View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effectiveness of Between-Wave Mailings and Tailored Material Incentives on Response Rates: Results from a Young Adolescent Longitudinal Survey

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effectiveness of Between-Wave Mailings and Tailored Material Incentives on Response Rates: Results from a Young Adolescent Longitudinal Survey
Language: English
Authors: Roman Auriga, André Pirralha (ORCID 0000-0002-2335-7278), Friederike Schlücker, Götz Lechner, Anna Passmann
Source: International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2025 28(1):119-131.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Adolescents, Mail Surveys, Research Methodology, Response Rates (Questionnaires), Longitudinal Studies, Incentives, Participation, Attrition (Research Studies)
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2024.2303031
ISSN: 1364-5579
1464-5300
Abstract: Mailing campaigns are a way to keep longitudinal survey respondents engaged. While mailings usually include a survey answer request, sometimes respondents are contacted between-waves to update contact information or simply to keep respondent contact. Research on the actual impact of these between-wave contacts on response rates is scarce. This paper addresses three research questions: (1) Do between-wave campaigns impact response rate? (2) Does the addition of non-monetary incentives to between-wave campaigns further impact response rates? (3) Do between-wave campaigns also affect other members of the household? Following a one-year break between survey waves, we design a randomized survey experiment assigning respondents to five treatment conditions. Results show that keeping-in-touch mailings did not significantly increase the likelihood of an interview in the National Educational Panel Study for either children or their parents in general. However, when we focus on specific characteristics of the targets, significant differences are found.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458601
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF8FdO6DmZKkX0l9ZlTvcZZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCW6mbp9-3CPBSj8TAIBEICBm3bBfrelEAWcGiWuMPjfdq4kw3kP9lNN-fMEMEI-INRVk7aoNZN-Es4aQt5jJZO5ot7YNmqZcE4lLQfK67cB72eK0gvKZZL3hTdFkQ7V5XwhmGsJVdPS3vAp9N_Vg_hztAH4PKGvn96Rv8SeYMliH7Kf0q7eUsU3_eNTASW8W50D4CntWcccLb2DK9ODzzHXetgFNxEmJgdphbJ_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182340474;9eb01jan.25;2025Jan23.01:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182340474-1">The effectiveness of between-wave mailings and tailored material incentives on response rates: results from a young adolescent longitudinal survey </title> <p>Mailing campaigns are a way to keep longitudinal survey respondents engaged. While mailings usually include a survey answer request, sometimes respondents are contacted between-waves to update contact information or simply to keep respondent contact. Research on the actual impact of these between-wave contacts on response rates is scarce. This paper addresses three research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) Do between-wave campaigns impact response rate? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) Does the addition of non-monetary incentives to between-wave campaigns further impact response rates? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) Do between-wave campaigns also affect other members of the household? Following a one-year break between survey waves, we design a randomized survey experiment assigning respondents to five treatment conditions. Results show that keeping-in-touch mailings did not significantly increase the likelihood of an interview in the National Educational Panel Study for either children or their parents in general. However, when we focus on specific characteristics of the targets, significant differences are found.</p> <p>Keywords: Response rate; between-wave; mail surveys; longitudinal survey; panel attrition</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-2">1 Introduction</hd> <p>Survey response rates declining across several countries represent a serious problem for the field of survey research (Beullens et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]; Luiten et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>]). While this is common to most survey studies, it is particularly problematic for longitudinal surveys. The added value of longitudinal or panel surveys lies in retaining sample members over time. As such, attrition or permanent dropout from panel studies is of severe concern, as it is known that even a modest attrition rate can lead to biased survey estimates (Lugtig, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Facing the harmful consequences of losing respondents, researchers have come up with several ideas and strategies to prevent attrition and non-response bias (Laurie et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>]). Between-wave mailings, designed primarily to prevent loss of contact by keeping contact details updated, are a common tracking procedure used to minimize panel attrition (Calderwood, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). These mailings present an additional chance to address non-contacts or refusals by motivating and engaging respondents to answer the next wave of the survey (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; Lynn, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]; McGonagle et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>While most research focuses on strategies to improve response rates during the survey data collection process, less attention has been directed to the effectiveness of keeping-in-touch campaigns on survey response (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref13">10</reflink>]; Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>]). We do not known much about how between-wave contacts actually affect response rates. While the potential positive impacts of maintaining contact with respondents between survey waves has been somewhat discussed in existing literature, there is little experimental evidence focusing on this effect. Moreover, the possibility of complementing between-wave contact campaigns with tailored incentives as a way to further improve response rates is, to the best of our knowledge, unexplored until now. Finally, we also focus on whether there are spillover effects on the response rates to other members of the household of between-wave contact campaigns in multi-actor survey designs.</p> <p>This paper discusses the findings of a randomized experiment embedded in the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS), a long-standing, German multi-actor panel educational study (Blossfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]). The experiment randomly allocated respondents of the NEPS Starting Cohort 2 (SC2) to one of five different between-wave contact strategies. The choice of SC2, one of the cohorts with the longest connection to NEPS and comprising predominantly young adolescents around 14 years old, was deliberate to examine changes in panel member communication within a group that has a substantial history with the panel and also represents a special population in survey research. As the NEPS SC2 members largely consist of young adolescents, this paper also aims to contribute to the literature on surveying special populations.