Suchergebnisse

AbstractOften in surveys, key items are subject to measurement errors. Given just the data, it can be difficult to determine the extent and distribution of this error process and, hence, to obtain accurate inferences that involve the error-prone variables. In some settings, however, analysts have access to a data source on different individuals with high-quality measurements of the error-prone survey items. We present a data fusion framework for leveraging this information to improve inferences in the error-prone survey. The basic idea is to posit models about the rates at which individuals make errors, coupled with models for the values reported when errors are made. This can avoid the unrealistic assumption of conditional independence typically used in data fusion. We apply the approach on the reported values of educational attainments in the American Community Survey, using the National Survey of College Graduates as the high-quality data source. In doing so, we account for the sampling design used to select the National Survey of College Graduates. We also present a process for assessing the sensitivity of various analyses to different choices for the measurement error models. Supplemental material is available online.

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction -- Focus and Objective of This Report -- What Is Institutional Trust? -- The State of Institutional Trust: A Snapshot -- Should We Be Concerned About the Decline in Institutional Trust -- Organization of this Report -- CHAPTER TWO: What Does the Literature Tell Us About Trust in Institutions? -- Trends in Institutional Trust -- Factors That Influence Trust in Institutions -- Strengths and Weaknesses in Existing Literature -- How Is This Research Different? -- CHAPTER THREE: Methodology and Data -- Survey of Institutional Trust -- Measuring Trust -- Measuring Components of Trustworthiness -- Empirical Analyses -- CHAPTER FOUR: Congress -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Congress? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust Congress? -- The Role of Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in Congress: Do the Reported Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Congress Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER FIVE: Media Institutions -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Media? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Media? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Media: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Media Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SIX: The Military -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts the Military? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Military? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Military: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in the Military Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research -- Key Findings -- Limitations and Future Research -- APPENDIX A. Full Regression Results -- APPENDIX B. Methodology -- APPENDIX C. Survey -- APPENDIX D. Graphs and Figures: Trust in Media and Trust in Military

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction -- Focus and Objective of This Report -- What Is Institutional Trust? -- The State of Institutional Trust: A Snapshot -- Should We Be Concerned About the Decline in Institutional Trust -- Organization of this Report -- CHAPTER TWO: What Does the Literature Tell Us About Trust in Institutions? -- Trends in Institutional Trust -- Factors That Influence Trust in Institutions -- Strengths and Weaknesses in Existing Literature -- How Is This Research Different? -- CHAPTER THREE: Methodology and Data -- Survey of Institutional Trust -- Measuring Trust -- Measuring Components of Trustworthiness -- Empirical Analyses -- CHAPTER FOUR: Congress -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Congress? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust Congress? -- The Role of Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in Congress: Do the Reported Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Congress Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER FIVE: Media Institutions -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts Media? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Media? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Media: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in Media Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SIX: The Military -- Levels of Trust -- Individual Characteristics and Levels of Trust: Who Trusts the Military? -- Institutional Components of Trustworthiness: Why Do People Trust the Military? -- The Role of Differences in Individual Characteristics in Assessing Trust in the Military: Do the Drivers of Trust Differ Among Groups? -- Is Distrust in the Military Distinct? -- Chapter Summary -- CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research -- Key Findings -- Limitations and Future Research -- APPENDIX A. Full Regression Results -- APPENDIX B. Methodology -- APPENDIX C. Survey -- APPENDIX D. Graphs and Figures: Trust in Media and Trust in Military

Abstract
Patient experience surveys are vital to evaluating healthcare provider performance. However, declining response rates over time and questions about whether responses reflect the perspectives of all patients under care have raised concerns. One proposed approach to address these concerns is web-based survey administration, a mode that has not been studied in the hospice setting. We tested a sequential web–mail mode for administering a care experience survey in this unique setting, where family caregivers respond after the patient dies. Sampled caregivers of 15,515 patients who died March–August 2021 while receiving care from 56 hospices across the US were randomized to one of four survey modes: mail-only, telephone-only, mail–telephone (mail with telephone follow-up), or web–mail (email invitation to a web survey with mail follow-up). Email addresses were available for 31.3 percent of sampled eligible caregivers.
Relative to mail-only (estimated response rate = 35.1 percent), response rates were significantly higher for web–mail (39.7 percent) and mail–telephone (45.3 percent) and significantly lower for telephone-only (31.5 percent). The web–mail response rate was similar to the mail-only response rate among caregivers without email addresses (35.2 versus 34.3 percent), but substantially higher among caregivers with email addresses (49.6 versus 36.7 percent). Web–mail and mail-only respondents reported similar experiences for 26 of 27 evaluative items. Among eligible sampled caregivers, several patient/caregiver characteristics differed by caregivers' email address availability, but web–mail and mail-only respondents did not differ on any characteristic. A web–mail mode is feasible for surveying bereaved caregivers about care experiences, producing substantially higher response rates than single-mode approaches, with increasing benefits for hospices with higher proportions of caregivers with email addresses. Findings may be applicable to surveys of other sensitive topics and to populations that prefer asynchronous survey modes.