How Interviewer Strategies Relate to Contact and Cooperation in 

the National Health Interview Survey, 2004 

Barbara J. Stussman, James M. Dahlhamer, and Catherine M. Simile 

 

National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Introduction 

The decline in completion rates for Federal surveys has been a major concern of statistical agencies in the past 

decade (Atrostic, et al., 2001). The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a 

Nationally representative annual household survey of general health of the civilian, non-institutionalized population 

of the United States, and is conducted by the Census Bureau. As with most other national surveys, nonresponse 

rates for the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) have more than doubled in the past decade (see Figure 1). 

Both noncontact and refusal rates have increased steadily over the past 10 years. For the interviewer, the challenge 

is two-fold: first making contact with the sample household member(s), and second, gaining their cooperation to 

participate in the survey. Groves and Couper (1996) state that the decision to cooperate or refuse is shaped in large 

part by the interactions between householders and interviewers: interviewers can act in ways which change the 

tendency of a potential respondent to participate. 

A variety of methods to counteract refusals in Federal surveys have been explored. Groves et al. (1992) described 

how field strategies, such as the use of informational materials and adapting one’s approach to suit the sample unit, 

may increase participation. Groves and Couper (1998) described a wide range of issues related to nonresponse 

including the influence of household characteristics, environmental issues, interviewer characteristics, and the 

interviewer/householder interaction on survey cooperation. Improvement in response rates in Federal surveys 

depends in part upon first making contact with a busy public and then counteracting reluctance on the part of 

householders to participate once contact is made. Improving the efficiency in these areas will enhance this effort. 

Previous research has documented the utility of collecting detailed contact or call record data for the systematic 

study of nonresponse in face-to-face surveys (Bates, 2003; Campanelli, Sturgis, and Purdon, 1997; Groves and 

Couper, 1998; Purdon, Campanelli, and Sturgis, 1999). Wanting to utilize this source of important information, a 

Contact History Instrument (CHI) was implemented in the 2004 NHIS to capture critical information on each 

contact and contact attempt. Interviewers use the CHI, for example, to record information on access impediments 

and strategies employed to induce contact and cooperation. As such, the CHI provides a record of interventions 

used to combat nonresponse in the NHIS. This paper explores the effect of various interviewer strategies, such as 

leaving notes, promotional materials, “no one home” letters, checking with neighbors and others, on making contact 

and gaining subsequent participation. To evaluate the impact of these strategies, three specific research questions 

were explored. (1) What strategies are interviewers using and in what combination; (2) How do interviewers shift 

strategies to suit specific field situations; and (3) How do strategies used on the first attempt relate to contact and 

cooperation outcomes in subsequent attempts. By exploring the use of interviewer strategies in the NHIS, we can 

identify the most effective strategies and increase their use in the field as well as enhance the development of 

additional strategies for reducing nonresponse in surveys. 

Data Source 

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics which is part 

of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NHIS data are collected by U.S. Census Bureau interviewers 

utilizing computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). The analyses presented in this paper rely exclusively on 

contact attempt history data collected with the 2004 NHIS. Contact history data are collected via CHI, which is 

either auto-launched from the main NHIS instrument or accessed from Case Management, the system by which 

interviewers access, manage, review, and submit cases. 

1
Data from approximately 200,000 contacts and contact attempts on over 70,000 cases were captured in the 2004 

CHI components to the NHIS. Our analyses, however, are restricted to 42,155 eligible or in-scope households 

because these are the cases on which the NHIS bases its response rates. Interviewers made 141,448 contact attempts 

on these cases. Because the CHI was not only new to the NHIS in 2004, but also the pioneer for surveys conducted 

by the Census Bureau, minor errors occurred in the programming, design, and use of the instrument. These errors 

resulted in an additional 1,011 eligible cases (2.3% of total) which had no CHI data. Through design modifications 

and training, these problems were corrected for the 2005 CHI instrument. All analyses were conducted using SAS 

(version 8.2, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) and SUDAAN (version 9.0, Research Triangle Institute, Inc., Research 

Triangle Park, NC). 

2
Results 

To address our research questions, we used CHI data on the specific strategies interviewers employ on each contact 

or contact attempt. Regardless of the outcome of the attempt, interviewers record the strategies they use at that 

attempt on a strategy screen listing 20 different interviewer strategies in addition to “none used” and “other, specify” 

(see Table 1). Interviewers are instructed to record all strategies used for each contact attempt. 