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-3">2 Previous research</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182340474-4">2.1 Impact of between-wave mailings</hd> <p>Longitudinal studies have developed several contact strategies to persuade panel members to inform of address updates and improve panel retention (Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]; McGonagle et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]). Between-wave mailings are a commonly used prospective tracking method whose effectiveness in mitigating panel attrition in future waves has been consistently shown (Calderwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]; Couper & Ofstedal, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]). Between-wave contacts usually consist of a request to a sample member to update their contact details in case they changed or to reply to the request irrespective of address change (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]; Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]). Methods to keep track of sample members are even more important when longitudinal studies shift the periodicity of the survey interviews because with longer intervals the chances of address change increase as well as the chance of losing respondent interest (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]; McGonagle et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]). Though contact updates are important, between-wave contacts also lower the risk of dropouts and hence improve the response rate (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]; Fumagalli et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]). Based on these considerations, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-5">H1a:</hd> <p>Receiving between-wave contacts increases the response rate of children compared to not receiving any between-wave contact.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-6">2.2 Impact of tailored study newsletters</hd> <p>Some studies have explored the inclusion of a survey newsletter within between-wave mailings as a means to enhance participant engagement and improve cooperation in future waves (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]; Couper & Ofstedal, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]; Lechner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]; McGonagle et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]). However, the findings regarding this approach are mixed. For example, McGonagle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref31">24</reflink>]) found no significant impact on the address update rate or response rate to the subsequent survey wave when participants were sent a general survey newsletter compared to not receiving any newsletter. On the other hand, Fumagalli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]) sent several versions of a study newsletter and found a positive impact on the response rate when a tailored newsletter was sent. Similarly, the study of Cleary and Balmer ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]) also show the importance of tailoring the newsletter, as respondents who received a tailored newsletter were more likely to respond to the survey compared to those who did not receive any newsletter. Conversely, the same study concluded that a non-tailored newsletter did not yield positive response effects. While none of the cited previous studies was directed to a sample of young adolescents, based on their insights about between-wave communications, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-7">H2a:</hd> <p>Receiving between-wave contact letters combined with a tailored newsletter increases the response rate of children compared to solely receiving contact letters.</p> <p>The newsletter used was tailored in the sense of adapting the language and the graphs to the group of families and young population.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-8">2.3 Impact of tailored material incentives</hd> <p>Previous research on incentives has primarily focussed on cross-sectional studies (Wong, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]), consistently showing that incentives are effective in improving response rates (Castiglioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Pforr et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]; Singer & Ye, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]; Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref38">40</reflink>]). While the literature generally supports the idea that providing incentives is more beneficial for response rates than not providing them, the debate regarding the type of incentives remains open. Wong ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref39">38</reflink>]) notes that most studies indicate that cash incentives lead to higher response rates compared to gifts of similar value, although this conclusion was challenged by the review of population-based longitudinal cohort studies (Booker et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]). Moreover, while there is extensive literature on the effects of incentives on response rates, the evidence specifically related to between-wave contact strategies is relatively scarce (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]; McGonagle, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>]; McGonagle et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]; Watson et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]). However, an exception is the experiment conducted by McGonagle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref45">25</reflink>]), which aimed to assess the impact of contacting respondents during the between-wave period on later interview requests. The results suggested that including a financial incentive resulted in greater cooperation compared to not offering any between-wave incentive, and this finding was further supported by a more recent study also by McGonagle ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Notably, we found no studies that explored the use of material incentives (gifts) instead of monetary incentives within the context of between-wave contacts. In addition, the NEPS fieldwork experience, also shows that in-kind incentives are less costly than monetary incentives. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that our study focuses on a specific population of young adolescents, for which there is limited knowledge regarding the effectiveness of mail surveys and incentives (Omrani et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]). The knowledge of most of the existing survey methods is based on studies and theories developed for adult respondents, which may not necessarily be applicable to different age groups (Borgers et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>]; Omrani et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref49">28</reflink>]). Although some studies have shown that monetary incentives are effective for young adolescents' populations (Pejtersen & Claydon-Mueller, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]) and for retaining respondents in households with dependent children (Simmons & Wilmot, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>]), we are unaware of similar studies examining the impact of material incentives or gifts on the response rates of young adolescents.