Project Plan

Mixed mode project.pdf

Research to support the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Project Plan

OMB: 1121-0325

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1121-0325 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

CFDA NO. 16.734
RTI Proposal No. 0281000.724
Competitive ID No. 2008-BJS-1834C

GMS Award: 2008-BJ-CX-K063

April 6, 2011

Methodological Research to Support
the National Crime Victimization
Survey
Phase 1: Modification and Testing of NCVS
Instruments

OMB Memo

Submitted To
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Grants.gov upload

Submitted By
RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
Telephone: (919) 541-6000

Table of Contents
Section

Page

Purpose of the Research ................................................................................................................... 1

Development of the Experimental Design ....................................................................................... 3
2.1 Mode Considerations for the SCV ............................................................................................. 3
2.2 SCV Research Design ................................................................................................................ 7

Modification of the NCVS Instruments for the SCV Administration Modes ................................ 10

Phase 1 Developmental Activities for the Mail Instrument ........................................................... 13
4.1 Preliminary Assessment of the Mail Survey Instrument.......................................................... 13
4.2 Programming of the Mail Survey Data Entry Application ...................................................... 15

Phase 1 Developmental Activities for the CATI, CAPI, and Web Instruments ............................ 16
5.1 Programming of the CATI, CAPI and Web Instruments ......................................................... 16
5.2 Preliminary Assessment of the Web Instrument ...................................................................... 16

Cognitive and Usability Testing .................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Cognitive Testing of Mail Instrument ...................................................................................... 18
6.2 Usability Testing of Web Instrument ....................................................................................... 23

Sample Size and Respondent Burden ............................................................................................ 28

Data Security.................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

CATI/CAPI Address Verification and Household Enumeration Questionnaire,
CATI/CAPI Screener and Crime Incident Report, Web Survey Instrument, and Mail
Survey Instrument ........................................................................................................................ A-1
Cognitive Test Materials .............................................................................................................. B-1
Usability Test Materials ............................................................................................................... C-1
Distressed Respondent Protocol .................................................................................................. D-1
Literature Reviews: Examination of Data Collection Methods for the NCVS ............................ E-1
Description of Phase 2 Activities for the NCVS........................................................................... F-1

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

iii

List of Exhibits
Exhibit

Page

Strengths and Weaknesses of Data Collection Modes..................................................................... 4

SCV Modes and Mode Combinations and Rationale for Use in Study Design............................... 6

SCV Mixed-Mode Experimental Design......................................................................................... 8

Summary of NCVS Screener and CIR Modifications by Data Collection Mode .......................... 10

Summary of Mail Survey Revisions Resulting from Preliminary Cognitive Test Findings ......... 18

Summary of Web Survey Revisions Resulting from Preliminary Usability Test Findings........... 24

OMB MEMO
1. Purpose of the Research
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS), collects data on crime victimization in the United States. A nationally representative
sample of households participates in the survey, where respondents ages 12 and over within
the household report on crime incidents that they experienced in the 6 months prior to the
interview. Each housing unit selected for the NCVS remains in the sample for 3 years and is
interviewed seven times at 6-month intervals. A mixed-mode data collection approach, involving
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) is used in the current design of the NCVS.
Cost considerations pose a critical challenge to the NCVS. Funding for the NCVS consumes as
much as 60 percent of BJS’s annual appropriations, with difficult implications for implementation
and expansion of other core data collection activities. In today’s fiscal environment, it is critical
to find ways to create an economically sustainable survey that maintains data quality,
timeliness, and response rates. Moreover, there is a growing emphasis on methods to enhance
the quality of the NCVS data. Providing respondents with greater flexibility in mode choice, and
thus a more convenient means to participate, is one way of improving the quality of the survey
experience and the resulting data.
BJS is exploring survey methods to increase survey participation while maintaining affordable
costs in the future. This includes providing respondents with more options for participation. The
objectives of this project are to:
1. increase survey participation by providing more ways for respondents to respond;
2. decrease costs by providing nominal incentives early and to reduce costly in-person
non-response follow-up;
3. examine whether rapport built in an initial household contact carries into subsequent
interviews using self-administered modes;
4. examine whether Web and mail interviews are viable modes of administration for the
NCVS; and
5. examine whether the addition of inbound CATI complements the traditional outbound
CATI approach, and the extent to which respondents make use of this option .
To eliminate potential confusion with the ongoing national NCVS, the survey to be conducted for
this research is titled the ―Survey of Crime Victimization (SCV).‖
RTI will test alternatives to the current NCVS modes of administration (i.e., CAPI and CATI) for
household and individual interviews by testing inbound CATI, mail, and Web modes. The
experimental design involves two mixed-mode conditions with two incentive conditions ($0 vs.
$10) nested within each condition.
Although the use of incentives in survey research is traditionally justified as a method to
increase response rates and survey completion, the primary purpose of incentives in this

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

research is to evaluate and assess differences in interview cost, response rates, and data
quality when incentives are or are not offered to respondents (a full discussion of these issues is
discussed in Appendix F, Section 5).
This design allows an examination of the tradeoffs in reduced data collection costs resulting
from self-administered modes and the lower response rates these modes yield. Incentives are
introduced in this study to test their effectiveness in offsetting the lower participation levels
expected in self-administered modes.
This research addresses the following questions:
1. How do alternative mixed-mode designs compare to the current design in terms of
response rate and cost?
2. Does the use of incentives affect interview cost or response rates within alternative
modes of administration?
3. Are incentives effective in boosting response rates and maintaining rapport in
subsequent waves?
4. Does initial rapport between interviewer and respondent carry over into subsequent selfadministered interviews?
5. What portion of the household respondents will respond to an initial interview by inbound
CATI, and what cost savings might be realized?
6. How will key survey estimates change (if at all) if different mode mixes and incentives
are used?
In addition to the mode and incentive experiments identified above, another component of this
research is to assess the feasibility of address-based sampling in the collection of data through
self-administered interviews.
RTI conducted a review and assessment of research in the development of the SCV
experimental design (see Appendix E). This review and assessment focused on five areas of
survey operations: (1) address-based sampling; (2) mixed-mode surveys; (3) self-administered
modes of data collection; (4) use of incentives; and (5) additional issues in measuring crime
victimization in surveys (RTI International, 2009). In conducting the review, RTI evaluated
research related to the NCVS design and measurement issues. This review provided an
exhaustive assessment of the available research, established knowledge in each area, and
discussed the implications of possible alternative designs for the NCVS. Additionally, the review
informed the development and design of the SCV experimental research.
SCV research will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 consists of developing the
experimental design, instrument and systems development, and cognitive and usability testing
of the instruments and design. The field test will be conducted in Phase 2. This memorandum is
submitted for approval to conduct cognitive and usability testing on instruments and systems
prior to moving into the field test. In addition, Appendix F provides an overview of the entire SCV
research project as conceptualized now. Refinements will be made to the project based on
activities in Phase 1, and the appendix is provided to assist OMB in viewing the projects in its
entirety.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Briefly, Phase 1 involves the streamlining and reformatting of NCVS instruments for use in
CATI, CAPI, Web, and mail environments (discussed in detail in Section 3). As part of the initial
development for Web and mail modes, a preliminary cognitive test of the mail survey was
conducted to identify areas in which to target additional refinements of the instruments such as
following skip patterns and instrument instructions. Similarly, a small usability test of the Web
survey instrument was conducted to identify specific areas requiring additional refinements.
These included issues such as problems logging into the Web survey application, entering
answers, and navigating between screens. The results revealed the target areas on which to
strategically focus further refinements.
This clearance memo describes the development of the SCV experimental design (Section 2),
including mode considerations for the SCV (Section 2.1) and the resulting SCV research design
(Section 2.2). Section 3 describes the modification of the NCVS instruments for the SCV
administration modes. In Section 4, we detail the developmental activities for the mail survey
instrument, including preliminary assessment of the instrument (Section 4.1) and programming
of the data entry application (Section 4.2). Section 5 describes the developmental activities for
the CATI, CAPI, and Web instruments, including programming of the instruments (Section 5.1)
and preliminary assessment of the Web instrument (Section 5.2). The sections on the
preliminary assessment of the mail and Web instruments summarize results of these activities
and plans for refinement of the mail and Web instruments. In Section 6 we describe plans for
cognitive and usability testing of the mail and Web instrument refinements. Results of the
cognitive and usability tests will be used to inform revisions to the SCV instruments prior to
Phase 2 implementation. Sample size and respondent burden estimates are provided in
Sections 7, and data security protocols for the cognitive and usability tests are described in
Section 8.
Phase 2, which will be covered by a separate OMB clearance memo, consists of four tasks.
These include: (1) developing supplemental systems and data security protocols in support of
the field test data collection; (2) developing the address-based sampling approach and sampling
frame for the field test; (3) conducting a multi-site, multi-wave, mixed-mode field test to evaluate
the effectiveness of less-costly data collection modes and incentives; and (4) preparing reports
to document the results of the planned analyses and field test. Phase 2 is described in detail in
Appendix F with the intent of providing an overview of the SCV project to OMB. The appendix
includes descriptions of the field test incentive plan, data collection procedures, and planned
analyses and reports.
Following completion of cognitive and usability testing a Phase 2 clearance memo incorporating
finalized instruments and field test protocols will be submitted to OMB for review and approval.
2. Development of the Experimental Design
This section describes the development of the SCV experimental design, including
consideration given to the survey administration modes (Section 2.1) and an overview of the
SCV research design (Section 2.2).
2.1 Mode Considerations for the SCV
The NCVS is currently conducted as a mixed-mode survey that utilizes both CAPI and CATI.
CAPI interviews are required for the first contact with the household, while subsequent
interviews are conducted almost entirely via CATI. The first step in development of the SCV
design was to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the CATI, CAPI, Web and mail

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

modes. Second, once a solid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each mode
was established, emphasis shifted to the combination of modes to be tested in the initial contact
and follow-up efforts (for both household and individual respondents) in Wave 1 and Wave 2.
Exhibit 1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of both interviewer- and self-administered
modes. (See Appendix E for a review of the literature on self-administered survey modes.)
Exhibit 1.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Data Collection Modes

CAPI

CATI

Mail SelfAdministration

Web SelfAdministration

Strengths

 Amenable to longer
interviews

 Less expensive than
CAPI
Weaknesses

 Yields more honest
reporting on sensitive
topics

 Precludes use of
visual aids

 Less costly as no
interview labor
involved

 Less costly as no
interviewer labor
involved

 Concerns about
internet privacy are
not an issue
Weaknesses

 Routing can be as
complex as other
computer-assisted
modes

 Language and literacy
problems can be
difficult to overcome

 Length of survey less
apparent to
respondent than mail
Weaknesses

 Allows use of visual
aids
 Yields higher
response rates
 Efficient in that CAPI
interviewers can be
cross-trained as
telephone
interviewers
 Helps build rapport
for future interviews
Weaknesses
 Expensive
 Longer data
collection periods
needed

