8.6.1 CONSENT FOR CHILD SENSITIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
In the pilot extension the Primary Caregiver was asked to sign the “Parental Consent Form for the Child Sensitive Questionnaire” (see Appendix D6). This was done out of earshot of the Study Child. The Primary Caregiver was shown a blank copy of the questionnaire which was explained in full before requesting the signing the consent form. The interviewer then adjusted the 13-year-old’s CASI questionnaire (for those in Groups 1 and 3 above) depending on whether or not consent had been
given.27 Only if the interviewer set the laptop to indicate that consent had been given did the Child
Sensitive Questionnaire appear on the screen. For respondents in Group 2 households (where the 13- year-old completed the questionnaire on paper) the interviewer gave the paper copy of the 13-year- old’s Sensitive Questionnaire to the Study Child (after parental consent had been secured) and explained how to complete it. On completion, it was sealed in an envelope with other paper questionnaires completed by the 13-year-old. None of the other household members had access to the 13-year-old’s paper questionnaires. All electronic questionnaires were locked down by the respondent on completion.
The parental consent form which was signed by the Primary Caregiver explicitly noted:
“I understand that neither I nor my spouse/partner (where relevant) will have access to the information given by my child in the child sensitive questionnaire.”
8.6.2 THE PARENTING STYLE INVENTORY
The 13-year-old was asked to fill out the Parenting Style Inventory to describe their interactions with both the Primary and Secondary Caregivers and also (where relevant) of non-resident biological parent(s) in situations where he/she had on-going contact with the Study Child. To do this, the interviewer had to identify which family structure was relevant to the respondent and also the level of contact with the non-resident parent (where relevant), so as to distribute the relevant questionnaire modules on parenting style to the 13-year-old (i.e. on Mother, Father, Mother’s Partner or Father’s Partner). This was done with the Primary Caregiver when the interview was being arranged by the interviewer using the “Family Situation” card in Appendix D7. The discussion on family structure and which forms of the Parenting Style Inventory to administer took place out of earshot of the 13- year-old. The interviewer then adjusted the Study Child’s CASI Parenting Style module (or distributed relevant paper questionnaires as appropriate) on the basis of family structure and (if relevant) contact with non-resident biological parent.
27 At the start of the interview, all Study Children were told that they could decline to answer any of the
Chapter 9
PILOT EXTENSION – RESPONSE
RATES AND QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSE TIMES
9 PILOT EXTENSION – RESPONSE RATES AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE TIMES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter considers response rates in the pilot extension followed by a discussion of the time taken to administer the survey, using each of the three methods described in the last chapter.
9.2 RESPONSE RATES
9.2.1 OVERALL RESPONSE RATES
From the 110 households in the sample, interviews were successfully completed in the home with 95, representing a response rate of 87.2 per cent. The reader should note that the response rate of 87 per cent in the pilot extension compares with 76.5 per cent achieved in the pilot for this cohort.
An important issue in a longitudinal study is differential attrition related to characteristics of the family. The literature suggests that attrition rates are higher among more socially disadvantaged groups. There was some (albeit limited) evidence that this was the case in the pilot extension. The reader is reminded that the sample size (110 families in total) was small. Table 9.1 shows aggregated figures on inter-wave attrition according to family social class at Wave 1. This shows that 89.4 per cent of families who were in the Professional/Managerial group in Wave 1 participated in the study in Wave 2, compared with 78 per cent in other class categories. As one would expect in view of the small sample size, the association was not statistically significant.
Table 9.1 Inter-wave attrition classified by family social class in Wave 1 of the Study Family Social Class in Wave 1 Participated in pilot extension
Professional / Managerial 89.4 Other non-Manual / Skilled Manual 77.8 Semi-skilled / Unskilled Manual 77.8
Total 87.2
Similarly, Table 9.2 suggests that attrition is higher among families with less well educated mothers. The relationship was also not statistically significant. The link between attrition and socio- demographics characteristics of participants in longitudinal surveys is, unfortunately, common to all longitudinal studies. Attrition bias will be a problem in longitudinal surveys if attrition is systematically related to characteristics such as educational attainment, economic status or social class. The importance of keeping in contact with respondents between waves to minimise attrition is discussed by Couper and Ofstedal (2009) and the more general issues around attrition in panels is discussed in Tortora (2009). In Growing Up in Ireland both proactive and reactive measures are used to minimise attrition and maximise response in each wave. These include recording details on alternative addresses from respondents at previous waves of interviewing; and leaving ‘change of address’
postcards when interviews are being conducted. An extremely important aspect of minimising attrition is an exercise of ‘refusal conversion’ which is carried out in each data sweep. When a family refuses to participate in the study it is usually re-assigned to an alternative interviewer and a new contact attempt made a few weeks after the initial unsuccessful approach.28
Table 9.2 Interwave attrition classified by mother’s highest level of educational attainment in Wave 1 of the Study
Mother’s highest level of educational attainment in Wave 1 Participated in pilot extension
Leaving Certificate or less 83.3
Diploma / Certificate 88.0
Degree or above 90.3
Total 87.2
9.2.2 RESPONSE ON THE CHILD SENSITIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
As discussed in the previous chapter, the structure of the Child questionnaires changed substantially from the pilot to the pilot extension. This involved a reduction in the number of questions in the 13- year-old’s Sensitive Questionnaire and moving some questions to their Main Questionnaire – not requiring separate consent.
Contrary to the experience in the earlier pilot (where only 57 per cent of Primary Caregivers gave consent to complete the Study Child’s Sensitive Questionnaire), the response was much more positive in the pilot extension, with nearly all Primary Caregivers allowing their 13-year-old to complete the Child Sensitive.