</p> <p>Furthermore, the debate surrounding non-monetary incentives includes considerations of what type of incentives to provide, as there is a wide variety of options available (Lipps et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]; Singer & Ye, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>]). Over a decade ago, Laurie and Lynn ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]) discussed the missing potential of longitudinal surveys by not tailoring incentives to respondent circumstances. Considering this, we have decided to tailor the material incentive specifically for the young adolescent population with whom we are engaging. For more details regarding the tailoring process, we refer to the Method section. Our expectation is that a material incentive tailored to the young adolescent population will have a significant positive effect on response rates and that this effect will be stronger than receiving a tailored newsletter. Hence:</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-9">H3a:</hd> <p>Receiving between-wave contact letters combined with tailored non-monetary incentives increases the response rate of children compared to receiving contact letters combined with a tailored newsletter.</p> <p>The literature highlights that sending newsletters, as well as non-monetary incentives, positively influences response rates. Considering this, we anticipate that combining the newsletter with a gift incentive in the between-wave mailing will result in a stronger positive effect on the response rate than just receiving any of these materials separately. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-10">H4a:</hd> <p>Receiving between-wave contact letters combined with tailored non-monetary incentives and tailored newsletters increases the response rate of children compared to solely receiving the newsletter or the non-monetary incentive.</p> <p>In addition, it is important to note that the effects of incentives can vary depending on sociodemographic and sample characteristics. This point is particularly relevant for longitudinal studies like the NEPS, where attrition tends to follow similar sociodemographic trends (Zinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref55">41</reflink>]). Therefore, it is crucial to extend hypothesis testing and further explore whether sociodemographic characteristics interact differently with the experimental treatment conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-11">2.4 Impact of between-wave contacts on multi-actor surveys</hd> <p>The NEPS is a comprehensive multi-actor educational longitudinal survey that involves interviewing children from a young age to adulthood, as well as other key figures, such as parents, teachers, or school principals, who are included as secondary respondents. In this particular study, the parents of SC2 children are also part of the longitudinal study and are therefore invited to respond to the survey.</p> <p>To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has examined the effect of between-wave mailings on multi-actor surveys and whether these effects extend to other household members. Specifically, whether there are spillover effects of between-wave contacts to other members of the household. Although our primary focus is on the children's response rate, it is important to consider the potential impact on parents' response rates as well. Consequently, our expectations for parents are an extension of the hypotheses previously presented for children. In order to distinguish our hypotheses related to children, we formalized these expectations by adding the suffix 'b' to H1 to H4, resulting in H1b, H2b, H3b, and H4b.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-12">3 Data & methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182340474-13">3.1 The survey design</hd> <p>In this paper we use data from the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS) (Blossfeld & Roßbach, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref56">3</reflink>]). The NEPS, conducted in collaboration with a nationwide network and administered by the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi), is the largest longitudinal study for educational research in Germany. The study provides information across several periods of life, consisting of six separate cohorts of different age groups. In this paper, we analyse data from Starting Cohort 2 (SC2) (NEPS Network, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>]), with the first wave dated in 2011 (sampled in kindergarten) and a large sample refreshment in spring/summer 2013 upon entry into elementary school. The survey is based on a representative sample of children in day-care facilities in Germany (Skopek et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref58">35</reflink>]). Parents are invited as well to participate in the survey study.</p> <p>All SC2 participants receive once a year a request to respond to the survey. Additionally, the panel members receive season greetings postcards twice a year. Along with these postcards goes the request to report changes in contact information used for panel identification and contact tracing. In the autumn 2019, there was a 'gap year' in SC2 yearly data collection and no wave was conducted. In other words, the now 9<sups>th</sups> graders panel members were interviewed in autumn/winter 2018/2019 and then again in autumn/winter 2020/2021. Given the long participation commitment of the study members (7–9 years) and the yearly periodicity of the data collection, it is likely that the expectation among the participants was to answer the survey every year. In the student's wave under analysis – the first wave after the break —, participants received an advance letter asking to respond to the survey. The students could choose to answer the survey by mail, sending back the Paper Assisted Personal Interview (PAPI) questionnaire by post, or alternatively answer the online questionnaire following the web link also provided in the letter. Concerning the parents, we analyse their participation in the beginning of year 2022. This is one year after the children interview wave, as parents interviewing was not included in the year 2021 wave of data collection.</p> <p>Finally, all SC2 children participants get conditional in-kind incentives until 4<sups>th</sups> grade and cash incentives after participating in the survey in later years. Parents do not receive any type of incentives and parental survey interviews are conducted by telephone interviewing (CATI) after the children interviewing fieldwork is completed.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-14">3.2 The experiment design</hd> <p>Five distinct treatment conditions, consisting of different between-wave contact strategies, materials and non-monetary incentives were set up and experimentally tested. The contact materials were a NEPS cover letter and newsletter. The cover letter made explicit reference to the wave gap, explaining that the request to respond was coming only next year, in addition to the standard request to update contact data if necessary. The newsletter consisted of a study newsletter tailored to the respondents age group (8<sups>th</sups> graders), including findings from the previous waves and highlighting the importance of their contribution to the study and knowledge in general. Finally, the non-monetary incentive was tailored to the age of the school children being studied, following a stepwise evaluation of what type of non-monetary incentive would please them the most. This process started with a small survey among 21 students aged 12–14 aimed at collecting ideas with a maximum cost of 10 EUR (open question; more than 60 proposals). In the second step, some of these ideas were selected following logistic and affordability concerns. In the third step, a focus group of students from different school types chose one out of seven final ideas. The most voted incentive was a cotton gym bag with the 'NEPS' logo.