 More sensitive to
interview length
 More partially
completed interviews
 Lower response
rates

 Length should not be
intimidating
 Skip instructions need
to be straightforward
 Limited control over
who completes survey
 Best suited in
combination with
other modes

 Language and literacy
problems can be
difficult to overcome
 Limited control over
who completes survey
 Best suited in
combination with other
modes

Traditional methods of interviewing include the in-person and over the telephone interviewing
strategies. There are strengths and weaknesses associated with both methods. Telephone
interviewing tends to be less costly than in-person interviewing as this mode does not involve
travel time to and from the household, and because telephone interviewers are generally paid
less than interviewers in the field. However, the telephone mode generally results in increased
partial interviews since respondents may easily break-off the conversation. Visual aids, which
can be helpful to respondents in remembering long lists, are difficult to incorporate in a
telephone interviews. Telephone interviewing is not conducive to administering lengthy informed
consent and assent procedures. Compared with face-to-face surveys, telephone surveys have
also been found to yield lower response rates (Groves and Kahn, 1979; Cannell et al., 1987;
Sykes and Collins, 1988; Hox and de Leeuw, 1994). Though in-person interviewing is more
costly, this form of administration generally results in higher response rates resulting from
increased rapport between the interviewer and respondents. Rapport in the face to face context
also makes the in-person approach amenable to longer interviews. In-person interviewers can
be cross-trained as telephone interviewers, thereby eliminating the need for centralized, facility-

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

based telephone interviewing; however, traditional monitoring activities, one of the hallmarks of
centralized administration, are not feasible with this approach.
The self-administered modes, such as mail and Web surveys, tend to have lower per-unit costs
because no paid labor is involved—the costs for responding fall almost entirely on the
respondent (Groves et al., 2004). With their growing proliferation, Web surveys are increasingly
popular in mixed-mode surveys and are notably cost- and time-efficient (Dillman 2000; Couper
2000). The Web mode combines the advantage of computer-assisted response with the
advantages of self-administration, providing a data collection option that is both convenient for
respondents and cost-effective. With strictly cost in mind a data collection approach that
emphasizes completion via the Web or mail is preferable. Research indicates that selfadministration elicits more honest reporting on sensitive topics than interviewer administration
(Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinksi, 2000), but self-administered modes are generally
characterized by lower response and higher break-off rates compared to intervieweradministered modes (e.g., Gribble et al., 2000; Tourangeau, Steiger, and Wilson, 2002). Thus,
they are often offered in combination with other modes, such as CATI.
Given these mode considerations, and the objectives of the study, the SCV will deploy a mixedmode design that attempts to take advantage of the strengths of each mode while recognizing
its limitations. For example, the SCV mail survey instrument (described in Section 3) will be an
abbreviated version of the one offered via CAPI, CATI, or Web in recognition of the increased
burden placed on respondents to complete a lengthy paper questionnaire and navigate complex
skip patterns. The mixed-mode, multi-wave design for the SCV field test will blend a primary,
interviewer-administered contact mode for the household respondent (CAPI or CATI) with less
costly options for (1) interviews with individual respondents in the household, (2) nonresponse
follow-up with household and individual respondents, and (3) interviews in subsequent waves.
Groves et al. (2004) identified three main reasons for using mixed-mode data collection: cost
reduction, response rate maximization, and money saving in longitudinal surveys. The use of a
combination of data collection methods reduces cost, as it typically involves an attempt to
collect data in a cheaper mode (e.g., mail), followed by a more expensive mode (e.g.,
telephone), and possibly moving to an even more costly mode (e.g., face-to-face interviewing)
for the nonrespondent sample persons. Longitudinal surveys also employ mixed-mode data
collection to reduce cost in later waves, when rapport between the interviewer and the
respondent has already been established in the first wave, usually administered in face-to-face
mode.
Moreover, one mode can be used to compensate for the weakness of another (e.g., Massey,
Marquis, and Tortora, 1982; Marquis and Blass, 1985; for a detailed discussion, see Groves and
Lepkowski, 1985). For example, in-person interviewing can overcome barriers to response
caused by not having a telephone number or households using call-screening devices to evade
interviewers. Mixed-mode designs are thought to promote response by providing respondents
the flexibility and convenience of choice, resulting in more opportunities to respond and in
different settings (i.e., at home, at work, or while travelling). By offering multiple modes
simultaneously, it is possible both to lower costs and to reduce nonsampling errors, such as
nonresponse error and measurement error (Biemer and Lyberg, 2003; Groves, 1989).
Of particular interest to BJS is an evaluation of the self-administered modes of data collection—
inbound CATI, Web, and mail. Exhibit 2 lists the modes and mode combinations that will be
utilized in the SCV and the rationale for their inclusion at Wave 1 and/or Wave 2.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 2.

SCV Modes and Mode Combinations and Rationale for Use in Study Design

Study Objective

Evaluate less costly
mode for initial contact
with household

Evaluate less costly
mode(s) for interviewing
individual respondents
following completion of
household respondent
interview

Evaluate alternative
mode(s) for
nonresponse follow-up
of household and
individual respondents
to maximize response
rates

Evaluate less costly
mode(s) for subsequent
waves of data collection

Mode/Mode Combination to
be Utilized in Data Collection

Rationale for Inclusion in SCV
Experimental Design

CAPI

Control group; comparison group that most
closely mirrors current NCVS primary
contact mode for household respondents

Inbound/Outbound CATI

Less costly option for securing household
respondent interview, yet still establishes
interviewer rapport with household

CAPI

Control group; mirrors current NCVS
primary contact mode for individual
respondents

Inbound/Outbound CATI

Individual respondent given option to call
project toll-free number and complete CATI
survey with telephone interviewer;
nonresponse follow-up done via outbound
calling. Less expensive than CAPI mode,
especially when inbound calling is offered
prior to outbound calling. Builds on rapport
already established with the household
respondent by an interviewer.

CATI

Control group; comparison group that most
closely mirrors current NCVS nonresponse
follow-up mode

CAPI/CATI

Used as nonresponse follow-up mode
when initial contacting by inbound or
outbound CATI not successful; in-person
follow-up (CAPI) will be needed when
telephone number is not available or
nonworking. Once household has been
reached in-person, interview appointments
can be handled via CATI to minimize costs.

Mail, Web, Inbound CATI

All Wave 1 participants given choice of
mail, Web, or inbound CATI as primary
survey mode at Wave 2; less costly option
than in-person or CATI follow-up that
provides flexibility for respondents

CATI

Used as nonresponse follow-up mode
when Wave 1 participant does not respond
via mail, Web, or inbound CATI. Less
costly than in-person follow-up but
engages interviewer in effort to secure
participation.

An additional task undertaken in parallel with the development of the experimental design was
an examination of the number of persons to interview in each household in order to evaluate if
interviewing all household members 12 years of age and older is optimal for the national panel
survey. These issues are being addressed in final reports to BJS.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

2.2 SCV Research Design
Exhibit 3 presents the SCV experimental design based on a careful assessment of the research
objectives, study design alternatives, and mode and incentive options. At Wave 1, the study will
utilize a combination of in-person and telephone interviews to build rapport with the households.
A particular focus of Wave 1 is the introduction of inbound CATI in Condition 2 as a lower-cost
option for household participation. In Wave 2, Web, mail, and inbound CATI will be offered as
the primary survey mode for all respondents at Wave 2.
At Wave 2, we are eliminating the more expensive in-person mode and evaluating whether the
Wave 1 survey experience—in-person and telephone interviews—encourages participation by
less costly self-administered modes. As part of this evaluation, we will also examine which
Wave 1 mode(s) are most effective in encouraging participation at Wave 2. Despite its promise
to decrease cost, the Web and mail modes may not be best suited for initial contact because we
cannot control who responds to the survey request. However, we are testing these modes in
Wave 2 (along with inbound CATI) to better understand to what extent self-administered modes
would be a plausible option for subsequent waves of data collection.
Although it has been a long-standing requirement for interviewers to make initial contact via
CAPI to build a foundation of understanding and trust that will carry forward to future survey
rounds, this study examines whether household respondents respond to CATI in the first
contact. This approach is a less costly option, particularly if a combination of inbound and
outbound calling proves effective. The SCV will utilize outbound CATI as the follow-up mode for
household and individual respondents who do not respond to the initial survey request by
another mode (e.g., CAPI), or a combination of inbound and outbound CATI as the primary
survey modes for both household and individual respondents.
Inbound CATI will also be offered as one of the primary self-administered modes at Wave 2. As
with the Web and mail methods described above, the goal is to determine if the less costly CATI
efforts yield the desirable response rates and are thus viable options for the NCVS. The
proportion of people who respond to the SCV via inbound or outbound CATI may be sizeable
enough to reduce costs in a non-negligible way given the cost differential between CATI and
CAPI interviews.
The experiment involves a mixed-mode (CATI, CAPI, Web, and mail), multi-wave design with
two experimental conditions. Within each condition, we will also test two incentive amounts ($0
and $10), creating a 2x2 factorial design. The experiment will be conducted in four states—
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina1—using shortened versions of the NCVS
Screener and CIR and reformatted Web and mail survey instruments that combine the Screener
and CIR into a single instrument for self-administration. Two data collection waves (Wave 1 and
Wave 2) are planned. For sufficient analytic power, we will select a sample of 4,164 mailing
addresses equally allocated to each of the four mode/incentive groups (i.e., 1,041 per group).
The design will support the planned analyses with sufficient statistical power and precision for
key estimates and comparisons. Appendix F (Section 2, p. F-2) provides a complete overview of
the Phase 2 field test.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 3.

