Abstract
The effects of questionnaire length on response rate and response bias were examined by conducting a mail survey of 8534 persons taking “distance education” courses in insurance and financial planning. In 14 replications, persons were randomly assigned to receive a long or short course evaluation questionnaire. Response rate for the short form averaged about 28% higher than for the long form, and was significantly higher in all 14 replications. A measure of course satisfaction appearing on both questionnaires showed no significant differences between the long and short form in 12 of the 14 replications. The results suggested that biased measurement of consumer satisfaction does not necessarily occur on a long questionnaire with a relatively low response rate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, L. and Gale, D. (1982). Solving the quandary between questionnaire length and response rate in educational research.Research in Higher Education, 17, 231–240.
Baumgartner, R.M. & Heberlein, T.A. (1984). Recent research on mailed questionnaire response rates. In D.C. Lockhart (Ed.),Making effective use of mailed questionnaires (pp 65–75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denton, J. J. Tsai, C. Y. and Chevrette, P. (1988). Effects on survey responses of subjects, incentives and multiple mailings.Journal of Experimental Education, 56, 77–82.
Eichner, K. & Habermehl, W. (1981). Predicting response rates to mailed questionnaires (comments on Heberlein and Baumgartner).American Sociological Review, 46, 361–363.
Erdos, P.L. (1974). “Data collection methods: mail surveys”. In R. Ferber (Ed.),Handbook of marketing research (pp. 2–90, 101–104). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Glenn, N.D. (1983). Replications, significance tests and confidence in survey research.Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 261–269.
Goyder, J.C. (1982). Further evidence on factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires.American Sociological Review, 47, 550–553.
Heberlein, T.A. and Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature.American Sociological Review, 43, 447–462.
Herzog, A. R. & Bachman, J.G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire length on response quality.Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 549–559.
Houston, M.J. & Ford, N.M. (1976). Broadening the scope of methodological research on mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 397–403.
Hutchison, J., Tollefson, N. and Wigington, H. (1987). Response bias in college freshmen's response to mail surveys.Research in Higher Education, 26, 99–106.
Kanuk, L. & Berenson, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review.Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 440–453.
Linsky, A.S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review.Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82–101.
Lundsten, L.L. (1986). Student evaluation in a business administration curriculum.Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. IX (pp. 77–87). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science. Anaheim, California, April 30–May 3, 1986.
Powers, D.E. and Alderman D.L. (1982). Feedback as an incentive for responding to a mail questionnaire.Research in Higher Education, 17, 207–211.
Ray, J. J. & Still, L. V. (1986). Maximizing the response rate in a survey may be a mistake.Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 571–573.
Sudman, S. (1985). Mail surveys of reluctant professionals.Evaluation Review, 9, 349–360.
Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. (1984). Improving mailed questionnaire design. In D.C. Lock-hart (Ed.),Making effective use of mailed questionnaires (pp. 33–47). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Yu, J. & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires.Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roszkowski, M.J., Bean, A.G. Believe it or not! longer questionnaires have lower response rates. J Bus Psychol 4, 495–509 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013611
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013611