</p> <p>The experimental conditions randomly assigned to the NEPS SC2 panel respondents are described in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Experimental treatment conditions and sample size.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Condition</td><td>Treatment</td><td>Children N</td><td>Parents N</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No contact</td><td>No between-wave contact</td><td>985</td><td>966</td></tr><tr><td>Letter</td><td>NEPS panel cover letter</td><td>1,015</td><td>1,001</td></tr><tr><td>Newsletter</td><td>Cover letter plus the newsletter</td><td>1,018</td><td>1,002</td></tr><tr><td>Gift</td><td>Cover letter plus gym bag</td><td>993</td><td>976</td></tr><tr><td>Newsletter & Gift</td><td>Cover letter plus newsletter and gym bag</td><td>1,038</td><td>1,021</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td /><td>5,049</td><td>4,966</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A sample of <emph>N</emph> = 5,049 panel respondents of the NEPS SC2 9<sups>th</sups> graders was randomly assigned to the experimental groups. Respondents who withdrew their panel consent, were not contacted in previous waves, or did not respond to the survey in the last two waves were excluded from the experiment sample. The experimental design follows a block randomization approach, with equal sample sizes assigned to each experimental group. Additionally, a two-factor stratification is employed to ensure randomization and balance with respect to specific predefined characteristics. The initial step involved stratifying the sample based on two factors: the response status in the previous wave and the parents' highest school and vocational qualification, assessed using the CASMIN educational classification. In a subsequent step, panel respondents within these strata were randomly allocated to different treatment conditions. While the experimental groups were originally balanced in number, some panel members withdrew their panel consent before the start of data collection. However, this did not change the sample composition. Further information regarding the experimental treatment groups is available in the Supplementary Data.</p> <p>There is a slightly smaller number of parents in the experimental groups when compared to the children. The justification is that as some parents have more than one child in the sample or eventually dropped out of the parent sample. Finally, the seasonal greeting postcards, part of the NEPS standard fieldwork procedures, were sent off to respondents all included in the experiment sample.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-15">3.3 Outcome measures</hd> <p>The first outcome of interest is the response rate of the children. We follow the AAPOR standard definition for response rates, defined as the proportion of returned questionnaires (AAPOR, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>]). Given that respondents had the option to participate in the survey both through PAPI and online methods, the response rate definition used followed the guidelines outlined by AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) for internet surveys where mail addresses are known (AAPOR, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]). Furthermore, the responses were categorized following the AAPOR interview standards. Whenever more than 80% of the applicable questions were answered, the interview was considered complete; between 50% and 80% of answered questions it was partial and anything less was categorized as break-off (<50%). Altogether, of 5,059 cases, 70.8% of the survey response falls under the complete category, while 1.46% are partial and 0.3% are break-offs. The response rate is defined as the ratio of the complete and partial response to the sum of complete and partial cases, refusals, and break-offs, plus all cases of unknown eligibility (RR2; AAPOR, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>]). The overall response rate in this experiment is 72.2%. Full information regarding the response and nonresponse distribution is available in Table S1 of the Supplementary Data.</p> <p>The second outcome of interest is the parents' response rate. We follow the same AAPOR standard definition for response rates, this time for CATI interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-16">3.4 Controls</hd> <p>To improve the accuracy of the effect estimation, we control for respondent gender and sample group. As in any other longstanding panel, the likelihood of nonresponse in the NEPS decreases with every panel wave (Kleinert et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>] Lechner et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]). To control for this pattern, we include a variable identifying the sample groups within the SC2. Namely, the following sampling groups: 'KG School' - students sampled in the kindergarten (KG) and surveyed after the transition to the preliminary school every year (in the school until grade 4, individually beginning with grade 5); 'KG Indiv.' - sampled in the kindergarten but traced individually beginning with the first grade of preliminary school and containing a break in interviewing between grade 1 and 4; 'G1 School' - students which were added to sample in grade 1 in classes of students of the group 'KG School' (Würbach, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref64">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-17">3.5 Methods</hd> <p>We use logit regression models to estimate the effect of treatment conditions on response rates. The significance threshold is set at <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. To help with the interpretation of the results, we plot the Average Marginal Effects (AME) which represent the change in the expected value of participation in the survey associated with the treatments, holding all other independent variables constant (Pampel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref65">29</reflink>]). By following this approach, the interpretation of logistic regression outputs is made less complex and more manageable.</p> <p>After testing the treatment effects, we look at the interaction of treatment conditions with the covariates age and sample group. Since the type of school attended by children is an indicator used for the established link between survey participation willingness and educational background, we also explore how school type interacts with the treatment groups.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-18">4. Results</hd> <p>In order to test the hypotheses, we estimate the baseline model for different treatment groups as reference category. Figure 1 shows the results for the children and parents sample, where the letters from A to D and the subtitle identify the reference category. The complete results for both samples are included in the supplementary data. Starting with the children sample presented in Figure 1, Panel A shows the results when No Contact is the reference category. The probability of responding to the survey is not statistically different at the 0.05 level of significance between the No contact group and any of the other treatment conditions. However, the likelihood of responding for the Gift group when compared to the No contact group, albeit not reaching the predefined α level of significance, was 3.3 percentage points higher (α = 0.08). Regardless, the results show no support for hypothesis H1a. The results for the parents' sample are similar, as shown in Figure 1. The biggest difference in terms of likelihood to participate in the survey is still between the No Contact and the Gift group, but far from being statistically significant. Therefore, our results also show no support for hypothesis H1b that states that between-wave contact with the children increases the response rate of the parents.