[Buelens, B. and J.A. Van den Brakel. 2015. “Measurement Error Calibration in Mixed-Mode Sample Surveys.” Sociological Methods & Research 44(3): 391–426. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124114532444.10.1177/0049124114532444]Search in Google Scholar
[Cannel, C., P. Miller, and L. Oksenberg. 1981. “Research on Interviewing Techniques.” In Sociological Methodology, edited by S. Leinhardt. 389–437. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.10.2307/270748]Search in Google Scholar
[Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. 2015. Methoden en Definties Enquête Beroepsbevolking 2014. Technical report, Statistics Nederlands, Heerlen. Available at: https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/1BB3C645-47CC-4F58-9031-89F490AEE981/0/methodenendefinitiesebb2014.pdf (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Cernat, A. 2015. “Impact of Mode Design on Measurement Errors and Estimates of Individual Change.” Survey Research Methods 9(2): 83–99. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18148/srm/2015.v9i2.5851.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Leeuw, E. 2005. “To Mix or not to Mix data Collection Modes in Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics 21: 233–255.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dillman, D., G. Phelps, R. Tortora, K. Swift, J. Kohrell, J. Berck, and B. Messer. 2009. “Response Rate and Measurement Differences in Mixed-Mode Surveys Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response and the Internet.” Social Science Research 39: 1–18. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007]Search in Google Scholar
[Groves R.M. 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
[Holbrook, A., M. Green, and J. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346010.10.1086/346010]Search in Google Scholar
[Jäckle, A., C. Roberts, and P. Lynn. 2010. “Assessing the Effect of Data Collection Mode on Measurement.” International Statistical Review 78: 3–20. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00102.x.10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00102.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Klausch, T., J. Hox, and B. Schouten. 2015. “Selection Error in Single- and Mixed Mode Surveys of the Dutch General Population.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 178(4): 945–961. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12102.10.1111/rssa.12102]Search in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J. 1991. “Response strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213–236. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305.10.1002/acp.2350050305]Search in Google Scholar
[Krosnick, J. and D. Alwin. 1987. “An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of Response-Order Effects in Survey Measurement.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 201–219. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269029.10.1086/269029]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(2): 183–205. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smt015.10.1093/jssam/smt015]Search in Google Scholar
[Särndal, C.-E., B. Swensson, and J. Wretman. 1992. Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4612-4378-6]Search in Google Scholar
[Schouten, B., J. van den Brakel, B. Buelens, J. van der Laan, and T. Klausch. 2013. “Disentangling Mode-Specific Selection and Measurement Bias in Social Surveys.” Social Science Research 42(6): 1555–1570. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.005.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.00524090851]Search in Google Scholar
[Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.T. 2013. Investigating the Bias Properties of Alternative Statistical Inference Methods in Mixed-Mode Surveys. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan. Available at: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/102471/tsuzer_1.pdf (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.T., S. Heeringa, and R. Vaillant. 2012. “Investigating the Bias of Alternative Statistical Inference Methods in Sequential Mixed-Mode Surveys.” In Proceedings of the JSM, Section on Survey Research Methods, San Diego, July 28–August 2, 2012. American Statistical Association, 4711–25.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, R., L. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511819322]Search in Google Scholar
[Van den Brakel, J. 2008. “Design-Based Analysis of Embedded Experiments with Applications in the Dutch Labour Force Survey.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 171: 581–613. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00532.x.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00532.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Van den Brakel, J.A. and S. Krieg. 2015. “Dealing with Small Sample Sizes, Rotation Group Bias and Discontinuities in a Rotating Panel Design.” Survey Methodology 41(2): 267–296. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-001-x/2015002/article/14231-eng.pdf (accessed March 2017).]Search in Google Scholar
[Vannieuwenhuyze, J.T.A. and G. Loosveldt. 2013. “Evaluating Relative Mode Effects in Mixed-Mode Surveys: Three Methods to Disentangle Selection and Measurement Effects.” Sociological Methods & Research 42(1): 82–104. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124112464868.10.1177/0049124112464868]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: 367–387.]Search in Google Scholar