Table 1: Strategies Identified in CHI 

• Advance letter given or left at household 

• Scheduled appointment or return time 

• Left note or appointment card 

• Handed out or left promotional packet or 

informational brochure 

• Telephoned household 

• Left message on answering machine 

• Requested “no-one-home” letter be sent to 

household 

• Requested “refusal letter” be sent to 

household 

• Requested “better understanding or 

cooperation” letter be sent to household 

• Requested “building or manager access” 

letter be sent to household 

• Called persons listed as “recontact” 

persons for household 

• Staked-out household 

• Checked with neighbors to learn more 

about household 

• Contacted other family of household 

members 

• Contacted property manager to learn about 

property or household 

• Checked with County assessor, post office, 

or permit office to help locate property 

• Checked the on-line tracking database for 

more information about the address 

• Sought help from supervisor or regional 

office 

• Transferred case to interviewer that speaks 

a different language 

• Transferred case for reassignment 

• None 

• Other, specified 

To improve data usability and the interpretation of results, a factor analysis was performed to condense the first 18 

of these categories into a smaller set of conceptual groupings. The resulting nine groupings of strategies include: (1) 

Giving an advance letter; (2) Leaving a note or appointment card at the door; (3) Leaving or handing out a 

promotional packet or brochure; (4) Scheduling a time for an appointment with the respondent; (5) Trying to find 

respondent at home by requesting a no-one-home letter, checking with neighbors, or staking-out the household; (6) 

Calling household including leaving a message on the answering machine; (7) Searching for the correct address by 

checking with the county assessor, post office, or permit office or searching an on-line tracking database; (8) 

Counteracting refusals by requesting a refusal letter, better understanding letter, or seeking help from supervisor or 

regional office; and (9) Gaining access to the household by requesting a building manager/access letter or contacting 

the property manager. Four categories were dropped from the analysis due to small numbers: “Transfer case to 

interviewer that speaks a different language” (0.5 % of first attempt CHI data), “Transfer case for reassignment” (0.6 

% of first attempt CHI data), “Called recontact persons” (0.2 % of first attempt CHI data) and “contact other family 

members” (1.0 % of first attempt CHI data). The “Other, specify” category (2.1 % of first attempt CHI data) was 

not included in these analyses and the “None” category (15.6 % of first attempt CHI data) was included in some 

analyses. 

Strategies Used by Interviewers 

Table 2 represents the distribution of strategies across each of the first three attempts. Strategies that involve giving 

materials to the respondent (or leaving materials at the household in the case of noncontacts) are the most frequent 

across all three attempts. For first attempt, these include giving an advance letter (43.3 %), leaving a 

note/appointment card (38.7 %) and leaving a promotional packet (24.3 %). As the number of attempts increases, 

the use of handing or leaving materials, while still most frequent, decreases. For example, use of an advance letter 

3
declines from 43.3 % on first attempt to 30.0 % on third attempt. Conversely, as the number of attempts increases, 

the use of strategies related to making contact with the respondent increases. Telephone calls to the household 

increase from 4.6 % on the first attempt to 21.7 % on the third attempt. Scheduling appointments and “looking” 

strategies also increase from first to third attempt. 

 

Table 2: Percent Distribution of Strategies on First, Second, and Third Attempts 

First Attempt 

N=42,1561

Second Attempt 

N=29,7212

Third Attempt 

N=20,3353

1. Advance letter 43.3% 34.5% 30.0% 

2. Note/appt. card 38.7 35.4 33.9 

3. Promotional packet 24.3 22.7 20.6 

4. Schedule appt. 9.8 13.5 13.6 

5. Looking 7.6 11.3 12.9 

6. Calling 4.6 14.9 21.7 

7. Address searching 3.3 3.7 3.7 

8. Refusal counteracting 2.7 4.6 5.7 

9. Property access attempt 2.3 2.2 2.0 

NOTE: Totals exceed 100 % because more than one strategy may be used per attempt 

1

 Cases that had CHI data for 1st attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data for 2nd attempt 

3

 Cases that had CHI data for 3rd attempt 

One might expect that as the number of attempts increases so would the use of different strategies because 

interviewers are trying to complete the interview before closeout. To examine this, we looked at the number of 

individual strategies used for attempts one through five, using the original twenty categories on the strategy screen 

(table 3). By performing a count of how many different strategies were used per attempt rather than looking at 

specific strategies, we were able to carry this analysis across the first five attempts rather than the first three without 

the numbers becoming too small to report. Interestingly, while the use of just one strategy per attempt decreases 

slightly across the first five attempts (from 50.2 % to 45.5 %), it remains the most frequent. Also of note is that the 

use of zero and three or more strategies per attempt increase as the number of attempts increase (from 15.4 % to 21.9 

% for zero strategies and from 13.9 % to 21.1 % for three or more strategies). 