SCV Mixed-Mode Experimental Design
Wave 1

Condition

Type of
Contact

Household
Respondent

Individual
Household
Members

Wave 2
Household
Respondent

Individual
Household
Members

Initial Contact

CAPI

Mail, Web, and
Inbound CATI

Follow-up

None

CATI

Initial Contact

Inbound and
Outbound CATI

Inbound and
Outbound
CATI

Mail, Web, and
Inbound CATI

Follow-up

CAPI/CATI
(if appt)

CAPI/CATI (if
appt)

CATI

Wave 1
Condition 1. In this condition, CAPI interviews will be attempted with all eligible households.
Household interviews will be completed in-person, via CAPI. However, individual interviews will
be completed via CAPI or CATI, with initial contact attempts for individual respondents by CAPI
and nonresponse follow-up by CATI. Condition 1 ($0 incentive) is considered a control2 group
because the protocol closely resembles the current NCVS collection procedures Cases will be
transferred to CATI if a phone number is available and the address has been visited at least 10
times during the first 12 weeks of data collection. The control condition is needed to ensure
comparability between the national panel survey and the experimental conditions.3
After evaluating performance measures, such as the number of completed surveys by day and
the average time between letters and the completion of the household and individual interviews,
RTI, in collaboration with BJS, will determine an optimal time to switch all individual respondent
cases to a centralized telephone nonresponse follow-up. Switching cases to a telephone followup too early in data collection may have a cost impact and change the response propensities,
affecting overall response rates. Studies on mode preference suggest that respondents have
different propensities to respond to different modes (Groves and Kahn, 1979) and providing
alternative modes (as in mixed-mode designs) may be an effective way of improving response
rates (Shettle and Mooney, 1999). Conversely, switching cases to telephone follow-up too late
may result in insufficient time to work the cases, and thus, prevent the study from achieving the
desired effect on response rate and nonresponse error.
Condition 2. Condition 2 will test the use of only telephone mode, subjecting to telephone as
many cases as possible. The attractiveness of this condition is that telephone is a less-costly
alternative to face-to-face interviewing and may be even more desirable (due to the increased
social distance between the interviewer and the respondent), given the sensitive nature of the
questions. For the initial contact with Condition 2 households, letters will be sent to all sample
addresses asking them to call a toll-free number to complete the roster and household
2

For purposes of this research, the term ―control‖ refers to the comparison group in the SCV experimental
design that most closely resembles the national panel study.
3
Using the most current NCVS data instead of having Condition 1 would not provide comparable data as
multiple survey factors impact the data collection process (e.g., response rates can be affected by the
geographic area of the experiment, the interviewer pool, the recruitment procedures, coding of call
outcomes, and other differences between survey organizations and sample design).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

interview. The use of an incentive in this design is expected to be a critical component in
motivating sample members to initiate the call (see Appendix F, Section 5, for a full discussion
of incentives).
Utilizing incentives in this condition should still lead to substantial savings from not having to
make numerous call attempts to cases, whether by telephone or in-person. After three weeks,
calls will be made to all telephone numbers that can be matched to nonrespondent sample
addresses (outbound CATI), a rate expected to approach 50 percent. A greater proportion of the
sample is expected to be attempted by telephone among the remaining household members, as
household respondents would have provided telephone numbers. Finally, the remaining
nonrespondents will be approached via CAPI, which is a more expensive mode. As much of the
CAPI cost is associated with travel and particularly with travel that results in noncontact,
additional individual household members who are at home at the time of a CAPI interview will
be asked to participate in the survey at that time. This condition will be particularly useful in the
event that the self-administration mode performs poorly as a form of initial contact. Additional
efficiency can be achieved through the use of centralized CATI, particularly when implemented
on a large scale. Although this efficiency may not hold for all surveys and survey organizations it
is expected to occur under the current protocol.
Wave 2
The second wave of data collection will begin 6 months after the completion date for each case
in Wave 1. Bounded interviews require data from Wave 1 to be collected, thus we can assume
that households who responded in Wave 1 will be interviewed in Wave 2, or the number of
completed household interviews in Wave 1 will be the starting sample size for Wave 2. The goal
of Wave 2 is to evaluate whether less costly, self-administered follow-up yields acceptable
response rates given the different modes used for the initial survey request in Wave 1.
All Wave 1 respondents will be mailed a package that includes a request to go to the study
Website to complete the survey, call a toll-free number, or mail back the enclosed
questionnaire. A week later, following the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000), a thank you
postcard will be sent to all households to express appreciation for taking part in the survey, and
remind those who have not done so already to complete their questionnaire (mail or Web) or
call the toll-free number. Four weeks after the original mailing, a replacement package will be
sent to nonrespondents. This sequencing of the distribution of materials is a common feature in
self-administered modes (when used as stand-alone modes or in mixed-mode designs) and has
been proven to maximize response rates in mail surveys (see Dillman, 1978; Dillman, 2000).
Two weeks after the replacement questionnaire has been mailed, nonrespondents will be
contacted by telephone (collected in Wave 1 or available from address matching efforts) in an
effort to secure the interview.
Because the address will be the sampling unit in the SCV field test, we will not follow and
interview Wave 1 respondents who move away from the sampled address and are no longer
living there at Wave 2. Moreover, because an important objective of the study is to examine how
a respondent’s survey mode at Wave 1 impacts their propensity to respond at Wave 2, it will not
be necessary to include new residents of a sampled address at Wave 2 since they did not
respond in the first wave. Procedures will be implemented at Wave 2 to identify movers and new
residents through U.S. Postal Service forwarding orders and address confirmation questions
embedded in the Screener and to exclude them from the sample.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

3. Modification of the NCVS Instruments for the SCV Administration Modes
RTI and BJS collaborated to streamline the NCVS survey instruments4 for CATI and CAPI
administration, and to produce Web and mail instruments specifically reformatted for selfadministration. For the CATI and CAPI modes, the Screener and CIR have been reduced in
length to minimize respondent burden. To facilitate self-administration by Web and mail, the
Screener and CIR have been combined into a single streamlined instrument for each mode.
The Web instrument has been reduced in length by omitting some Screener and CIR items;
additionally, remaining items have been simplified for ease of Web self-administration. The mail
questionnaire required the most extensive reconfiguration due to the complexity of the NCVS
and the lack of any assistance for the respondent (e.g., from an interviewer or through the use
of programmed skip logic and on-screen instructions). For example, the mail survey must
combine both the Screener and CIR into a single hardcopy form. While the content of the mail
survey is nearly identical to that of the Web survey, additional questions were removed from the
hardcopy survey to minimize burden by simplifying the respondent’s task in completing the form
and following skip pattern instructions.
Exhibit 4 summarizes the modifications that have been made to the NCVS Screener and CIR for
the four data collection modes that will be used for this research. Additional details regarding
instrument-specific revisions are provided in the sections that follow.
Exhibit 4.
Mode
CAPI

Summary of NCVS Screener and CIR Modifications by Data Collection Mode
Screener

 Length reduced to about 7 minutes on
average.

 Length reduced to about 8 minutes on
average.

 Household roster collects information on
up to 10 adult household members in
addition to household respondent.

 Only questions related to the major crime
categories retained. Identity theft,
vandalism, and hate crime sections
removed.
 Mobility section and detailed employment
questions removed.
CATI

CIR

 All questions that contribute to key statistics
retained in the instrument.

 Length reduced to about 7 minutes on
average.

 Length reduced to about 8 minutes on
average.

 Household roster collects information on
up to 10 adult household members in
addition to household respondent.

 Only questions related to the major crime
categories retained. Identity theft,
vandalism, and hate crime sections
removed.
 Mobility section and detailed employment
questions removed

 All questions that contribute to key statistics
retained in the instrument.
(continued)

The NCVS instruments modified for this research were the Control Card, Basic Screening Questionnaire
(Screener), and Crime Incident Report (CIR).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 4.
Mode
Web

Summary of NCVS Screener and CIR Modifications by Data Collection Mode
(continued)
Screener

CIR

 Length reduced to about 7 minutes on
average.

 Length reduced to about 8 minutes on
average.

 NCVS Control Card questions used to
enumerate household incorporated.
Household roster collects information on
up to 10 adult household members in
addition to household respondent.

 Some items combined into a single question
or reformatted to match mail mode for ease
of comparison.

 Only questions related to the major crime
categories retained. Identity theft,
vandalism, and hate crime sections
removed.
 Mobility section and detailed employment
questions removed

 Some questions that collect details about
each crime incident removed, including
particular place where incident happened,
impact the incident had on the respondent’s
life, hate crimes and crimes against people
with disabilities.
 Clarification of some terminology (i.e.,
definition of ―offender‖) provided in question
text since interviewer not involved in survey
administration.
 All questions that contribute to key statistics
retained in the instrument.

Mail

 Length reduced to about 7 minutes on
average. NCVS Control Card questions
used to enumerate household
incorporated (for Wave 2 use only).
Household roster collects information on
only 4 household members in addition to
household respondent to minimize
burden. Only counts of additional
household members (children and adults)
collected.
 Some items combined into a single
question or reformatted for ease of
hardcopy self-administration.
 Only questions related to the major crime
categories retained. Identity theft,
vandalism, and hate crime sections
removed.
 Mobility section and detailed employment
questions removed

 Length reduced to about 9 minutes on
average.
 Some items combined into a single question
or reformatted for ease of hardcopy selfadministration.
 Some questions that collect details about
each crime incident removed, including
particular place where incident happened,
impact the incident had on the respondent’s
life, hate crimes and crimes against people
with disabilities.
 Some response options collapsed into fewer
items for ease of self-administration.
 Most questions about the characteristics of
the offender(s) removed to reduce survey
length.
 Most questions about injuries and
hospitalizations removed to reduce survey
length.
 Clarification of some terminology (i.e.,
definition of ―offender‖) provided in question
text since interviewer not involved in survey
administration.
 All questions that contribute to key statistics
retained in the instrument.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Streamlining the NCVS Control Card for Address Verification and Household
Enumeration. The NCVS Control Card is used for verification of sampled addresses,
identification of additional dwelling units of households at the sampled address, and for
enumeration of eligible household members. For this research, Control Card items were
streamlined for CAPI and CATI administration. The resulting CATI/CAPI Address Verification
and Household Enumeration Questionnaire will be used in the field test to verify the interviewer
contacted the correct address, identify and exclude from the household roster any persons
residing in other living quarters at the address (e.g., in a separate apartment with a separate
entrance), and roster eligible adult household members for inclusion in the SCV. Data collected
on separate living quarters will be used to generate prevalence estimates as part of the
evaluation of address-based sampling (ABS) methods that will be employed during field test
data collection. The CATI/CAPI Address Verification and Household Enumeration Questionnaire
is provided in Appendix A.
Streamlining the NCVS Screener and CIR. The Screener will be administered to the NCVS
household and individual respondents to determine if the CIR needs to be completed. As in the
national NCVS, the Screener for this research is designed to identify victimization at the
household and individual level. The first interview is always conducted with a household
respondent, who is selected to be the most knowledgeable adult (18 years of age or older). For
the CAPI and CATI modes, the Screener is somewhat longer for household respondents
because it enumerates the household and collects additional information about household
crimes. There are four additional household respondent questions in the CAPI and CATI
instruments that collect information about theft outside the home, home break-ins, number of
cars in the household, and stolen vehicles.
For the Web and mail self-administration modes, the Screener is identical for the household and
individual respondents because we do not have control over who will pick up and respond to the
mail or who will log in to the Web survey first.
For each incident of crime reported in the Screener, the interviewer administers a CIR to collect
detailed information for each incident. The CIR for this research collects data on the
circumstances of the incident, when the incident occurred, threats prior to the incident, victims’
major activities in the week prior to and at the time of the incident, weapon use, bystander
behavior, relationship to and characteristics of the perpetrator(s), victim’s attempts at selfprotection, whether the event was reported to the police, law enforcement responses, and
consequences of the victimization.
The Screener has been slightly reduced in length to an average of about 7 minutes to minimize
respondent burden. This estimate is based on timed readings of the survey instrument.
Questions used to classify major crime categories were retained in the shortened Screener.
Questions on identity theft, vandalism, and hate crime sections were removed for this
experiment. The mobility section of the Screener was also eliminated, as well as the detailed
employment questions.
The length of the CIR has been reduced to an average of about 8 minutes in CATI, CAPI, and
Web mode, and 9 minutes in mail to minimize respondent burden in the field test. As with the
Screener, these estimates are based on timed readings of the instrument. The reduction in
length was achieved primarily by removing some of the detailed questions, such as the
particular place where the incident happened, the impact the incident had on the respondent’s
life, hate crimes and crimes against people with disabilities. The revised Screener and CIR,

