Error for Longitudinal Surveys.” In Total Survey Error in Practice, edited by Paul Biemer, Edith de Leeuw, Stephanie Eckman, Brad Edwards, Frauke Kreuter, Lars Lyberg, Clyde Tucker, and Brady West, 279–298. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.10.1002/9781119041702.ch13]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. and D. Lievesley. 1991. “Drawing General Population Samples in Great Britain.” London: SCPR.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lynn, P. S.C.N. Uhrig, and J. Burton. 2010. “Lessons from a Randomized Experiment with Mixed-Mode Designs for a Household Panel Survey.” Understanding Society, Working Paper Series, 2010-03.]Search in Google Scholar
[Martin, P. and P. Lynn. 2011. “The Effects of Mixed Mode Survey Designs on Simple and Complex Analyses.” ISER Working Paper Series, 2011-28. Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex. Available at: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2011-28 (accessed February 5, 2013).]Search in Google Scholar
[Schoeni, R., F. Stafford, K. McGonagle, and P. Andreski. 2013. “Response Rates in National Panel Surveys.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645: 60–87. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456363.10.1177/0002716212456363355514023358122]Search in Google Scholar
[Schwarz, N., F. Strack, H.-J. Hippler, and G. Bishop. 1991. “The Impact of Administration Mode on Response Effects in Survey Measurement.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 193–212.10.1002/acp.2350050304]Search in Google Scholar
[Souren, M. 2012. “Multi-Mode Surveys at Statistics Netherlands: Implications, Experiences and Open Issues.” Paper presented at Opening Conference of the European Statistical System Network (ESSNet) on Data Collection for Social Surveys using Multiple Modes, Wiesbaden, October 11–12, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[Uhrig, S.C.N. 2008. “The Nature and Causes of Attrition in the British Household Panel Study.” Institute for Social and Economic Research Working Paper 2008-05. Available at: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2008-05 (accessed 16 March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Uhrig, S.C.N. 2011. “Using Experiments to Guide Decision Making in Understanding Society: Introducing the Innovation Panel.” In Understanding Society: Early Findings from the First Wave of the UK’s Household Longitudinal Study, edited by S.L. McFall and C. Garrington. Colchester: University of Essex. Available at: http://research.understandingsociety.org.uk/findings/early-findings (accessed 16 March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Voogt, R. and W. Saris. 2005. “Mixed Mode Designs: Finding the Balance between Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects.” Journal of Official Statistics 21(3): 367–387.]Search in Google Scholar
[Voorpostel, M. and V.A. Ryser. 2011. “Mixed Mode Data Collection as a Strategy to Decrease Panel Attrition in the Swiss Household Panel.” FORS Working Paper 2_11. Available at: http://ohs-shp.unil.ch/workingpapers/WP2_11.pdf (accessed 28 March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Wallace, S., J. Nazroo, and L. Bécares. 2016. “Cumulative Effect of Racial Discrimination on the Mental Health of Ethnic Minorities in the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Public Health 106(7): 1294–1300. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303121.10.2105/AJPH.2016.303121498473227077347]Search in Google Scholar
[Watson, N. and M. Wooden. 2014. “Re-Engaging with Survey Non-Respondents: Evidence from Three Household Panels.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 177(2): 499–522. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12024.10.1111/rssa.12024]Search in Google Scholar