4
Table 3: Percent Distribution of the Number of Different Strategies Used on Each of Attempts One Through 

Five 

Number of 

Strategies 

First Attempt 

N=42,1561

Second 

Attempt 

N=29,7212

Third 

Attempt 

N=20,3353

Fourth 

Attempt 

N=13,9954

Fifth Attempt 

N=9,8165

 0 15.4% 17.9% 19.8% 21.3% 22.0% 

 1 50.2 46.9 45.8 45.2 46.0 

 2 20.5 16.7 14.4 12.5 11.5 

 3+ 13.9 18.5 20.0 21.0 21.1 

1

 Cases that had CHI data for 1st attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data for 2nd attempt 

3

 Cases that had CHI data for 3rd attempt 

4

 Cases that had CHI data for 4th attempt 

5

 Cases that had CHI data for 5th attempt 

The Tailored Use of Strategies for Contacts, Interim Refusals, and Noncontacts on First Attempt 

In this section, we explore the use of strategies on first attempt across three possible outcomes for the attempt: 

contact, interim refusal, and noncontact. The 2004 CHI instrument was designed so that interviewers made the 

determination of outcome and recorded the outcome for each attempt. Contact included any communication with 

the sample unit other than interim refusals, interim refusals included a combination of expressed hesitance and 

passive refusals on the part of sample unit members, and noncontact included attempts in which the interviewer 

neither saw nor spoke to persons from the sample unit. For contacts and interim refusals, it is impossible to discern 

whether the determination of outcome took place before or after the use of a particular strategy. For example, the 

interviewer may have given the respondent the advance letter before or after the respondent indicated reluctance to 

participate. Examination of strategies used on first attempt by outcome of first attempt enables us to learn how 

interviewers are tailoring the use of strategies to suit the particular field situation. Table 4 shows the distribution of

strategies on first attempt by outcome of the first attempt. 

Table 4: Percent Distribution of Strategies on First Attempt by Outcome of First Attempt 

Contact 

N=21,8131

Interim Refusal 

N=1,8772

Noncontact 

N=18,4663

1. Advance letter 54.7% 51.7% 28.9% 

2. Note/appt. card 25.1 32.1 55.8 

3. Promotional packet 30.1 27.5 16.9 

4. Schedule Appt. 17.0 4.9 1.2 

5. Looking 5.6 8.5 10.1 

6. Calling 5.5 8.2 3.3 

7. Address searching 2.7 3.2 4.1 

8. Refusal counteracting 2.8 37.8 1.2 

9. Property access attempt 1.6 2.8 3.1 

NOTE: Totals exceed 100 % because more than one strategy may be used per attempt 

1

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Contact outcome on first attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Interim Refusal outcome on first attempt 

3

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Noncontact outcome on first attempt 

Interviewers used the advance letter and promotional packet more for contacts and interim refusals than for 

noncontacts. This is most likely because these are handed directly to the respondent rather than left at the door. 

Similarly, they used note/appointment card more for noncontacts than for contacts or interim refusals because these 

5
are left at the door and allow for a personalized hand-written message. Also of note in Table 4 is that the use of 

refusal (which includes requesting refusal letter, requesting better understanding letter, and/or seeking help from 

supervisor/regional office) is much more frequent for interim refusals (37.8 %) than for either contacts or 

noncontacts (2.8 % and 1.7 %, respectively). This is consistent with what one would expect because interim refusals 

are cases for which the interviewer has noted hesitancy or reluctance on the part of the respondent early in the 

contact. 