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

which will be used for CAPI and CATI administrations in the field test, are presented in
Appendix A.
Streamlining the NCVS Instruments for Web and Mail Self-Administration. To facilitate selfadministration, RTI created a reformatted, single-instrument version of the Screener and CIR for
Web and mail administration. This involved reviewing each question and response set in the
Screener and CIR, identifying with BJS the items critical for crime classification, assessing the
complexity of each item for self-administration via Web or paper-and-pencil, and determining
methods for simplifying the respondent task by eliminating or revising complex skip patterns.
Basic respondent demographic questions from the NCVS Control Card were incorporated into
the instrument. However, the household roster is not part of the Web or mail survey as
enumeration of the household will be done in the CAPI or CATI interview with the household
respondent.
Preliminary assessment of the mail survey instrument (described in Section 4.1) identified target
areas for additional refinements. Items that remain in the Web instrument but have been
removed from the mail survey include questions about the characteristics of the offender(s)
(e.g., in a gang, drinking or on drugs), injuries or hospitalizations resulting from the crime, steps
taken to protect self or property during the crime, and presence of others during the crime. (See
Section 4.2, Exhibit 5 for a summary of specific revisions to the mail survey.) Appendix A
contains the Web and mail survey instruments that have been streamlined and specifically
reformatted for self-administration.
4. Phase 1 Developmental Activities for the Mail Instrument
Phase 1 developmental activities for the mail instrument involved a preliminary assessment of
the mail instrument using cognitive interviewing methods and programming and testing of the
data entry application for completed survey forms. These activities are described in the sections
that follow.
4.1 Preliminary Assessment of the Mail Survey Instrument
To inform refinements to the mail survey, preliminary cognitive testing was conducted. Cognitive
interviews usually require a small number of participants, typically less than 10. Ackerman and
Blair (2006) note that the number of cognitive interviews performed for any given project is
generally somewhat small due to budget and schedule constraints. Testing is generally done in
an iterative fashion with subsequent rounds of cognitive interviews testing the materials revised
in response to findings from the first round of testing.
The survey literature does not provide explicit guidance on the optimal number of cognitive
interviews or the number of pretest iterations. The current NCVS questions have been
cognitively tested, but reformatting these questions for a self-administered mail survey was
expected to present substantial challenges. Preliminary cognitive interviews were envisioned as
a method of identifying specific target areas on which to focus additional developmental work. A
small number of cognitive interviews were conducted to provide insight into the viability of
administering the questions in a self-administered format. The issues identified during the
preliminary testing indicate certain problem areas for mail administration. Additional testing will
determine whether the mail instrument is a viable option for the field test. If this mode is not
viable, the mail questionnaire will be replaced by the Web. Characteristics of the Web mode are
able to overcome many of the limitations of the mail (discussed more fully in Section 5.2).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Between December 2010 and early January 2011, 9 cognitive interviews were conducted at RTI
by survey methodologists experienced in cognitive interviewing methods. Participant recruitment
for the cognitive interviews was carried out by RTI using advertisements placed on Craig’s List
for the Raleigh-Durham, NC, area and in RTI internal classifieds, and through postings at local
public health departments, domestic violence shelters, and other similar locations. Interested
candidates were first screened to determine their eligibility for the cognitive interview. The
screening script contained questions on crime experiences (similar to the Screener) as well as
questions on basic demographic characteristics in an effort to recruit a diverse mix of
participants.
RTI staff and their family members were not eligible to participate in the cognitive test.
Additionally, persons who had not experienced a crime in the past 6 months, were under age
18, or did not speak English were excluded. To ensure participants would be eligible to fill out
the majority of the SCV questionnaire, selected candidates had at least one crime experience
that is a focus of the survey instrument (e.g., theft, break-in, or attack of any kind). Additionally,
candidates with a variety of crime experiences were chosen in order to test as many different
questions and routing patterns in the mail survey instrument as possible. Cognitive interview
subjects were selected from the pool of screened, eligible candidates.
Cognitive interviews were conducted in person at RTI’s main campus in North Carolina. All
participants signed a consent form prior to beginning the interview, which was read to them by
the interviewer. A copy of the form was provided for the participant’s records. The consent form
included a separate request to audio record the interview to facilitate note-taking, with
recordings to be destroyed shortly after the summary reports were prepared and analyzed. All
reports were written in a common summary shell that was exported into Excel so that responses
to the same questions could be seen for all participants.
During the cognitive interview, participants were first asked to complete the hardcopy mail
survey instrument on their own. To maximize confidentiality during the interview, participants
were instructed to record only first and last initials when answering the household roster items
on the mail survey, and to enter ―Xs‖ for their phone number. After completing the screening
portion of the survey, they participated in a guided think-aloud process with the interviewer in
which the respondent was asked to discuss individual questions and response sets in the
instrument to gauge their ease or difficulty in completing the survey, their ability to successfully
navigate through the instrument (for example, following skip instructions and marking answer
choices), and their understanding of definitions and terminology in the survey.
Next, participants were asked to continue with the rest of the survey (first CIR, followed by
additional CIRs where applicable) and when finished, went through the same think-aloud
process, discussing any problems they encountered in completing the survey. The interviews
averaged 86 minutes and included a review of a number of questionnaire items, including some
that had been cognitively tested previously for the NCVS. This was to look for any context
effects that may have been introduced with the removal of some items and to gauge how well
the items worked in a self-administered format. The screener portion of the survey averaged 7
minutes; while the first CIR took 13 minutes to complete (the average length for the subsequent
CIRs was much less, about 7 minutes for the second, and 8 minutes for the third CIR among
respondents who experienced more than one crime). All cognitive interview participants
received $40 cash as compensation for their time.
The results of the cognitive testing are summarized below:

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.



Respondents often made errors in filling in the household roster questions. They did not
read or follow the provided instructions, and included themselves or other persons who
should have been excluded from the roster.



Respondents had difficulty following skip patterns on a number of items. Some questions
could not be easily located when skipping, or respondents failed to see and follow
provided skip instructions. In particular, respondents found it problematic when the skip
patterns required them to turn multiple pages and locate a question that was somewhere
other than the top left corner of the page, or when a question involved different skip
patterns depending on the answer the respondent selected.



Respondents did not understand the meaning of some of the question terminology,
including ―evidence,‖ ―incident,‖ ―dwelling,‖ or ―offender.‖ Additionally, there was
confusion about how to answer some CIR questions when the crime incident occurred
somewhere other than the respondent’s home (e.g., at work).



Respondents had difficulty providing the age of household members in the roster and
understanding that the income question was seeking annual income for the household.



Respondents had difficulty keeping track of the specific crime incident they were being
asked to provide details for in the CIR. In some cases, respondents combined multiple
crime incidents into one CIR, or tried to split out crimes that occurred in the same
incident across multiple CIRs. Additionally, the questions and skip instructions specific to
crime series (multiple incidents of the same type of crime) were not easily understood.



Overall, respondents expressed concern about the length and complexity of the
hardcopy survey instrument, including the number of questions they were being asked to
answer and the wordiness of some items.



Finally, the test identified a number of items where consideration should be given to
clarifying the intent of the question and/or expanding or refining the response options
based on the information provided by the cognitive interview respondents.

Plans for the additional cognitive interviews are discussed in Section 6. Based on findings from
subsequent rounds of testing, BJS may deem that a mail instrument is not a viable mode of
administration for the NCVS.
4.2 Programming of the Mail Survey Data Entry Application
Data from completed mail survey forms will be captured through the use of a single Web-based
survey system designed to support all survey modes, including collection of CATI, CAPI, and
Web survey data. With this approach, programming efficiency can be achieved given the
similarity of instrument content across modes, and collected data written to common databases
with consistent structures. Detailed programming specifications were prepared for the mail
questionnaire and contained the wording for all questions and their response sets, skip
instructions, and logic for internal consistency checks and ranges. Revisions to the
programming specifications will be made, as needed, upon finalization of the mail survey
instrument. The final specifications will be used to test the data entry component of the SCV
survey system prior to the Phase 2 field test.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

5. Phase 1 Developmental Activities for the CATI, CAPI, and Web Instruments
Phase 1 developmental activities for the CATI, CAPI and Web instruments involved
programming and testing the draft instruments and conducting preliminary usability testing of
the Web instrument. These activities are described in the sections that follow.
5.1 Programming of the CATI, CAPI and Web Instruments
As described in Section 4.2, data from CATI, CAPI, Web (and mail) will be captured through the
use of a single Web-based survey system designed to support all survey modes, including entry
of the mail survey instrument. In the Phase 2 field test, instruments will be accessible via any
common Web browser to: (1) survey participants who wish to complete the survey using the
public internet/Web and (2) CAPI/CATI interviewers conducting interviews.
To facilitate programming and testing of the draft instruments in Phase 1, detailed question
specifications were prepared for the CATI/CAPI Address Verification and Household
Enumeration Questionnaire, Screener, CIR, and Web instruments. In addition to providing the
wording for all questions and their response sets, the specifications include skip instructions,
logic for consistency checks and ranges that will be built into the system, and any wording
variations or fill text based on responses to prior items. Revisions to the programming
specifications will be made, as needed, based on results from the testing activities. The final
specifications will be used to test the CATI/CAPI and Web components of the SCV survey
system prior to the Phase 2 field test.
5.2 Preliminary Assessment of the Web Instrument
Following the programming of the draft instruments and internal testing by RTI survey
methodologists and project staff, a small usability test of the SCV Web instrument was
conducted. The purpose of the usability test, which involved 9 participants, was to identify
issues for additional targeted refinement. Specifically the usability testing was designed to
evaluate: (1) the ease or difficulty in logging into the Web survey system and navigating through
the survey application; (2) respondent opinions of the layout and appearance of survey screens;
(3) the ability to change and/or correct responses on-line; and (4) the ability to locate and use
on-screen definitions, instructions, and navigation buttons.
Because the NCVS instruments had been fielded for CAPI and CATI administration in prior
national implementations, the usability test focused solely on the respondent’s ability to access
the SCV survey on-line and successfully navigate through the Web screens in a selfadministered interview format. Thus, the objectives of the usability test differed from those of the
cognitive test.
Participant recruitment for the usability interviews mirrored the procedures used for the cognitive
interviews, including recruitment of participants via Craig’s List, RTI internal classifieds, and
postings in local public health departments and other similar locations, and use of a recruitment
script to determine eligibility for the interview. As in the cognitive test, volunteers with at least
one crime experience were selected, and attempts to recruit at least one participant in each
general crime category in the survey were made to ensure that different paths through the Web
instrument were tested.
RTI staff and their family members were not eligible to participate in the usability test and
persons who had not experienced a crime in the past 6 months, were under age 18, or who did
not speak English were also excluded. During the recruitment process, contact information