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Average marginal effects of treatment groups for the children and parents samples based on logistic regressions controlling for gender and sample group.</p> <p>Hypothesis H2 argued that between-wave contacts combined with a tailored newsletter increase the response rate for children (H2a) and parents (H2b), when compared to only sending a contact letter. Panel B in Figure 1 shows the AME when the treatment condition letter is the reference category. Once again, response rate differences across experimental groups are not statistically significant in both tested samples of children and parents. While these findings do not support hypotheses H2a and H2b, it is noteworthy that with the exception of the Gift group, albeit non-significant differences, all interventions had negative effects on the response rate when compared to only sending a letter.</p> <p>Panel C and Panel D show the results when the Newsletter and the Gift group, respectively, are in the reference category. Hypothesis H3a and H3b build on the expectation that tailored non-monetary incentives combined with the letter increase the response rate when compared to sending the newsletter to both parents and children.</p> <p>The results show that the response rate was 3.2 points higher in the Gift group, but this difference with the Newsletter group is not statistically significant (α = 0.09) in the children's sample. On the other hand, in the parents' sample the response rate difference is bigger (3.9 points) but still higher than the established statistical significance threshold (α = 0.051). Therefore, failing to reject the null hypotheses leads us to affirm that H3a and H3b are not supported by the data.</p> <p>Finally, the results do not support hypothesis H4a. As panel C in Figure 1 shows, the difference in probability of participation between the Newsletter group and the Newsletter combined with the Gift group is very close to zero and non-significant. On the other hand, in Panel D we can see that the respondents allocated to the Newsletter&Gift treatment group had, on average, a response rate 2.1 points lower than the gift group (α = 0.032). As for the parents' sample, there are no significant differences in the likelihood of answering the survey between the News & Gift group and, respectively, the Newsletter and the Gift groups. While Hypothesis H4b finds no support in our data, it is interesting that the effect of the interventions follows similar trends for both the children and the parents' sample. Even though the effect on the response rate is measured one year and two years after the intervention, respectively, for children and parents.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-19">4.1 Further exploratory analysis</hd> <p>In a representative longitudinal study such as the NEPS, it is very important to ensure that the measures aimed at enhancing survey participation work similarly across all sociodemographic groups. Therefore, in this section, we extended the logistic regression models to include interactions between the treatment conditions and the controls gender and sample group. Previous research has indicated that the educational background has a strong impact on participation, especially after positive selection in panel surveys after a few waves (Engel & Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>]; Stöckinger et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref67">36</reflink>]; Zinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref68">41</reflink>]). Hence, we add a product term between the experimental group and a variable indicating whether the target child currently attends a high school (Gymnasium) or any of the other types of school that characterize the German educational system.</p> <p>Given the known difficulties of nonlinear interaction interpretation, we resort to Mize's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref69">26</reflink>]) suggestion to use marginal effects as a summary of the interaction effect in the metric of the dependent variable and test for second differences in the children's sample. Figure 2 shows the AME estimates and the complete results are in the supplementary files.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Average marginal effects of the interaction between the experimental groups and gender, sample group and type of school.</p> <p>Starting with gender, Figure 2 shows that female panel members have a statistically significant higher likelihood of answering the survey than male respondents in the Newsletter and the Newsletter&Gift conditions. The test of differences across all treatment groups have, however, revealed no statistically significant contrasts of gender.</p> <p>For the sample group, we find a significant difference for the No Contact group, with the longer time panel members of 'KG School' sample group more likely to participate than the respondents recruited in the G1 class. There is also a similar effect in the Newsletter & Gift group, where 'KG School' NEPS members are more likely to participate in the survey than G1 recruited respondents. A significant effect in the same direction is also found between KG School and KG Individual. Finally, in the Gift group, KG School sample group members are significantly more likely to participate in the survey than both G1 and KG individual respondents. The contrast tests indicate a more nuanced picture, though. The significance tests of the effect differences turn out to be statistically significant only for the differences between the Newsletter and Gift groups, for KG School and KG Individual sample groups. In other words, the likelihood of participating in the survey is significantly larger for KG School sample group respondents in the Gift group than in the Newsletter treatment condition. Furthermore, there is also a significant difference between KG individual and G1 sample groups for the No contact vs Letter groups and the No Contact vs Gift group. In both cases, KG Individual group respondents are significantly more likely to participate when compared to G1 sample members under these conditions.</p> <p>Finally, we turn to the last model including a product term between treatment condition and the children's type of school. Here, the results point in one direction: gymnasium children are more likely to participate in the survey than children frequenting other type of schools. However, the test of second differences indicates that this effect is statistically significant and larger for Gymnasium children between the Newsletter and Gift treatment conditions when compared to children frequenting other types of school.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-20">5. Conclusion</hd> <p>This article aimed to test experimentally if between-wave mailing campaigns are a viable way to enhance response rates in a long-standing longitudinal study of school-aged children and whether this effect also extended to other members of the household. The main contribution is to provide evidence of whether between-wave mailings foster higher participation rates and how different combinations of mailings and incentive materials foster or inhibit the hypothesized positive effect on the response rate.