 

We were also interested in the differences in the number of strategies used based on outcome. One might expect 

that interviewers used more strategies for interim refusals than for contacts or noncontacts because reluctance has 

been shown on the part of the respondent. Table 5 examines the number of strategies used on the first attempt by the 

status of the first attempt. The use of two or 3+ strategies is more frequent for interim refusals than for contacts or 

noncontacts. Conversely, the use of no strategies or only one strategy is more frequent for both contacts and 

noncontacts compared to interim refusals. From these data, it appears that interviewers indeed tailor their approach 

by using a variety of strategies when they encounter hesitant respondents. 

Table 5: Percent Distribution of Number of Strategies Used on First Attempt by Status 

Number of 

Strategies 

Contact 

N=21,8131

Interim Refusal 

N=1,8772

Noncontact 

N=18,4663

 0 13.2% 8.6% 18.3% 

 1 49.7 38.5 51.4 

 2 21.2 24.7 19.5 

 3+ 15.9 28.2 10.8 

1

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Contact outcome on first attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Interim Refusal outcome on first attempt 

3

 Cases that had CHI data on first attempt and resulted in Noncontact outcome on first attempt 

Another question we explored is whether interviewers shift the strategies they use after encountering consecutive 

noncontacts. One would expect that they would try new approaches as the attempts continue. Figures 2 and 3 

represent the use of strategies across consecutive noncontacts and contacts, respectively. The figures show 

interviewers do shift strategies somewhat across attempts with the same outcome. As they encounter consecutive 

noncontacts, interviewers decrease the use of advance letter (from 28.7 % on the first attempt to 18.4 % on the third 

attempt) and increase strategies aimed at finding the respondent (looking category increases from 9.2 % to 21.4 % 

across attempts) and interviewers also increase calls to the sample unit (from 3.1 % to 12.3 % across attempts). A 

similar drop in the use of advance letter occurs for consecutive contacts (from 54.7 % to 39.7 %), while scheduling 

appointments and calls to the sample unit increase (from 17.0 % to 26.6 % for appointments and 5.5 % to 31.5 % for 

calls). It is important to note, however, that Figure 3 includes all types of contacts, both positive (e.g. scheduling an 

appointment) and negative (e.g. encountering reluctance) and so the effects may be more conservative. 

The Impact of Interviewer Strategies Used on First Attempt on Making Contact and Gaining Participation 

on Second Attempt 

In order to see if the use of certain strategies relate to either making contact or gaining participation, we looked at 

outcomes on the second attempt by strategies used on the first attempt. 1 The premise is that the strategies used on a 

given attempt would relate to the outcome of the next attempt.2

 This is particularly true for noncontacts because the 

majority of strategies include ways to find the housing unit or to reach respondents who are not home. 

 

1

 We did not explore second attempt outcomes for first attempt interviews and appointments (both an outcome and a 

strategy). 

2

 Furthermore, we cannot determine when a particular strategy was used during an attempt that resulted in contact. 

Thus, a significant association may emerge between first attempt interviews and the use of promotional materials on 

that attempt, but we don’t know if the materials were being used to induce participation, as a “thank you” gift at the 

close of an interview, or both. 

6
For the first attempt cases resulting in noncontact, interim refusal, or "other" contact, we conducted two sets of 

bivariate analyses. For each of these first attempt outcomes, we first explored the relationship between using or not 

using a strategy on first attempt and making contact (versus noncontact) on second attempt. Next, for those cases 

contacted on second attempt we explored the relationship between using or not using a strategy on first attempt and 

the second attempt contact outcome: interview/appointment, interim refusal, and "other" contact. Chi-square tests of 

independence were performed to identify significant relationships, with the level for detecting statistical significance 

set at alpha=0.05.

Figures 4 and 5 present outcomes of second attempts by strategies used for noncontacts on the first attempt. The 

distribution of outcomes looks very similar across strategies and no significant associations were identified between 

the use of any of the nine groups of interviewer strategies on the first attempt and making contact on the second 

attempt. Additionally, when contact was made on second attempt, strategies used on first attempt had no significant 

impact on second attempt “contact” outcomes (interview/appointment, interim refusal, “other”). 

Figures 6 and 7 show second attempt outcomes by the strategies used for interim refusals on the first attempt. 