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

(names and phone numbers) was only collected for eligible candidates meeting the above
criteria.
Usability test interviews were conducted in person by trained RTI survey methodologists at
RTI’s main campus in North Carolina. All participants signed a consent form prior to beginning
the interview and received a copy of the form for their records. The consent form included a
separate request to audio record the interview to facilitate note-taking and for another member
of the SCV project staff to observe the interview, if applicable. The audio recordings were used
to facilitate preparation of summary reports of the interviews and were destroyed after the
reports were finalized.
As with the cognitive test, the usability interviews were guided by a structured interview protocol.
Participants were first asked to read a sample lead letter and follow the provided instructions to
access the survey Web site. This allowed for an evaluation of the respondent’s understanding of
the log-in instructions and identification of any survey access problems. The interviewer then
had the respondent complete the Web survey instrument on his/her own and stopped the
respondent at certain screens to check on navigation or request specific tasks to be performed.
After completing the survey, the interviewer asked the participant questions about the ease or
difficulty in answering specific questions on-line and his/her ability to navigate through specific
screens.
Throughout the usability test, the interviewer asked the respondent to enter specific kinds of
information, find instructions, definitions, or navigational buttons on a screen, or back up and
change an answer. Tasks that required changing the household roster information or backing up
and changing an answer were performed during the completion of the Web survey because skip
patterns and section logic would not allow any testing after the survey was completed.
Interviews averaged 70 minutes and participants received $40 cash as compensation for their
time. Because of the nature of the test (interviewers had to stop the interview and ask
respondent to perform specific tasks), it was not possible to obtain an estimate of the amount of
time required to complete the Web survey. However, we are estimating the Web survey will take
between 10–20 minutes per respondent to complete, based on their experiences.
The results of the usability testing are summarized below:


Respondents suggested that the lead letter contain the survey log-in instructions (url and
password), consistent with the accompanying instructions sheet.



Respondents were confused by the location of the navigation buttons that allow them to
advance to the next question or back up to a previous question. In some cases,
respondents accidently logged out of the survey by selecting the wrong navigation
button.



The informed consent screen was too wordy and required respondents to scroll down to
read all the text and proceed to the next screen.



Some respondents were confused by a banner displayed on screens in the CIR intended
to help them keep track of the crime incident being discussed.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.



Respondents who noticed the progress indicators in the instrument commented that only
the overall progress bar, and not the section-specific bar, was useful. However, they
were confused when the progress bar reset at the start of each CIR.



Respondents were not clear about the procedures for logging out and back into their
survey instrument (for example, if they exited the interview by accident and then had to
re-enter the survey application and resume their interview) because the system added a
―0‖ to their original ID and they were not sure whether they needed to use the original
password assigned to them or the unique password they created at the start of their
interview.



Finally, consistent with the cognitive test findings, some respondents reported that they
were confused by some of the terminology in the questions, and did not read questionrelated instructions. Participants who experienced crimes at locations different from their
homes were unclear how to answer certain questions. Also, respondents preferred to
report crime incidents in the order that was most salient to them (rather than an order
prescribed by the survey instrument). They also had difficulty reporting the age of
household members and in understanding that the income question was seeking annual
income for the household.

6. Cognitive and Usability Testing
This clearance memo requests OMB approval for cognitive testing of the SCV mail survey
instrument and usability testing of the SCV Web instrument. These activities, described in detail
in Sections 6.1 and Section 6.2, respectively, will target those areas identified in the preliminary
testing as requiring further refinement. The nature of the changes indicated by cognitive testing
thus far, indicate that mail administration may not be a viable method of administration for the
NCVS. The results of additional testing will dictate whether this approach of self-administration
will continue to the field test. If the mail option is deemed ineffective for the NCVS, the
experimental design will shift in focus to a test of the utility of inbound/outbound CATI and Web
administration.
6.1 Cognitive Testing of Mail Instrument
Up to 30 cognitive interviews will be conducted to determine whether the NCVS is viable in a
mail format. RTI will work collaboratively with BJS to refine the mail survey instrument in
response to respondent comments and interviewer observations during the preliminary round of
cognitive testing. Exhibit 5 summarizes the revisions that were made to the mail survey as a
result of the preliminary cognitive test findings described above.
Exhibit 5.

Summary of Mail Survey Revisions Resulting from Preliminary Cognitive
Test Findings

Preliminary Cognitive Test Findings
Errors in filling out the household
roster

Resulting Mail Survey Revisions
The household roster and questions about the number of
children in the household have been removed from the mail
survey. Enumeration of household members will be done in the
CAPI and CATI interview with the household respondent. Only
basic demographic information about the mail survey respondent
remains in the hardcopy form, including gender and age.
(continued)

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 5.

Summary of Mail Survey Revisions Resulting from Preliminary Cognitive
Test Findings (Continued)

Preliminary Cognitive Test Findings

Resulting Mail Survey Revisions

Navigation errors (e.g., difficulty in
following skip instructions)

Skip patterns have been simplified by the removal of some
questions in the survey (this was also necessary to decrease
survey length and minimize burden). Additional navigation
arrows have also been inserted next to some answer choices
to direct respondents’ attention to skip instructions.

Comprehension problems with some
survey terminology (e.g., offender,
dwelling, evidence)

A definition for ―offender‖ (the person who committed the
crime) has been inserted in several questions. ―Dwelling‖ has
been replaced by ―home.‖ ―Evidence‖ has been avoided and
instead a descriptive approach (e.g., ―How could you tell‖
instead of ―What was the evidence?‖) has been taken.

Difficulty reporting exact age of
household members

A categorical variable with pre-coded response choices has
replaced the open-ended age variable. With the removal of the
household roster, age is only captured for the mail survey
respondent.

Difficulty reporting annual household
income

To clarify that the question is seeking annual rather than
weekly or monthly income, the first two response options (less
than $4,999 and $5,000–$9,999) have been combined into one
category (less than $10,000). Also, the phrase ―in the past 12
months‖ has been underlined for emphasis.

Problems in keeping track of specific
crime incident being discussed

Questions related to crime ―series‖ have been modified to more
closely mirror the wording and placement of those in the CAPI
and CATI instruments. Questions about the number of each
type of crime have been added to follow each gate question in
the Screener. Each individual page of the CIR has also been
labeled with ―Incident 1,‖ ―Incident 1 (continued),‖ etc.

Overall length of survey
instruments/number of questions

The length of the mail survey instrument has been reduced by
5 pages as a result of the removal of the household roster from
the Screener and a number of questions from the CIR,
including detailed questions about the characteristics of the
offender (e.g., in a gang, drinking or on drugs), injuries or
hospitalizations resulting from the crime, steps taken to protect
self or property during the crime, and presence of others during
the crime.

Clarification/Refinement of question text
and/or response options

Response options have been collapsed into fewer categories
in some items. For example, ―rape,‖ ―attempted rape,‖ and
―sexual assault‖ have been combined into one response
option, as have ―purse‖ and ―wallet.‖ Three questions about the
relationship of the offender to the respondent have been
collapsed into one item, and three questions about contact with
authority have also been collapsed.

The supplemental testing is envisioned to be iterative in nature, with refinements made to the
survey instrument based on respondent feedback and consultation with BJS, and retesting of
revised items occurring with new respondents. The goals of the testing will be to evaluate:

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

1. Respondent reactions to, and effectiveness of, alternative wording and formatting of
some questions, including the household roster,5 age, and crime series questions;
2. Respondent reactions to, and effectiveness of, simplified terminology and definitions for
problematic concepts like ―dwelling‖ or ―offender;‖
3. Effectiveness of simplified skip patterns and instructions, including use of directional
arrows;
4. Respondent burden in completing a further streamlined and shortened instrument;
5. How respondents report on different kinds of crimes (e.g., theft, assault) that occurred at
the same time;
6. How respondents report on multiple incidents of the same kind of crime occurring on
different dates (e.g., 2 thefts); and
7. How respondents report on a series of crimes, that is, more than 5 crimes that are
similar in nature and cannot be recalled in enough detail to be distinguished from one
another (e.g., domestic abuse).
To achieve cognitive test goals 1–3, the structured interview guide for the cognitive test (see
Appendix B) includes specific probes asking about the respondent’s understanding of select
terms in the survey and whether respondents noticed the instructions or the skip instructions.
For example, a probe for question 11 in the cognitive interview guide asks the respondent about
his/her understanding of the word ―offender,‖ while a probe to question 16 asks the respondent
to explain how he/she determined the next question to answer. Additionally, the interviewer will
collect observation data that indicates the frequency with which the respondent skipped or
missed a question that should have been answered, skipped to the wrong item on the paper
form, or hesitated or seemed confused by a particular question or instruction.
This information will be used to identify specific questions or survey instructions that require
probing by the interviewer, and possibly further revision and testing. To assess respondent
burden (cognitive test goal 4), interviewers will time respondents on how long it takes to
complete each section of the questionnaire, including the Screener and each CIR. This
information on time on task will be used as an indicator of burden (based on the assumption that
the longer it takes, the more burdensome it is for respondents). The timing data will also be
used to consult with BJS on the necessity of further reductions to the mail survey length and
complexity to reduce burden for the Phase 2 field test.
To achieve cognitive test goals 5–7, the interviewers will go over the crime reports and
specifically probe respondents on their understanding of how they should handle specific
scenarios, including: (1) several different types of crimes that occurred at the same time (e.g.,
robbery and assault); (2) multiple incidents of the same type of crime (e.g., 2 thefts) and how
they determined which one to discuss in each CIR; and (3) how to report on crimes that occur
frequently and cannot be distinguished from one another (e.g., a crime series, such as partner
5

