Randomly selecting a single adult within a household is one of the biggest challenges facing mail surveys. Yet obtaining a probability sample of adults within households is critical to having a probability sample of the US adult population. In this paper, we experimentally test three alternative placements of the within-household selection instructions in the National Health, Wellbeing, and Perspectives study (sample n = 6,000; respondent n = 998): (1) a standard cover letter informing the household to ask the person with the next birthday to complete the survey (control); (2) the control cover letter plus an instruction on the front cover of the questionnaire itself to have the adult with the next birthday complete the survey; and (3) the control cover letter plus an explicit yes/ no question asking whether the individual is the adult in the household who will have the next birthday. Although the version with an explicit question had a two-point decrease in response rates relative to not having any instruction, the explicit question significantly improves selection accuracy relative to the other two designs, yields a sample composition closer to national benchmarks, and does not affect item nonresponse rates. Accurately selected respondents also differ from inaccurately selected respondents on questions related to household tasks. Survey practitioners are encouraged to use active tasks such as explicit questions rather than passive tasks such as embedded instructions as part of the within-household selection process. Introduction Selecting one adult randomly from a household is central to obtaining a probability sample of adults in households. Although this is easily digitalcommons.unl.edu Olson & Smyth in Publ ic Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017 ) 2 accomplished in interviewer-administered surveys, it is much more difficult to complete successfully in mail surveys. At least 30 percent of all households, and about half of households with at least two adults, end up with an incorrectly selected respondent (Battaglia et al. 2008; Olson and Smyth 2014; Olson, Stange, and Smyth 2014; Stange, Smyth, and Olson 2016). This means that the assumptions underlying a probability sample of adults in mail surveys are violated at rates roughly equivalent to a coin flip. Within-household selection procedures have the potential to affect total survey error through both coverage (i.e., inaccurate selections) and nonresponse (i.e., people included in the sample by the selection procedure who do not do the survey). For either coverage problems or increased nonresponse rates to bias estimates, those who are inaccurately selected or who do not respond need to be different on the construct of interest from those who should have been selected or should have responded. For survey constructs where household members are expected to have similar responses, we would not expect coverage error due to inaccurate selections. This was the case in work by Stange, Smyth, and Olson (2016), where estimates produced from only correctly selected respondents did not differ from those produced from all respondents. However, for constructs on which household members do vary (e.g., household tasks that differ across household members), we would expect inaccurate selections to lead to biased estimates. In addition, the within-household selection process may discourage some households from responding at all, which has the potential to further bias survey estimates through nonresponse. Finding ways to improve the accuracy of selection of people within households without drastically increasing nonresponse error is thus critical for survey inference and validity of mail surveys. In this paper, we examine three alternative methods of presenting the within-household selection task to households in a mail survey with the intent of improving accuracy of selection. The three methods vary in the degree of emphasis and active participation in the selection task for the household informant—placing the instructions in the cover letter alone (i.e., a very passive method), adding a sentence to the cover of the questionnaire with the within-household selection instructions (i.e., a moderately passive method), and adding a sentence and an explicit question asking whether the person completing the questionnaire is the person matching the within-household selection