Similar to noncontacts, the distribution of outcomes looks very similar across strategies, with the exception of three: 

use of promotional materials, the use of “address” strategies, and the use of “refusal” strategies (requesting refusal 

letter, requesting better understanding letter, or seeking help from supervisor/regional office). Use of promotional 

materials with first attempt interim refusals, versus non-use, was significantly associated with a higher noncontact 

rate on second attempt (figure 6; df=1, p=.02). Similar results emerge for the use of “address” strategies (figure 6; 

df=1, p=.05). The finding for promotional materials is surprising because Groves et al. 1992 state that “interviewers 

who give respondents informational letters, brochures, and so on prior to asking for participation will get better 

compliance than those who do not...” and likely reflects a spurious relationship, one that would disappear when 

controlling for factors such as time of contact attempt. In contrast, the finding for “address,” given that the 

strategies involved are used when the household is difficult to find, seem plausible. 

Focusing on second attempts that resulted in contact outcomes (interview/appt., interim refusal, or “other” contact) 

and which had outcomes of interim refusal on the first attempt (see figure 7), use of “refusal”, versus non-use, was 

associated with a lower interview/appointment rate and an increased rate of “other” contact (df=2, p=.00). These 

results are likely due to interviewers using the “refusal” strategies with cases that are likely to refuse again. A better 

assessment of the use of “refusal” strategies would result from comparisons of use versus non-use among a subset of 

“highly reluctant” households. 

Next we looked at first attempt “other” contact households (figures 8 and 9). These were households interviewers 

were able to contact on first attempt, but were not classified as interim refusals, were not interviewed, and were 

reluctant to schedule an appointment for an interview. Interestingly, the use of notes (df=1, p=.00), promotional 

materials (df=1, p=.01), “refusal” strategies (df=1, p=.03), and “address” strategies (df=1, p=.03) on first attempt, 

compared to not using these strategies, was associated with a lower second attempt contact rate (see figure 8). 

While one would expect interviewers to use “refusal” and “address” strategies more for cases that are initially more 

difficult, more research needs to be conducted to learn whether the use of notes and promotional materials are used 

more for these cases as well. 

 

Also of interest is that the use of “appointment” strategies on first attempt compared to non-use was associated with 

a higher second attempt contact rate (figure 8; df=1, p=.01). Additionally, the use of “appointment” strategies 

increased the likelihood of getting an interview/appointment with first attempt “other” contact households (see 

figure 9), while reducing the percentage of second attempt interim refusals and “other” contacts (df=2, p=.00). These 

“scheduling” results are interesting because interviewers did not report formally scheduling appointments with these 

households earlier in the CHI instrument. This indicates that in the absence of a more formal arrangement, the mere 

mention (verbally or in written form) of a return time may have a strong beneficial effect. Lastly, compared to nonuse, the use of “refusal” strategies with first attempt “other” contact cases was significantly associated with a lower 

interview/appointment rate and higher interim refusal and “other” contact rates (figure 9; df=2, p=.00). As noted 

earlier, these finding more likely reflect the characteristics of the households involved as opposed to the utility of the 

strategy. 

7
Finally, we assessed the impact of strategies on first contact outcomes using data for attempts two through six (table

not shown).3

 Only one strategy group, calling the household (versus not calling), was significantly associated with 

first contact outcomes. Use, versus non-use, of this strategy led to slightly higher interview and refusal rates, and 

slightly lower appointment and “other” contact rates (df=3, p=.03). 

Discussion/Future Steps 

Based on this initial review of the way strategies are being used by interviewers, it appears that they are being 

applied appropriately. This is evidenced by the fact that giving and leaving materials are the most frequently applied 

strategies, which is consistent with prior research that has found that informational materials help to increase 

participation. While we did see that interviewers use more strategies for interim refusals than for contacts or 

noncontacts, the use of only one strategy was still most frequent. Also of note is that the use of zero and three or 

more strategies increased as the number of attempts increased. Further investigation is needed to determine if there 

are two groups of interviewers, those trying harder and those giving up, or if something else is going on such as the 

use of no strategies relating to cases where the interviewer has started the interview and therefore sees no reason to 

use more strategies. We also saw that strategies used on the first attempt did not appear to be strongly related to 

what happened on the next attempt, even when compared to the use of no strategies. This result may change if the 

data were disaggregated into difficult versus non-difficult cases. Further research is needed to determine whether 

the use of strategies has a stronger impact on difficult cases. 