Even though the household roster is removed from the mail instrument and the household enumeration
will occur during the CAPI/CATI interview with the household respondent, we will test the household
roster as a separate instrument in case it needs to be implemented in subsequent waves of data
collection when the focus is on self-administered modes.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

violence). The information from this line of probing will be used to determine if refinements or
additions to survey instructions are needed as the respondent moves from the Screener
questions to the first CIR, or from one CIR to the next.
An additional goal of the cognitive test will be to assess how the improved household roster will
work in a self-administered environment and whether respondents would be willing to provide
their personal demographic information and that of other household members. In order to keep
the self-administered interview as close as possible to the respondent experience in Wave 1, we
have removed the roster from the mail survey booklet. However, at the end of the cognitive
interview, participants will be asked to complete the household roster as a separate form and
probed on their (1) willingness to provide such information in a mail questionnaire, and (2) any
possible problems they encountered when filling out the form. In order to access burden,
interviewers will keep a separate record of the length of time required to complete the roster.
As with the preliminary cognitive interviews, recruiting of interview candidates will be conducted
through advertisements on Craig’s List and in RTI internal classifieds, or through postings at
local public health departments and other similar locations. Appendix B provides copies of the
recruitment advertisements and flyers, as well as the recruitment script, which will be used to
screen interested candidates for eligibility. RTI staff and family members will not be eligible for
participation. We will also exclude persons who have not experienced a crime in the past 6
months, who are under age 18, or who do not speak English.
To ensure participants will be eligible to fill out the majority of the SCV questionnaire, only
candidates with at least one crime experience that is a focus of the survey, and persons with a
variety of crime experiences will be selected. This approach allows for the most efficient testing
of different questions and routing patterns in the instrument as possible.
Cognitive interviews will be conducted at RTI by trained survey methodologists using the
cognitive interview guide provided in Appendix B. As in the initial round of testing, the Guide will
be administered by questionnaire section to facilitate recall. In the event questions are removed
from the mail survey instrument during the course of testing, related items in the Guide will not
be administered.
Cognitive interviews can be done concurrently (asking what the thought process was after each
individual question) and retrospectively (going back to the questions that were answered and
asking about the thought process). The first option is believed to change the response process
as it is rather unnatural to think aloud when you answer survey questions, and thus it may
change the true values of respondents. The second option also has a weakness as a
respondent’s memory can be faulty—if the survey is long, we cannot expect respondents to
remember what they were thinking when they answered a question 10 minutes previously. The
approach being used for the SCV cognitive interviews will help recall, but not disrupt the
question-answering process as the task is divided into logical sections.
While we expect all respondents to have experienced at least one crime based on our recruiting
and screening procedures, on rare occasions we learn during the interview that the information
obtained during screening was not accurate (e.g., the participant did not experience a crime).
The Checkpoint on page 4 of the Guide is provided so the interviewer can resolve this kind of
situation should it occur.
Interview participants will be required to sign a consent form, read to them by the interviewer,
prior to the interview. A copy of the consent form will be provided for their records. Interview

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

participants may also be asked permission for an RTI or BJS project member (e.g., the BJS
Project Officer or the RTI Project Director) to observe the interview in order to gauge respondent
reactions to the mail survey instrument. A separate request for the interview to be observed is
included in the consent form. Observers will not actively participate in the interview process
itself.
Because of the focus on crime experiences, some of them personal in nature, it is possible that
a cognitive interview respondent may become upset by the nature of some of the questions in
the SCV instrument. While such an occurrence is expected to be rare, Appendix D contains a
Distressed Respondent Protocol that will guide the interviewer in the handling of any such
situation that arises during the cognitive testing.
RTI will provide continuous feedback to BJS on the progress of cognitive interviewing, including
participant responsiveness to the revised mail survey format, reactions to the survey questions,
and any issues that arise during testing. Data from the each subsequent round of 6–9 cognitive
interviews will be carefully examined and evaluated by RTI to determine if any additional
modifications to the mail survey instrument require testing.
As described above, the metrics that will be used when evaluating the data will consist of data
collected by direct observation and the respondent’s answers to the probe questions in the
cognitive interview guide. The observational data will be captured at the question level and
include:


The time required to complete the Screener and each CIR (cognitive test goal 4)



The items where the respondent hesitated or appeared to have trouble answering the
question (cognitive test goals 1, 2, 3)



The items where the respondent changed his/her answer (cognitive test goals 1, 2, 3)



The items where the respondent struggled with navigation, such as following a skip
instruction (cognitive test goal 3)



The items left blank by the respondent that should have been answered (cognitive test
goal 3; determined after interview completion by review of completed paper survey)

During the cognitive interviews, the observational data will be used by the interviewer to identify
which specific survey questions or instructions are problematic and should be probed in detail.
Information then obtained from the respondents directly, in response to the interviewer’s
questions, will be used to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of specific revisions to the question or
response choice wording; (2) the decision-making process used in navigating from item to item,
including the visibility and understanding of instructions on the paper form; and (3) awareness
and understanding of the purpose of some design features, such as the header at the top of
each CIR page or the instruction boxes. Goals 5–7 will be address through direct questioning of
the respondent about his/her experiences in the survey and cognitive thought processes.
Willis (1999; see also Willis, G.B., 2005) notes that cognitive interviewing outcome data tends to
be qualitative, rather than quantitative, and that the focus should be placed on identifying
(a) dominant trends across interviews (problems that seem to emerge repeatedly), and
(b) "discoveries," that is, events that may occur in only one interview but may severely threaten

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

data quality if they are expected to occur frequently in the actual survey. As a result, one must
rely heavily on the interviewer’s ―clinical judgment‖ in determining the implications of cognitive
interview findings, as these have ramifications for the actual survey.
For example, the interviewer might conclude that a particular interview was highly unusual and
should be ignored. Or, the education level of a particular respondent may be higher than what
one would expect to counter in the fielded study. Thus, even modest comprehension problems
experienced in this interview might lead the survey designer to recommend changes to simplify
the survey questions. Willis (1999) further notes that it is dangerous to conclude that the same
percentage of interviews that experience problems in the laboratory setting should be expected
in the fielded survey. Determining whether additional rounds of testing are needed, therefore, is
a subjective process that involves the interviewer’s judgment and clinical expertise as well as an
evaluation of the empirical evidence.
Given the above, we will carefully consider the observations of the interviewers, the feedback
from respondents, and the percentage of respondents experiencing specific types of problems
(e.g., comprehension problems with certain terms or questions, or navigation challenges
associated with specific questions or instruction boxes), and make a recommendation to BJS as
to the need for further testing. It is expected that any additional rounds of testing will be limited
in scope to focus only on resolving those specific problems indentified in the prior round of
testing. As Willis (1999) notes, ―Once major conceptual problems have been ironed out, later
rounds of interviewing tend to be focused more exclusively on the appropriateness of individual
questions.‖
If significant problems with question comprehension or navigation of skip patterns are
identified—for example, multiple respondents experience problems completing survey items
presented in a grid format or in following skip instructions presented in a particular manner—RTI
will recommend conducting yet another round of 6–9 interviews that uses a revised version of
the instrument and targets only those items that need further scrutiny. RTI may also recommend
additional instrument revisions and testing if the overall burden placed on respondents (driven
by the length and complexity of the survey) is still considered too high for successful field test
implementation.
Cognitive interviewing will continue until no further testing of instrument changes is deemed
necessary based on the observations of the interviewers and an assessment of the findings and
their implications for the field test. As noted earlier, up to 30 interviews are expected to be
needed to finalize the content and format of the mail survey instrument. Following completion of
all cognitive interviews, BJS will inform OMB of the findings, including changes to the mail
survey instrument, prior to the Phase 2 field test, if requested by OMB.
6.2 Usability Testing of Web Instrument
RTI will conduct up to 20 usability interviews to produce a Web instrument that can be
successfully self-administered in Phase 2. RTI will work collaboratively with BJS to refine the
Web survey to address findings from the preliminary testing. Exhibit 6 summarizes the targeted
areas for refinement that were revealed during preliminary usability testing.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 6.

Summary of Web Survey Revisions Resulting from Preliminary Usability Test
Findings

Preliminary Usability Test Findings

Resulting Web Survey Revisions

Respondents suggested including Website
address and password in lead letter as well as
survey Instruction Sheet

The survey Web address and password for the
household will be included in both the lead letter and
Instruction Sheet mailed to the sampled address.

Location of navigation buttons problematic;
some respondent accidently logged out of
survey when attempting to move to the next
question.

The [Next] and [Previous] navigation buttons have been
relocated from the left to the right side of the screen,
immediately below the answer fields for the grid
questions.

Informed consent statement required scrolling
to read full text

The length of the informed consent form has been
shortened to fit on one screen.

Content of crime incident banner confusing
when multiple incidents reported in same
month, etc.

The content/format of the banner has been revised to
better distinguish the crimes being discussed

Display of section-level and instrument-level
progress indicators confusing

One progress indicator has been removed; we will
probe respondents on their reaction during the usability
test.

Problems in logging out of Website and reentering survey application

Instructions on the log-in and exit screens have been
modified to provide additional information about how to
re-enter an incomplete survey if needed.

Comprehension problems with some survey
terminology (e.g., offender, dwelling)

A definition for ―offender‖ (the person who committed
the crime) has been inserted in several questions.
―Dwelling‖ has been replaced by ―home.‖

Difficulty reporting exact age of household
members

A categorical variable with pre-coded response choices
has replaced the open-ended age variable. With the
removal of the household roster, age is only captured
for the mail survey respondent.

Difficulty reporting annual household income

To clarify that the question is seeking annual rather
than weekly or monthly income, the first two response
options (less than $4,999 and $5,000–$9,999) have
been combined into one category (less than $10,000).
Also, the phrase ―in the past 12 months‖ has been
underlined for emphasis.

Order for reporting crime incidents

References to the ―most recent‖ incident have been
removed; the type of crime being discussed (as
reported in the Screener) will be displayed in the
opening questions of the CIR.