</p> <p>The experimental treatments tested the impact on response rates of sending between-wave mailings and between-wave mailings combined with other materials to sample of schoolchildren and their parents. The results show no significant differences in the response rate when comparing sending a between-wave contact letter alone or sending it combined with a newsletter or an incentive. This conclusion can be extended to the parents sample. While the effect of sending the gift combined with the between-wave letter was the strongest in both samples, it was not significantly different from zero. This finding contradicts some earlier research findings stating the success of at least some specific between-wave mailing communication strategies in fostering the response rate at the later point in time (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]). A possible explanation for this different results is that the mentioned study does not test the effect of between-wave mailings relative to a group where no such contact was entailed. Another possibility is that SC2 NEPS respondents are so much in the habit of answering the survey that between-wave communications do not bring any benefit to the standard advanced letter panel members get. Respondents are just much less easily influenced by the changes introduced in the experimental conditions than respondents in other surveys (Calderwood, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]). There is also a third possibility that brings a new aspect into play. The households included in the experiment received two seasonal greetings postcards (Christmas and summer). Meanwhile, the wave break meant the request to answer the survey only came a year after the last of these postcards. Therefore, it could be that the 'habit' of answering every year during the same period and the seasonal greetings are already such a steady expectation that every other respondent communication only slightly influences the decision to answer the survey.</p> <p>A second finding is that the effect on the response rate of sending only a between-wave contact letter is not statistically different than sending the letter combined with any of the tested materials, both for children and parents. This, in turn, echoes Cleary and Balmer ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]) findings that sending only the request is equally effective at inducing a response as sending a request combined with a newsletter. In a similar way, the Rach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]) paper suggests that adding a flyer or a newsletter does not have a positive effect on the response rate. Furthermore, it is particularly intriguing that the positive effect of the tailored gift vanishes when adding the study newsletter to the gift in the mailing. While some researchers have already pointed out the potential negative or neutral effects of sending study newsletters (Cleary & Balmer, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref74">10</reflink>]), another possibility to explain this outcome might be that the bulk of mailing arriving at the participants' house is too burdensome, cognitively and otherwise. The fact that the study newsletter together with the gym bag fares so negatively when compared to sending only the gym bag further suggests that it might be causing this result.</p> <p>In order to test whether important socio-demographic and sample characteristics are associated with the response rate, we explored whether there are differing effects between the treatments. The findings demonstrate that in general female respondents are more likely to answer the survey. This difference is statistically significant for the Newsletter and the Newsletter&Gift groups. The suggestion we take from this result is that including the Newsletter in between-wave mailings can actually widen the gender gap. As for sample group, the results largely conform to the understanding that long-term panel members self-select based on their likelihood of answering. Consequently, we find that panel members belonging to the 'KG School' sample group, the earlier recruited respondents, are on average more likely to answer. Adding to this result is that the likelihood of participating in the survey for the 'KG School' group compared to 'KG Ind.' is significantly larger in the Gift group compared to the Newsletter. An explanation for this finding is that respondents that were continuously participating and are still active on the panel after so long have formed some kind of bond with the survey study. In other words, the established relationship between respondent and study lays the conditions for more attractive incentives fostering higher response (Collins et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]). Finally, and particularly important for the purpose of the NEPS study, we investigate the heterogeneous effects of treatment conditions across types of schools. While the pattern found is in accordance with our expectations, meaning gymnasium children are more likely to answer the survey, there are some relevant differences caused by differential treatment conditions. Namely, the significant difference between the Gift and the Newsletter group. While the Gift treatment actually shortened the gap between gymnasium and no gymnasium schoolchildren, the Newsletter condition had a differential effect with non-gymnasium children less likely to answer the survey. The practical implication is that targeted incentives by type of school are possibly a good strategy to improve the participation rate of students in 'lower' school types. As the contrast between the school types is significant, developing targeted incentive strategies for non-gymnasium children can be a viable alternative to improve the typically lower response rates of this subgroup.</p> <p>Our study also comes with some limitations. First, the NEPS is a long-standing panel. The SC2 panel members have been recurrently answering the survey for years. This would contribute to explain the very high response rates we showed and might limit the generalizability of our findings to other surveys, especially to non-longitudinal surveys. Secondly, the sensitivity of our treatments to effects in the parents' sample is disputable. The between-wave mailing is indeed addressed to the target child and the parents' exposure to differential treatment conditions is not warranted in equal conditions for all participants. In addition, the parents' data was collected a year later than the adolescents, which adds a further layer of effect mitigation. However, in spite of limitations, we are convinced that the findings provide useful information for survey researchers and panel managers to consider the role of between-wave contacts.</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-21">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0182340474-22">Supplementary material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2024.2303031.</p> <ref id="AN0182340474-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.). AAPOR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beullens, K., Loosveldt, G., Vandenplas, C., & Stoop, I. (2018). Response rates in the European Social Survey: Increasing, decreasing, or a matter of fieldwork efforts?, Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2018-00003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blossfeld, H.