Is that still the same? Has that changed? On the accuracy of measuring change with dependent interviewing

Abstract

Measurement and analysis of change is one of the primary reasons to conduct panel surveys, but studies have shown that estimates of change from panel surveys can be subject to measurement error, most commonly overreporting of change. For this reason, many panel surveys use a technique called proactive dependent interviewing, which reminds respondents of their answer in the previous wave and has been shown to reduce the capturing of spurious change. However, so far very little guidance exists in the literature on how such questions should be worded. Here we use data from three experimental studies to examine question wording effects with proactive dependent interviewing. Because we link the survey data to administrative records, we can examine not only different levels of change by format, but the accuracy of the change reports as well. Our results show that how questions about the current status are worded affects the reporting of change. The experiments also allow us to test hypotheses about the ways in which respondents answer dependent interviewing questions. We do not find evidence that respondents seize opportunities for satisficing or acquiescence that are offered by reminding them of previous