The supplemental usability testing is envisioned to be iterative in nature, with refinements made
to the Web survey based on respondent feedback and consultation with BJS, and retesting of
revised items occurring with new respondents. The goal of the testing will be to evaluate:
1. Respondent reactions to, and effectiveness, of Navigation buttons moved to the right of
the screen;

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

2. Respondent burden in completing the revised Web instrument (estimated by interviewer
as test will involve stopping the interview to perform specific tasks);
3. Respondent’s ability to change a response;
4. Respondent’s ability to log out and re-enter survey application;
5. Respondent’s understanding of the Crime incident banner and adequacy of displayed
information; also, respondent’s awareness and understanding of survey reference period
display at top of screen;
6. How respondents report on different kinds of crimes (e.g., theft, assault) that occurred at
the same time;
7. How respondents report on multiple incidents of the same kind of crime occurring on
different dates;
8. How respondents report on series of crimes (more than 5 crimes that are similar in
nature and cannot be recalled in detail to be distinguished from one another).
9. Respondent’s reaction to on-screen prompts for resolving out-of-range answers or
missing data problems.
There are no conclusive findings in the survey literature on the placement of navigation buttons.
The limited number of studies so far have focused on the order of the Next and Previous
buttons (which one should be on the right and which on the left and in what proximity to each
other). These few studies have found no difference in perceived or actual completion time,
breakoff rates (unpublished study by Baker and Couper), or longer completion time when the
Next button is to the right side (e.g., Baker and Couper, 2007). The conclusions related to Web
design are that design decisions about button placement may have an effect on how
respondents navigate the survey, but that experienced users quickly adapt to any design
variations (Couper, Baker and Mechling, 2011).
Even though the first usability test suggested that the Previous and Next buttons should be
placed on the right side of the screen, there are several practical drawbacks associated with
that. First, the size of the browser window can vary, sometimes moving the Next button away
from the visual field, especially in cases where the survey questions are left justified. Second,
respondents have to select a response option and press Next, which in some cases requires
moving the mouse from the left of the screen to the far right.
This would suggest that in order to minimize respondent burden, the Next button should be
placed as close to the response options as possible. However, in a Web survey like the SCV,
where the majority of the questions are presented in a grid format, placing the Next button on
the right side of the screen would likely position it right below the grid response options, thus
minimizing mouse movement necessary to navigate to the next page.
As with the cognitive test, the usability testing of the Web survey will be guided by a structured
interview guide (see Appendix C). To achieve the usability test goal 1, interviewers will count
errant log out attempts (Logout button moved to the left side of the screen) as in indicator of
respondents expecting to find navigation buttons on the left. Interviewers will also monitor the

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

frequency with which the wrong Navigation button (Previous rather than Next) is used when
attempting to advance to the next question.
For usability test goal 2, interviewers will probe respondents on perceived burden and perceived
time it took them to complete the survey. To assess overall respondent burden, interviewers will
time respondents on how long it takes to complete the Screener and CIR sections of the
questionnaire.6 The information on time on task will be used as an indicator of burden.
To evaluate respondent’s ability to change a response (usability test goal 3), interviewers will
instruct respondents to back up in the survey and edit a response. This will allow interviewers to
determine the ease or difficulty with which respondents use the [Previous] button, their
understanding of the action required to change a previous answer, and how to advance forward
again to resume the survey.
Usability test goal 4 will involve having the respondent review the log in/out instructions, then
exit and re-enter the survey they have started. This will help us assess the respondent’s
understanding of the instructions provided on the Web screeners and his/her ability to select
and resume their survey. For usability test goal 5, respondents will be probed on the helpfulness
of the banner in the CIR that displays information on crimes reported in the screener.
Interviewers will evaluate to what extent participants notice the banner and to what extent it is
helpful in cueing respondents on each screen about the crime they are describing.
To address usability test goals 6–8, interviewers will use a procedure that mirrors that in the
mail survey cognitive test, reviewing the crime reports and specifically probing respondents on
their understanding of how they should handle these scenarios: (1) several different types of
crimes that occurred at the same time (e.g., robbery and assault); (2) multiple incidents of the
same type of crime (e.g., 2 thefts) and how they determined which one to discuss in each CIR;
and (3) how to report on crimes that occur frequently and cannot be distinguished from one
another (e.g., a crime series, such as partner violence). This information will be used to
determine if refinements or additions to survey instructions are needed as the respondent
moves from the Screener questions to the first CIR, or from one CIR to the next.
Procedures for recruiting candidates for the usability test will mirror those for the cognitive test,
with recruiting of usability test candidates through advertisements on Craig’s List and in RTI
internal classifieds, or through postings at local public health departments and other similar
locations. Appendix C provides copies of the recruitment advertisements and flyers, as well as
the recruitment script, which will be used to screen interested candidates for eligibility.
RTI staff and family members will not be eligible for participation. We will also exclude persons
who have not experienced a crime in the past 6 months, who are under age 18, or who do not
speak English. To ensure participants will be eligible to complete the majority of the SCV Web
survey, we will select candidates with at least one crime experience that is a focus of the survey
instrument, and persons who have a variety of crime experiences in order to test as many
different questions and routing patterns in the instrument as possible.
Usability interviews will be conducted at RTI by trained survey methodologists using the
usability test guide in Appendix C. As in the initial round of testing, the Guide will be
administered by questionnaire section to facilitate recall. While we expect all respondents to
6

Time required to go back and edit a response will be excluded from the total screener time, unless
initiated by the respondent (rather the interviewer instructions).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

have experienced at least one crime based on our recruiting and screening procedures, on rare
occasions we learn during the interview that the information obtained during screening was not
accurate (e.g., the participant did not experience a crime). The Checkpoint on page 4 of the
Guide is provided so the interviewer can resolve this kind of situation should it occur.
Usability test participants will be required to sign a consent form, read to them by the
interviewer, prior to the interview. A copy of the consent form will be provided for their records.
Interview participants may also be asked permission for an RTI or BJS project member (e.g.,
the BJS Project Officer or the RTI Project Director) to observe the interview in order to gauge
respondent reactions to the Web survey instrument. A separate request for the interview to be
observed is included in the consent form. Observers will not actively participate in the interview
process itself.
As with the cognitive test, we will utilize the Distressed Respondent Protocol provided in
Appendix D in the rare event a usability test respondent becomes upset by the nature of some
of the questions in the Web instrument.
RTI will provide continuous feedback to BJS on the progress of the usability testing, including
participant reactions to the Website login procedures, survey questions, and navigation
features, and any issues that arise during testing. Data from the next round of 6–9 usability
interviews will be carefully examined and evaluated by RTI. The metrics that will be used when
evaluating the usability data will consist of data collected by direct observation, respondent’s
answers to the probe questions in the usability interview guide, and data collected by the
software system used to deploy the Web survey.
The observational data will be captured at the question level and include:


The number of times the respondent used the wrong Navigation button to advance to the
next question, or accidently logged out (usability test goal 1)



The estimated time required to complete the Screener and each CIR (usability test goal
2)



The number of times the respondent experienced trouble backing up to change an
answer, either prompted or unprompted task by the interviewer (usability test goal 3)



Whether or not the respondent could successfully log out and back into his/her own
survey instrument as prompted by the interviewer (usability test goal 4)



The number of times on-screen prompts related to out-of-range responses appeared
(usability test goal 9);



The number of times on-screen prompts related to subparts of grid questions being left
blank in error appear (usability test goal 9).

During the usability test, the observational data will be used by the interviewer to identify which
specific survey questions or Web features are problematic and should be probed in detail. This
information will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of specific revisions to the Web screens,
including Navigation button placements, programmed prompts for out-of-range or missing data,
and respondent instructions.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Information obtained from the respondents directly in response to the interviewer’s questions
will be used to address usability test goals 5–9. This information will support an evaluation of the
visibility and effectiveness of on-screen cues (e.g., survey reference period, instructions, crime
incident banners); and awareness and understanding of the purpose of some design features,
such as the progress bar. The interviewer-respondent dialogue will also be helpful in gauging
how respondents are thinking about their crimes as they move from the Screener to CIR, and
from one CIR to the next. This will inform the need for any further transition text, programmed
wording fills, or on-screen instructions.
The interview data itself will be captured by the software system used to deploy the Web survey
and used for data frequency review by the interviewers. Specifically, interviewers will identify
items that should have been answered but were left blank by the respondent (either entire
questions or subparts of grid questions). This review will also identify ―other specify‖ items that
were marked but the respondent did not explain their answer in the provided space.
Keystroke data will not be collected as the respondent will be asked to perform specific tasks in
the test (including backing up and changing answers, logging in and out of the survey) rather
than complete the survey on his/her own without interruption. In these structured activities, the
interviewer will be able to observe the interviewer’s keystrokes and note any navigational
problems.
As with the cognitive test, careful consideration will be given to the observations of the
interviewers, the feedback from respondents, and the results of the interview data examinations
in determining the need for additional usability testing. This includes assessing the percentage
of respondents who experienced specific types of problems (e.g., problems with navigational
elements or with responding to on-screen prompts designed to address out-of-range or missing
data problems).
Based on this assessment, RTI will make a recommendation to BJS as to the need for further
usability testing. It is expected that any additional rounds of testing will be limited in scope to
focus only on resolving those specific problems indentified in the prior round of testing. For
example, if a significant problem with a particular question format or navigational element is
experienced by multiple respondents, RTI will recommend conducting an additional round of
testing, using a revised version of the Web survey, and focusing only on those Web features
that require further evaluation.
Usability testing will continue until remaining modifications to the Web instrument are
considered minor and/or straightforward, without need for further respondent feedback. Up to 20
interviews are expected to be needed to finalize the Web survey instrument. Following
completion of all usability interviews, BJS will inform OMB of the findings, including final
revisions to the Web survey instrument, prior to the Phase 2 field test.
7. Sample Size and Respondent Burden
Cognitive Test: Up to 30 cognitive interviews using the hardcopy mail survey instrument, with
refinements to the instrument as needed between testing rounds of 6–9 respondents.
Usability Test: Up to 20 usability interviews of the Web survey instrument, with refinements to
the instrument as needed between testing rounds of 6–9 respondent.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Eligibility Screening for Cognitive and Usability Test Candidates: The eligibility screener for the
SCV cognitive and usability tests contains 15 questions. We expect to average about 4
questions per minute in order to capture the details about the candidate’s recent crime
experience. Thus, the eligibility screening is expected to average about 4 minutes per person.
The cognitive testing will involve up to 30 respondents and the usability testing will involve up to
20 respondents, for a total of 50 respondents. Based on our experience with the initial testing
activities, we expect to screen 2–3 candidates among the volunteers who respond to the ads in
order to get one eligible candidate scheduled. Total screening burden is estimated at 2.5 * 50 =
125 candidates screened; 125 * 4-minute screener = 500 minutes, or 8.3 hours.
Cognitive Test: Sixty (60)–ninety (90) minutes for each cognitive interview respondent,
depending on their experiences, or a total of 1,800–2,700 minutes (30–45 hours) for up to 30
respondents.
Usability Test: Seventy (70) minutes for each usability interview respondent, or a total of 1,400
minutes (23.3 hours) for up to 20 respondents.
8. Data Security
Consistent with the protocol implemented in the initial rounds of cognitive and usability testing,
the data security provisions for the supplemental instrument testing activities will involve the
following:




All cognitive and usability test interviewers will be trained on confidentiality procedures
and prepared to describe them in full detail, if necessary, or to answer any related
questions raised by respondents.



All project employees will sign a confidentiality pledge that emphasizes the importance
of confidentiality and describes their obligations.