-P., & Roßbach, H.-G. (2019). Education as a lifelong process. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–658–23162–0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blossfeld, H.-P., Roßbach, H., & von Maurice, J. (2011). Education as a lifelong process: The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14 (S2), 19 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-011-0179-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Booker, C. L., Harding, S., & Benzeval, M. (2011). A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 11 (1), 249. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 66 (1), 60 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910630006600106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Calderwood, L. (2014). Improving between-wave mailings on longitudinal surveys: A randomised experiment on the UK millennium cohort study. Survey Research Methods, 8 (2), 99 – 108. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Calderwood, L., Brown, M., Gilbert, E., & Wong, E. (2021). Innovations in participant engagement and tracking in longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Advances in Longitudinal Survey Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119376965.ch3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Castiglioni, L., Pforr, K., & Krieger, U. (2008). The effect of incentives on response rates and panel attrition: Results of a controlled experiment. Survey Research Methods, 2, 151 – 158. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2008.v2i3.599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cleary, A., & Balmer, N. (2015). Fit for purpose? The impact of between-wave engagement strategies on response to a longitudinal survey. International Journal of Market Research, 57 (4), 533 – 554. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2015-046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, R. L., Ellickson, P. L., Hays, R. D., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2000). Effects of incentive size and timing on response rates to a follow-up wave of a longitudinal mailed survey. Evaluation Review, 24 (4), 347 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0002400401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Couper, M. P., & Ofstedal, M. (2009). Keeping in contact with mobile sample members. In P. Lynn (Eds.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 183 – 203). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engel, U., & Schmidt, B. O. (2022). Unit- und Item-Nonresponse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 453 – 471). Springer VS Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37985-8_29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fumagalli, L., Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2013). Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 176 (2), 499 – 519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01051.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinert, C., Christoph, B., & Ruland, M. (2021). Experimental evidence on immediate and long-term consequences of test-induced respondent burden for panel attrition. Sociological Methods & Research, 50 (4), 1552 – 1583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2009). The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys. In Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 205 – 233). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743874.ch12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurie, H., Smith, R. A., & Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for Reducing Nonresponse in a Longitudinal Panel Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 15 (2), 269 – 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lechner, G., Göpel, J., & Passmann, A. (2016). Challenges and intentions of target-specific public relations work. In H. P. Blossfeld, J. Maurice, M. Bayer, & J. Skopek (Eds.), Methodological issues of longitudinal surveys (pp. 133 – 145). Springer VS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipps, O., Herzing, J. M. E., Pekari, N., Ernst-Staehli, M., Pollien, A., Riedo, G., & Reveilhac, M. (2019). Incentives in surveys. FORS Guide, FORS. https://doi.org/10.24449/FG-2019-00008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lugtig, P. (2014). Panel attrition. Sociological Methods & Research, 43 (4), 699 – 723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113520305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luiten, A., Hox, J., & De Leeuw, E. (2020). Survey nonresponse trends and fieldwork effort in the 21st century: Results of an international study across countries and surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 36 (3), 469 – 487. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2020-0025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynn, P. (2018). Tackling Panel Attrition. In D. L. Vannette & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of survey research (pp. 143 – 153). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGonagle, K. A. (2020). The effects of an incentive boost on response rates, fieldwork effort, and costs across two waves of a panel study. Methods, Data, Analyses, 14, 241 – 250. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2020.04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGonagle, K. A., Couper, M., & Schoeni, R. F. (2011). Keeping track of panel members: An experimental test of a between-wave contact strategy. Journal of Official Statistics, 27 (2), 319 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGonagle, K. A., Schoeni, R. F., & Couper, M. P. (2013). The effects of a between-wave incentive experiment on contact update and production outcomes in a panel study. Journal of Official Statistics, 29 (2), 261 – 276. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2013-0022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mize, T. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science, 6, 81 – 117. https://doi.org/10.15195/V6.A4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NEPS Network. (2020). National Educational Panel Study, scientific use file of starting cohort kindergarten. Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories (LIfBi). https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC2:9.0.0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Omrani, A., Wakefield-Scurr, J., Smith, J., & Brown, N. (2019). Survey development for adolescents aged 11–16 years: A developmental science based guide. Adolescent Research Review, 4 (4), 329 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-018-0089-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pampel, F. C. (2021). Logistic regression: A primer. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pejtersen, J. H., & Claydon-Mueller, L. S. (2020). The effect of monetary incentive on survey response for vulnerable children and youths: A randomized controlled trial. PLOS One, 15 (5), 0233025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pforr, K., Blohm, M., Blom, A. B. A. G., Erdel, B., Felderer, B., Fräßdorf, M., Hajek, K., Helmschrott, S., Kleinert, C., Koch, A., Krieger, U., Kroh, M., Martin, S., Saßenroth, D., Schmiedeberg, C., Trüdinger, E.-M., & Rammstedt, B. (2015). Are incentive effects on response rates and nonresponse bias in large-scale, face-to-face surveys generalizable to Germany? Evidence from ten experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79 (3), 740 – 768. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rach, S., Günther, K., & Hadeler, B. (2020). Participants who were difficult to recruit at baseline are less likely to complete a follow-up questionnaire – results from the German national cohort. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20 (1), 187. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01073-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simmons, E., & Wilmot, A. (2004). Incentive payment on social surveys: A literature review. Social Survey Methodology Bulletin, 53 (1), 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, E., & Ye, C. (2013). The use and effects of incentives in surveys. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645 (1), 112 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212458082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skopek, J., Pink, S., & Bela, D. (2012), Data manual. Starting cohort 2 – from kindergarten to elementary school.: NEPS SC2 1.0.0, NEPS Research Data Paper,</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stöckinger, C., Kretschmer, S., & Kleinert, C. (2018). Panel attrition in NEPS starting cohort 6. NEPS Survey papers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, N., Leissou, E., Guyer, H., & Wooden, M. (2018). Best practices for panel maintenance and retention. In Advances in comparative survey methods (pp. 597 – 622). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118884997.ch29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, E. R. (2020), " Incentives in longitudinal studies." CLS working paper, UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Würbach, A. (2022). Samples, weights and nonresponse: NEPS starting cohort 2 — kindergarten from kindergarten to elementary school wave 10. https://doi.org/10.5157/NEPS:SC2:10.0.0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, S., Alper, H. E., Nguyen, A.-M., Brackbill, R. M., Turner, L., Walker, D. J., Maslow, C. B., & Zweig, K. C. (2017). The effectiveness of a monetary incentive offer on survey response rates and response completeness in a longitudinal study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0353-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinn, S., Würbach, A., Steinhauer, H. W., & Hammon, A. (2020). Ausfall und Selektivitäten in den NEPS Startkohorten: ein Überblick über die letzten 8 Jahre. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, 14 (2), 163 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11943-020-00268-7</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Roman Auriga; André Pirralha; Friederike Schlücker; Götz Lechner and Anna Passmann</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Roman Auriga is head of the research unit Survey Coordination in the Center for Study Management at LIfBi</p> <p>André Pirralha is a research specialist at the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) of the German Federal Employment Agency. His main research interests are survey data and survey methods.</p> <p>Friederike Schlücker works in the Research Data Centre and Methods Development Department at LIfBi and currently coordinates the Committee for Data Access within KonsortSWD and the NFDI. Her research focuses on higher education and social inequality. She is interested in quantitative data collection and data access.</p> <p>Götz Lechner works in the field of visualisation of scientific findings at LIfBi.</p> <p>Anna Passmann is head of the research unit Study Communications in the Center for Study Management at LIfBi</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref75"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458601
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effectiveness of Between-Wave Mailings and Tailored Material Incentives on Response Rates: Results from a Young Adolescent Longitudinal Survey
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roman+Auriga%22">Roman Auriga</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22André+Pirralha%22">André Pirralha</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2335-7278">0000-0002-2335-7278</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Friederike+Schlücker%22">Friederike Schlücker</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Götz+Lechner%22">Götz Lechner</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Passmann%22">Anna Passmann</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Social+Research+Methodology%22"><i>International Journal of Social Research Methodology</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1):119-131.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mail+Surveys%22">Mail Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Response+Rates+%28Questionnaires%29%22">Response Rates (Questionnaires)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incentives%22">Incentives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participation%22">Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attrition+%28Research+Studies%29%22">Attrition (Research Studies)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13645579.2024.2303031
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1364-5579<br />1464-5300
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Mailing campaigns are a way to keep longitudinal survey respondents engaged. While mailings usually include a survey answer request, sometimes respondents are contacted between-waves to update contact information or simply to keep respondent contact. Research on the actual impact of these between-wave contacts on response rates is scarce. This paper addresses three research questions: (1) Do between-wave campaigns impact response rate? (2) Does the addition of non-monetary incentives to between-wave campaigns further impact response rates? (3) Do between-wave campaigns also affect other members of the household? Following a one-year break between survey waves, we design a randomized survey experiment assigning respondents to five treatment conditions. Results show that keeping-in-touch mailings did not significantly increase the likelihood of an interview in the National Educational Panel Study for either children or their parents in general. However, when we focus on specific characteristics of the targets, significant differences are found.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458601
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458601
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13645579.2024.2303031
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 119
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mail Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Response Rates (Questionnaires)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incentives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attrition (Research Studies)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effectiveness of Between-Wave Mailings and Tailored Material Incentives on Response Rates: Results from a Young Adolescent Longitudinal Survey
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Roman Auriga
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: André Pirralha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Friederike Schlücker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Götz Lechner
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anna Passmann
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1364-5579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1464-5300
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Social Research Methodology
              Type: main
ResultId 1