Are well-selected panelists better respondents?

ARE WELL-SELECTED PANELISTS CHRISTOPH IRMER & FLORIAN TRESS ODC SERVICES GMBH GOR 2010, PFORZHEIM PROFILING ON PANEL PERFORMANCE AND DATA QUALITY BETTER RESPONDENTS? INSIGHTS INTO THE EFFECT OF DYNAMIC PANEL

CHECK IN: HI THERE! POINT OF DEPARTURE THE IDEA FIRST RESULTS & INSIGHTS SUMMARY & OUTLOOK

PANEL HOW DID PANELS WORK SO FAR? RECRUIT SOME PANELISTS    INTO YOUR PANEL GRAB A HANDFUL OF THEM IF NEEDED FOR A PROJECT STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 3 STUDY 4 www.panel.de

HOW DID PANELS WORK SO FAR? SCREEN OUT AN AVERAGE OF ~75-80% IN EVERY STUDY

IN OTHER WORDS… PLEASE JOIN OUR PANEL PLEASE TAKE THIS SURVEY ÄH.. SORRY, BUT WE DON‘T NEED YOU THIS TIME

RESIDENCE TIME IN AN ONLINE PANEL PANELIST-MOTIVATION AND WHERE DID THIS LEAD SO FAR ? Low High Short Long HIGH MORTALITY RATES DECREASING WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN SURVEYS

THE SOLUTION

WHAT IF WE‘D… … WHERE THEY PASS ALL THE SCREENING QUESTIONS SEND OUR PANELISTS TO A JOURNEY…    PROJECT A OF ONGOING PROJECTS ON THEIR WAY PROJECT B PROJECT C

WHAT IF WE‘D… SEND OUR PANELISTS TO A JOURNEY…    PROJECT A IF A PROJECT GETS CLOSED THE QUESTIONS FOR THAT PROJECT DISAPPEAR PROJECT C AND NEW PROJECT QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ADDED PROJECT D … WHERE THEY PASS ALL THE SCREENING QUESTIONS OF ONGOING PROJECTS ON THEIR WAY

WHAT IF WE‘D… … WHERE THEY PASS ALL THE SCREENING QUESTIONS SEND OUR PANELISTS TO A JOURNEY…    PROJECT A OF ONGOING PROJECTS ON THEIR WAY PROJECT C PROJECT D    THUS WE‘D KNOW WHICH PANELIST WOULD FIT TO WHICH PROJECT(S)    € €  Project A    Project C    Project D   

THEORETICAL MODEL Masterscreening-Survey (dynamically programmed, containing screening-relevant questions of all projects which are currently in the field)    IN OTHER WORDS… PROJECT MANAGEMENT WITH DYNAMIC PROFILING Screening-Master PROJECTS Panelist A B C D E F G H ID12345 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ID12346 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID12347 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ID12348 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ID12349 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 … . . . . . . . . Daily Team-Meeting  PROJECT F PROJECT B PROJECT A PROJECT H  Programming of the Masterscreening-Survey and ongoing invitation of panelists to this survey  According to their responses, panelists are put into project groups  Project groups can be used for invitation of panelist to live-projects.  Daily Team-Meeting : Feedback and agreements on project priorities, new studies, amount of invitations,…

DECREASE PROBABILITY OF SCREEN OUTS INCREASE PANELIST MOTIVATION OBJECTIVES

FIRST RESULTS & INSIGHTS

FROM A PROJECT MANAGERS PERSPECTIVE

SETUP CHART FOR THE MASTER SCREENER Sample: 4.128 Active stock panelists, who have been participating for three months in the master screener Periods of Comparison: Jan – Mar 2009 with Jan – Mar 2010 Method: Statistical Analysis of Panel Performance Data Variables: Panel Performance Data (e.g. Response-Rate, Drop-Out-Rate, Eligibility-Rate) TRIAL PHASE

HOW DID RESPONSE RATES CHANGE?
Less mails to get panelists start a survey (2009 half of the surveys had to be reminded; 2010 one third of the surveys have to be reminded)
Higher responsiveness means higher motivation to participate
Possible reason: knowing to get through the whole questionnaire without being screened out
2009 67% 2010 77%

AND WHAT ABOUT DROP-OUT RATES? 7,5% 6,9% 2009 2010
Less break-offs indicate more interest in the subject of the study

HOW OFTEN ARE PANELISTS ALLOWED TO FINISH A STUDY?
Panelists still are not eligible to every survey, but…
… eligibility is 3 times higher than before dynamic profiling
ONCE THEY STARTED IT… 2009 14% 2010 50%

THAT WAS A PROJECT MANAGERS POINT OF VIEW BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PANELISTS?

PANELIST SATISFACTION-STUDY – PROJECT SETUP Sample: Active stock panelists Field time: May 3 rd – May 10 th Method: CAPI on opinion-people.com Field Performance: 1.250 Invitations / 847 Interviews (thereof 554 participants in the masterscreener)

BASIS: DO YOU RECEIVE MORE OR LESS INVITATIONS TO OUR STUDYS OVERALL: N=847; PARTICIPANTS: N=554 THAN SOME MONTHS AGO? „ I received less invitations“ 22% 26% OVERALL PARTICIPANTS

„ I am allowed to finish a study more often than before“ 15% 19% OVERALL PARTICIPANTS ARE YOU ALLOWED TO FINISH A STUDY LESS OR MORE OFTEN THAN SOME MONTHS AGO? BASIS: OVERALL: N=847; PARTICIPANTS: N=554

„ I‘m very satisfied“ 60% 67% OVERALL PARTICIPANTS SATISFACTION WITH THE PANEL-MEMBERSHIP? ARE THERE ALREADY ANY EFFECTS ON THE BASIS: OVERALL: N=847; PARTICIPANTS: N=554

„ I‘d (rather) recommend it“ 74% 84% OVERALL PARTICIPANTS WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE PANEL-MEMBERSHIP ? BASIS: OVERALL: N=847; PARTICIPANTS: N=554

SUMMARY & OUTLOOK

OBJECTIVES DECREASE PROBABILITY OF SCREEN OUTS INCREASE PANELIST MOTIVATION  

TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION DYNAMIC SURVEY PROGRAMMING EFFECTS OF A MULTITOPIC STUDY ON INCIDENCE RATES OBSTACLES TIMINGS ON SINGLE PROJECTS PROJECT WORKLOAD PROJECT PRIORISATION

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Florian Tress Christoph Irmer [email_address] [email_address] www.odc-services.com

http://www.floriantress.de	26
http://www.odc-services.com	21
http://www.slideshare.net	7
http://odc-services.com	5
http://blog.odc-services.com	1

Are well-selected panelists better respondents?

by Florian Tress

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

5 Embeds 60

Statistics

Are well-selected panelists better respondents? Presentation Transcript