instructions (i.e., an active method). Research on within-household selection in mail surveys has demonstrated that three main mechanisms are at work to undermine accurate selections— confusion about the selection task, concealment of household members, and commitment to being a survey participant (Tourangeau et al. 1997; Martin 1999; Olson and Smyth 2014). One primary issue related to confusion about the task is a separation of the instructions for selecting a Olson & Smyth in Publ ic Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017 ) 3 respondent within a household from the questionnaire itself. The instructions are typically placed in the cover letter, not the questionnaire. Thus, moving the placement of the within-household selection instructions to the front of the questionnaire should increase the chance that the household actually sees the instructions and has them accessible when needed, increasing the chance that they are followed. Another possibility is that households do not have a problem reading the instructions, but may lack the commitment from the correct adult in the household to complete the survey. In this case, another member of the household may complete the survey instead. Asking the survey respondent to actively confirm that they are the correct person reinforces the importance of this part of the survey selection task, compared to passively reading the cover instructions. To the extent that commitment is the primary mechanism driving inaccurate selections, we would expect that an explicit question on the cover of a questionnaire will decrease response rates because it will more directly target less committed (i.e., lower response propensity) individuals in the household, but will increase accuracy of selection because it will discourage response from well-intentioned household members who are not selected. Thus, we may expect a trade-off between coverage and nonresponse errors. In addition, to the extent that these less committed individuals are not as attentive to the task of being a survey respondent, we may expect data quality to suffer as well (e.g., higher rates of item nonresponse). That is, we may see higher item nonresponse rates for the active condition compared to the more passive conditions. To evaluate these three methods of presenting within-household selection instructions, we examine four outcomes: response rates; composition of the completed sample on demographics and other covariates anticipated to be related to potential inaccuracy; accuracy of selection; and item nonresponse. We also examine the effects of inaccurate selections on survey estimates. Thus, we answer the following five questions: 1. What is the effect of placement of within-household selection instructions on response rates? 2. What is the effect of placement of within-household selection instructions on composition of the respondent pool? 3. What is the effect of placement of within-household selection instructions on accuracy of selection? 4. What is the effect of placement of within-household selection instructions on item nonresponse rates? 5. Do survey estimates differ for accurately and inaccurately selected respondents? Olson & Smyth in Publ ic Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017 ) 4 Data and Methods The National Health, Wellbeing, and Perspectives study (NHWPS) was used to test the effects of placement of within-household selection instructions. The NHWPS used a simple random sample of 6,000 addresses in the United States selected from the Computerized Delivery Sequence File by Survey Sampling International (SSI). The topics of the NHWPS included health and mental health, political and social attitudes, experiences of victimization, and demographics. The mail survey was fielded by the research team and the Bureau of Sociological Research at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln between April 10 and August 12, 2015, with an initial cover letter and questionnaire sent to all households, followed by a reminder postcard and up to two replacement questionnaires to nonrespondents. The overall response rate was 16.7 percent (AAPOR RR1), with 1,002 completed questionnaires. The next-birthday method was used for selecting adults within a household. The next-birthday method is a quasi-probability selection method that is commonly used in telephone surveys (Gaziano 2005), and