Another interesting finding from this research is that interviewers are using strategies differently for interim refusals 

than for either contacts or noncontacts, suggesting interviewers change strategies to meet field situations. For 

example, advance letters and promotional packets are used more for contacts and noncontacts, while notes are used 

more for interim refusals. Also, more strategies are used for interim refusals on the first attempt than for either 

contacts or noncontacts. One area that may be of concern is that using only one strategy is the most frequent across 

attempts, even when dealing with multiple noncontacts or potential refusals. It could be, however, that interviewers 

are using additional strategies, but those strategies are not listed among the response options on the strategy screen. 

For example, prior research has shown that respondents’ positive feelings toward the sponsoring agency, 

interviewers explaining to respondents that their responses represent thousands of others, and interviewers 

developing and maintaining a rapport with the respondent all increase participation rates (Groves and Couper, 1998). 

None of these is listed as a strategy option. In the future, it may be useful to redesign the CHI instrument to capture 

additional strategy options. 

In addition to adding more response options, it would be very useful to have additional information on the actual 

doorstep interaction between the interviewer and householder. It would be useful to know exactly how interviewers 

are tailoring their approach to the unique householder and what original strategies they are employing. For example, 

an examination of the “other: specify” categories in CHI revealed that interviewers record a wide variety of 

strategies not listed in the instrument. For example, one interviewer considered bringing “home grown peaches” to 

the doorstep to be a strategy for gaining participation (Taylor, 1995). This type of very specific and unique 

information could be captured in several ways such as in a battery of questions that would allow for verbatim 

information or in digital recordings of the doorstep interaction. These possibilities should be explored for the future. 

Data Limitations 

The NHIS was the first survey conducted by the Census Bureau to adopt CHI in 2004. We anticipated a learning 

curve with its use, especially during the first one to two quarters. To date, preliminary analyses by quarter have 

revealed few differences in the results we present, and this is certainly encouraging. We do know, however, that 

roughly 2.5% of cases are missing CHI records, suggesting that underreporting of attempts was likely. Another 

limitation is that we are unable to infer causality between the use of a given strategy and outcome. This is because it 

is likely that the same factors that determine which strategy an interviewer will use also have a key role in 

determining the outcome, such as in the case of an interviewer requesting a better understanding letter for a hesitant 

respondent. 

 

3

 We limited the analysis to the first six attempts since roughly 97% of all households were contacted by this point. 

We also exclude first attempt contacts so that we can maintain temporal ordering when exploring the impact of 

strategies on first contact outcomes. 

8
There are several potential problems with the specific data on strategies used for this analysis. First, we have 

received feedback from interviewers that it was not clear that only strategies used on a given attempt should be 

recorded for that attempt. Thus, for a given attempt, some reporting of strategies for previous attempts occurred, 

creating over-reporting of strategies. Additionally, we know from examining the data that some attempts did not get 

categorized properly with regard to status (contact, noncontact, interim refusal). For example, some contact with 

non sample unit members (i.e., neighbors, other family) were recorded as contacts. Many of these problems have 

been addressed in the 2005 CHI instrument, and although we suspect that the impact on the substantive conclusions 

was limited, we look forward to performing additional analysis on the 2005 CHI dataset. 

References 

Atrostic, B.K. et al. (2001). Nonresponse in U.S. Government Household Surveys: Consistent Measures, 

 Recent Trends, and New Insights. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2), 209-226. 

Bates, N. 2003. “Contact Histories in Personal Visit Surveys: The Survey of income and Program 

 Participation (SIPP) Methods Panel.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American 

 Association for Public Opinion Research, May 15-18, Nashville, Tennessee. 

Campanelli, P., P. Sturgis, and S. Purdon. 1997. “Can You Hear Me Knocking: An Investigation into the 

 Impact of Interviewers on Survey Response Rates.” London: The Survey Methods Centre at 

 SCPR, P1434. 

Couper, M.P. and Groves, R. (1990). An Exploration of Nonresponse in the 1990 National Election 

Study. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Helsinki, 

Finland. 

Groves, R.M. and Couper, M.P. (1996). Contact-Level Influences on Cooperation in Face-to-Face 

 Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 12(1), 63-83. 

Groves, R. M. and M. P. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John 

 Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Purdon, S., P. Campanelli, and P. Sturgis. 1999. “Interviewers’ Calling Strategies on Face-to-Face 

 Interview Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics, 15(2): 199-216.

Taylor, Beth L. Contact Strategies and Respondent Participation in the National Health Interview Survey: 

Analysis of Verbatim Fields from the 2004 NHIS Contact History Instrument. Presented at the International 

Field Director's and Technologies Conference, May 18, 2005. 