increasingly used in mail surveys (Battaglia et al. 2008; Hicks and Cantor 2012; Olson, Stange, and Smyth 2014). Although a true probability selection method like the Kish method would be ideal in theory, we used this quasi-probability method because true probability methods are complex and burdensome and thus are rarely, if ever, used in mail surveys. We used the nextbirthday method over other quasi-probability selection methods like the last birthday or oldest/ youngest adult methods because it is a commonly used method and because research indicates little difference across these methods in response rates, sample composition, and selection accuracy (Olson, Stange, and Smyth 2014). Each household was randomly assigned to one of three within-household selection treatments: (1) standard placement of the instructions in the cover letter only (n = 2,000); (2) instructions in the cover letter and a sentence with instructions on the front of the questionnaire itself (n = 2,000); and (3) instructions in the cover letter and an explicit question asking the survey respondent if they were the person in the household with the next birthday (n = 2,000). In all three treatments, the instructions in the cover letter were given in exactly the same place and used the same words: “To

中文翻译：

---

邮件调查中的家庭内部选择

在家庭中随机选择一个成年人是邮件调查面临的最大挑战之一。然而，获得家庭内成年人的概率样本对于获得美国成年人口的概率样本至关重要。在本文中，我们通过实验测试了国家健康、福祉和观点研究（样本 n = 6,000；受访者 n = 998）中家庭内部选择说明的三种替代布置：(1) 一封标准的求职信，通知家庭请下一个生日的人完成调查（对照）；(2) 控制求职信加上问卷本身封面上的说明，让下一个生日的成年人完成调查；(3) 控制求职信加上明确的是/否问题，询问个人是否是家庭中将要过下一个生日的成年人。尽管与没有任何说明相比，带有明确问题的版本的回答率降低了两点，但相对于其他两种设计，明确问题显着提高了选择准确性，产生了更接近国家基准的样本构成，并且不影响项目不答复率。在与家务有关的问题上，准确选择的受访者也不同于不准确选择的受访者。鼓励调查从业者使用主动任务（如明确问题）而不是被动任务（如嵌入式指令）作为家庭内部选择过程的一部分。简介 从家庭中随机选择一名成年人是获取家庭中成年人概率样本的核心。尽管这很容易在 digitalcommons.unl.edu Olson & Smyth in Public Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017 ) 2 中通过访谈员管理的调查完成，但在邮件调查中成功完成要困难得多。至少有 30% 的家庭，以及至少有两个成年人的家庭的大约一半最终选择了错误的受访者（Battaglia 等人，2008 年；Olson 和 Smyth，2014 年；Olson、Stange 和 Smyth，2014 年；Stange、Smyth，和奥尔森 2016）。这意味着邮件调查中成年人的概率样本所依据的假设以大致相当于抛硬币的比率被违反。住户内选择程序有可能通过覆盖范围（即不准确的选择）和无响应（即选择程序包括在样本中但未进行调查的人）影响总调查误差。对于覆盖问题或对偏倚估计的不响应率增加，那些被错误选择或没有响应的人需要在感兴趣的构造上与那些应该被选择或应该响应的人不同。对于预期家庭成员有类似反应的调查结构，我们预计不会因选择不准确而导致覆盖错误。Stange、Smyth 和 Olson（2016 年）的工作就是这种情况，其中仅由正确选择的受访者得出的估计值与所有受访者得出的估计值没有差异。然而，对于家庭成员确实不同的结构（例如，家庭成员之间的家庭任务不同），我们预计不准确的选择会导致估计有偏差。此外，家庭内部选择过程可能会阻止一些家庭做出回应，这有可能通过不回应进一步偏向调查估计。因此，在不大幅增加不答复错误的情况下，找到提高家庭人员选择准确性的方法对于调查推断和邮件调查的有效性至关重要。在本文中，我们研究了在邮件调查中向住户呈现住户内部选择任务的三种替代方法，旨在提高选择的准确性。三种方法在入户调查对象选择任务中的重视程度和主动参与程度各不相同——将说明单独放在求职信中（即非常被动的方法），在问卷封面上加一句-入户选择指令（即适度被动的方法），并增加一个句子和一个明确的问题，询问填写问卷的人是否与入户选择指令匹配的人（即主动方法）。对邮寄调查中的家庭内部选择的研究表明，三种主要机制正在影响准确选择——对选择任务的混淆、家庭成员的隐瞒以及成为调查参与者的承诺（Tourangeau 等人，1997 年；Martin 1999 年） ；奥尔森和史密斯，2014 年）。与任务混淆相关的一个主要问题是，将家庭中选择 Olson & Smyth in Public Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017 ) 3 的说明与问卷本身分开。说明通常放在求职信中，而不是问卷中。因此，将住户内选择说明的位置移到调查问卷的前面应该会增加住户实际看到说明并在需要时可以访问的机会，从而增加遵循的机会。另一种可能性是住户在阅读说明时没有问题，但可能缺乏住户中正确成年人对完成调查的承诺。在这种情况下，另一个住户成员可以代替完成调查。与被动阅读封面说明相比，要求调查受访者主动确认他们是正确的人，可以强化这部分调查选择任务的重要性。就承诺是导致不准确选择的主要机制而言，我们预计问卷封面上的明确问题会降低答复率，因为它将更直接地针对家庭中不那么承诺（即较低答复倾向）的个人，但会提高选择的准确性，因为它会阻止未被选择的善意家庭成员的回应。因此，我们可能期望在覆盖率和无响应错误之间进行权衡。此外，由于这些不太忠诚的人对成为调查受访者的任务不那么专注，我们可能预计数据质量也会受到影响（例如，更高的项目无响应率）。也就是说，与更被动的条件相比，我们可能会看到主动条件下更高的项目无响应率。为了评估这三种呈现家庭内部选择说明的方法，我们检查了四个结果：响应率；人口统计资料和其他可能与潜在不准确相关的协变量的完整样本的构成；选择的准确性；和项目无反应。我们还研究了不准确选择对调查估计的影响。因此，我们回答以下五个问题： 1. 家庭内部选择指令的放置对响应率有何影响？2. 家庭内部选择指令的放置对受访者群体的构成有何影响？3. 家庭内部选择指令的放置对选择的准确性有何影响？4. 家庭内部选择指令的放置对项目不答复率有什么影响？5. 准确和不准确选择的受访者的调查估计值是否不同？Olson & Smyth in Public Op in ion Quarterly 81 (2017) 4 数据和方法 全国健康、福祉和前景研究 (NHWPS) 用于测试家庭内部选择说明的放置效果。NHWPS 使用了从调查抽样国际 (SSI) 的计算机化交付序列文件中选择的美国 6,000 个地址的简单随机样本。NHWPS 的主题包括健康和心理健康、政治和社会态度、受害经历和人口统计。内布拉斯加大学林肯分校的研究团队和社会学研究局于 2015 年 4 月 10 日至 8 月 12 日期间进行了邮件调查，向所有家庭发送了初始求职信和问卷，随后附有提醒明信片等对未答复者的两份替换问卷。总体回复率为 16.7% (AAPOR RR1)，完成了 1,002 份问卷。下一个生日方法用于选择家庭中的成年人。下一个生日方法是一种准概率选择方法，常用于电话调查（Gaziano 2005），并且越来越多地用于邮件调查（Battaglia 等人 2008；Hicks 和 Cantor 2012；Olson、Stange 和 Smyth 2014） . 尽管像 Kish 方法这样的真实概率选择方法在理论上是理想的，我们使用这种准概率方法是因为真概率方法复杂且繁琐，因此很少（如果有的话）用于邮件调查。我们使用 nextbirthday 方法而不是其他准概率选择方法，如最后一个生日或最老/最年轻的成人方法，因为它是一种常用方法，而且研究表明这些方法在响应率、样本组成和选择准确性方面几乎没有差异（Olson 、Stange 和 Smyth 2014 年）。每个家庭被随机分配到三种家庭内选择处理中的一种：（1）仅在求职信中标准放置说明（n = 2,000）；(2) 求职信中的说明和问卷本身前面带有说明的句子（n = 2,000）；(3) 求职信中的说明和一个明确的问题，询问调查受访者他们是否是家庭中下一个生日的人（n = 2,000）。在所有三种治疗中，求职信中的说明都在完全相同的地方给出并使用了相同的词：“为了