9
Figure 1. Household Nonresponse in the National Health Interview Survey, 1990-

2004

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Total Nonresponse Refusal Noncontact Other

Figure 2: Strategies Used for Noncontacts Across Attempts 

1

st Attempt N=18,4661

, 2nd Attempt N=12,3612, 3rd Attempt N=9,2282 

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

Adv LetNoteP rom pkSchedLookingCalledA ddressRefusalP roperty

1s t A ttem pt 

 2nd A ttem pt 

3 rd a tte m p t 

1

 Cases that had CHI data for 1st attempt and had noncontact outcome for 1st attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data for 2nd attempt and had noncontact outcome for 1st and 2nd attempts 

3

 Cases that had CHI data for 3rd attempt and had noncontact outcome for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attempts 

10
Figure 3: Strategies Used for Contacts Across Attempts 

1

st Attempt N=21,8131

, 2nd Attempt N=15,8182, 3rd Attempt N=10,0133

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

A dv LetN oteP ro m p kS chedL o o k in gC a lle dA d d re s sR efus alP ro p e rty

1s t A ttem pt 

 2nd A ttem pt 

3 rd a tte m p t 

1

 Cases that had CHI data for 1st attempt and had contact outcome for 1st attempt 

2

 Cases that had CHI data for 2nd attempt and had contact outcome for 1st and 2nd attempts 

3

 Cases that had CHI data for 3rd attempt and had contact outcome for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd attempts 

11
Figure 4. Second Attempt Contact Rates for First Attempt Noncontacts by Strategies 

Used on First Attempt (n=18,162)1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Adv Let Note Prom pack Sched Looking Called Address Refusal Property

Use

Not use

1 Cases with noncontact outcome on first attempt

Figure 5. Second Attempt Contact Outcomes for First Attempt Noncontact Cases, by 

Strategies Used on First Attempt (n=9,111)1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Use "adv let"

Not use "adv let"

Use "note"

Not use "note"

Use "prom pack"

Not use "prom pack"

Use "sched"

Not use "sched"

Use "looking"

Not use "looking"

Use "called"

Not use "called"

Use "address"

Not use "address"

Use "refusal"

Not use "refusal"

Use "property"

Not use "property"

Interview/appt. Int refusal "Other"

1 Cases with noncontact outcome on first attempt and contact outcome on second attempt

12
Figure 6. Second Attempt Contact Rates for First Attempt Interim Refusal Cases, by 

Strategies Used on First Attempt (n=1,733)1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Adv Let Note Prom pack Sched Looking Called Address Refusal Property

Use

Not use

1 Cases with interim refusal outcome on first attempt

Figure 7. Second Attempt Contact Outcomes for First Attempt Interim Refusal 

Cases, by strategies Used on First Attempt (n=1,099)1,2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Use "adv let"

Not use "adv let"

Use "note"

Not use "note"

Use "prom pack"

Not use "prom pack"

Use "sched"

Not use "sched"

Use "looking"

Not use "looking"

Use "called"

Not use "called"

Use "address"

Not use "address"

Use "refusal"

Not use "refusal"

Use "property"

Not use "property"

Interview/appt. Int refusal "Other"

1 Cases with interim refusal outcome on first attempt and contact outcome on second attempt 

2

Some strategies were excluded from the analysis due to small cell sizes

13
Figure 8. Second Attempt Contact Rates for First Attempt "Other" Contact Cases, 

by Strategies Used on First Attempt (n=4,426)1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Adv Let Note Prom pack Sched Looking Called Address Refusal Property

Use

Not use

1 Cases with “other” contact outcome on first attempt

Figure 9. Second Attempt Contact Outcomes for First Attempt "Other" Contact 

Cases, by Strategies Used on First Attempt (n=3,201)1,2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Use "adv let"

Not use "adv let"

Use "note"

Not use "note"

Use "prom pack"

Not use "prom pack"

Use "sched"

Not use "sched"

Use "looking"

Not use "looking"

Use "called"

Not use "called"

Use "address"

Not use "address"

Use "refusal"

Not use "refusal"

Use "property"

Not use "property"

Interview/appt. Int refusal "Other"

1 Cases with “other” contact outcome on first attempt and contact outcome on second attempt

2

Some strategies were excluded from the analysis due to small cell sizes.

14