Hardcopy interview documents containing personally identifiable information (PII) will be
stored in locked files and cabinets during the recruiting and testing operations.
Discarded material containing PII will be securely shredded. Only authorized RTI staff
will have access to PII for any interview participants.



Hardcopy questionnaires completed by interview participants will be securely shredded
at the conclusion of the testing activities.



Audio tapes used during the conduct of the cognitive and usability test interviews to
facilitate note-taking will be labeled with an interview ID rather than participant name. All
used tapes will be destroyed once interview results have been compiled and
documented for BJS.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.



Only aggregate results will be provided to BJS. No PII will be included in the report of the
testing activities, and BJS will not be provided copies of completed mail surveys or audio
tapes of the interview sessions.

All SCV cognitive and usability test materials, including the recruitment advertisements and
flyers, recruiting scripts, consent forms, interview guides, distressed respondent protocol, and
procedures used to ensure confidentiality, have been reviewed and approved by one of RTI’s
three Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

References
Ackerman, A.C., and J. Blair. 2006. ―Efficient Respondent Selection for Cognitive Interviewing.‖
Paper presented at American Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal,
Canada.
Baker, R.P., and M.P. Couper. 2007. ―The Impact of Screen Size and Background Color on
Response in Web Surveys.‖ Paper presented at the General Online Research
Conference (GOR’07), Leipzig, March.
Biemer, P.P., and L.E. Lyberg. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. New York: John Wiley.
Cannell, C.F., R.M. Groves, L. Magilavy, N. Mathiewetz, P. Miller, and O. Thornberry. 1987. An
Experimental Comparison of Telephone and Personal Health Interview Surveys. Vital
and Health Statistics, series 2, no. 106. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 87-1380. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Couper, M.P. 2000. ―Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 64:464-94.
Couper, M.P., R. Baker, and J. Mechling. 2011. ―Placement and Design of Navigation Buttons in
Web Surveys.‖ Survey Practice February Issue, Available at http://surveypractice.org/.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Gribble, James N., Heather G. Miller, Joseph A. Catania, Lance Pollack, and Charles F. Turner.
2000. ―The Impact of T-ACASI Interviewing on Reported Drug Use among Men Who
Have Sex with Men.‖ Substance Use and Misuse 35:869-90.
Groves, Robert M. 1989. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Groves. Robert, Floyd Fowler, Mick Couper, James Lepkowski, Eleanor Singer, and Roger
Tourangeau. 2004. Survey Methods. Wiley& Sons: Hoboken, NJ
Groves, R.M., and R. Kahn. 1979. Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal
Interviews. New York: Academic Press.
Groves, R.M., and J.M. Lepkowski. 1985. ―Dual Frame, Mixed-Mode Survey Designs.‖ Journal
of Official Statistics 1:263-86.
Groves, Robert, William Mosher, James Lepkowski, and Nicole Kirgis. 2009. ―Planning and
Development of the Continuous National Survey of Family Growth.‖ National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 1(48).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Hox, J., and E. de Leeuw. 1994. ―A Comparison of Nonresponse in Mail, Telephone, and Faceto-Face Surveys: Applying Multilevel Modeling to Meta-Analysis.‖ Quality and Quantity
28:329-44.
Marquis, K.H., and R. Blass. 1985. ―Nonsampling Error Considerations in the Design and
Operation of Telephone Surveys.‖ In Proceedings of the First Annual Research
Conference of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, pp. 301-29.
Massey, J.T., K. Marquis, and R. Tortora. 1982. ―Methodological Issues Related to Telephone
Surveys by Federal Agencies.‖ In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American
Statistical Association, pp. 63-72.
National Research Council. 2008. Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime
Victimization Survey. Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Robert M. Groves and Daniel L. Cork, eds. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
RTI International, 2009. Literature Reviews: Examination of Data Collection Methods for the
NCVS. Report to Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Singh, Avinash, Vincent Iannacchione, and Jill Dever. 2003. Efficient Estimation for Survey
Nonresponse Follow-up Using Dual-Frame Calibration. In Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods
Sykes, W., and M. Collins. 1988. ―Effects of Mode of Interview: Experiments in the UK.‖ In
Telephone Survey Methodology, R. Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W.
Nicholls, II, and J. Waksberg, eds., pp. 301-320. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey
Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tourangeau, R., D. Steiger, and D. Wilson. 2002. Self-administered Questions by Telephone:
Evaluating Interactive Voice. Public Opinion Quarterly 66:265-278.
Willis, G. B. (1999). Cognitive Interviewing: A ―How To‖ Guide. Short course presented at the
Meeting of the American Statistical Association.
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Appendix A:

CATI/CAPI Address Verification and
Household Enumeration Questionnaire,
CATI/CAPI Screener and Crime Incident
Report, Web Survey Instrument, and
Mail Survey Instrument

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

A-1

SURVEY OF CRIME VICTIMIZATION
CATI/CAPI ADDRESS VERIFICATION AND HOUSEHOLD ENUMERATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
A. ADDRESS VERIFICATION SECTION

May I speak to someone who is 18 years of age or older?
YES

GO TO INTRODUCTION FOR ASSIGNED MODE

NO – SET APPT

SET APPOINTMENT

NO – NO ONE 18+

1a. Is there anyone living at this address who is 17 years of age?
YES

GO TO Q9 AND EXIT INTERVIEW

1b. May I speak to the household member who is 17 years of age?
YES

GO TO Q2 (THIS PERSON IS HH R)

EXIT/TRY TO ARRANGE FOLLOW-UP

INTERVIEWER NOTES:

i. ALL household members are 17 years of age. The HH respondent
should be one of the 17-year-old household members who owns or
rents the sample housing unit.
ii. The owners/renters are married and one or both of them are 17 years
of age. The household respondent can be either person.
iii. Sample households comprised of at least one 17 year old and the
remaining persons are all under 17 years of age. Select the 17-yearold household member as the household respondent.
iv. NOTE: If you encounter a household in which ALL household
members are under 17 years of age, contact your supervisor who will
discuss this situation with project staff and then let you know how to
handle the case.
2. For survey purposes, I need to confirm that I have the correct address. Is it [FILL
ADDRESS]?
YES

GO TO Q8 AND LOCATE RIGHT ADDRESS
1

3. Are there any other living quarters at this address or within this structure, such as a
separate apartment with a separate entrance?
YES

3a.

GO TO Q5

How many additional living quarters are at this address?
[FILL ADDRESS FOR REFERENCE]
ENTER NUMBER [RANGE 1-4]

4. Do the occupants of the other living quarters live and eat separately from the residents of
this household? PROBE IF NEEDED: In other words, do the occupants live on their own or
do they share common space and food?
YES, OCCUPANTS LIVE SEPARATELY

NO, OCCUPANTS SHARE COMMON SPACE/ FOOD

4a.

GO TO Q5

Do the occupants or intended occupants of the additional living quarters have
direct access from the outside or through a common hall?

4b.

YES

How many occupants live in the separate living quarters?
ENTER NUMBER [RANGE 1-9]

5. Are you the person or one of the persons living at this address who owns or rents this
home?
[FILL ADDRESS FOR REFERENCE]
YES

GO TO Q7 – DESIGNATED HH R

6. For verification purposes, we need to collect your name and relationship to the person(s)
who own(s) or rent(s) this home.
_____________________ REFERENCE PERSON NAME
_____________________ REFERENCE PERSON RELATIONSHIP
2

6a.

Thank you for verifying those address questions. Can I now speak to the person
or one of the persons who owns or rents this home?

YES

[ADMINISTER INTRODUCTION, EXPLAIN PURPOSE,
AND CAPTURE CONTACTING INFORMATION AT Q7
FOR THE PERSON WHO OWNS OR RENTS HOME]

[SET APPOINTMENT OR ATTEMPT TO CONVERT
REFUSAL].

For verification purposes, we need to collect some brief contacting information. All
information collected is completely confidential and will not be recorded or associated with
your answers. Confidentiality of all answers to questions in this survey is protected under
Federal law, U.S. Code, Title 13, Section 9 and 214.

Name (BCNAME_CV) – HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENT NAME
Title (BCTITL_CV) – HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENT TITLE
Phone Number (BCNUM_CV)

8. Thank you for answering our questions, but I have the wrong address. Have a nice
day/evening.

9. Thank you for answering our questions, but we are only interviewing adults age 18 and
older for this study. Have a nice day/evening.

B. CATI/CAPI HOUSEHOLD ENUMERATION SECTION
Now I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your household.
1. Including yourself, how many people 18 years of age or older are living or staying at this address?
[FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ADDITIONAL LIVING QUARTERS – Q3=YES; FILL]: Please do
not include persons who reside in separate living quarters at this address.
[FILL ADDRESS FOR REFERENCE]
ENTER NUMBER (UP TO 10 ADULTS)
ONSCREEN INTERVIEWER HELP TEXT:
• INCLUDE all persons 18 years of age or older, currently living at this address;
• INCLUDE all persons 18 years of age or older who usually live at this address, but who are
temporarily away for reasons such as visiting friends or relatives, traveling for their jobs, or in
“general” hospitals;
• INCLUDE any lodgers, servants, hired hands, and other persons who usually live at this
address.
• DO NOT INCLUDE any persons who live in another dwelling unit at this address or within
this structure, such as a separate apartment with a separate entrance.
2.

Please provide the following information about yourself:
A
What is your first
and last name?
6

(Please enter)
First Name

Age
(in years)

What is your race?
(Check all that apply)
6

1Married

1 Male

1 Yes

White

2Widowed

2Female

2 No

Black or African American

3Divorced

Asian

4Separated

Last Name
5Never

What was What is your What is Are you
your age at
current
your sex? Hispanic
your last
marital
or Latino?
birthday?
status?
6
6
6
6

married

Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander

5 American Indian or Alaska

Native

3. [IF MORE THAN ONE ADULT IN THE HOUSEHOLD, ADMINISTER NEXT QUESTION TO
HOUSEHOLD REPONDENT ONLY.] Now I have some questions about the other adults age 18 and
older in your household. Let's start with the oldest and work down to the youngest adult in this
household.
A

What is [his/her] first What is [his/her]
and last name?
relationship to
you?
6
6

(Please print)
First Name

1Husband/Wife
2Son/Daughter

What was
[his/her]
age at
[his/her]
last
birthday?
6

What is
[his/her]
sex?
6

Age
(in years)

1 Male
2Female

3Father/Mother

4Brother/Sister

Last Name
5Other Relative

6Not a Relative

4. You’ve named the following individuals (confirm names in grid). Is there anybody else 18 years of age
or older living or staying at this address?
YES
1 GO TO HHLD_AGE AND CORRECT COUNT; ENTER NEW INFO
NO
2 GO TO Q HHR_12-17
5. How many children 12-17 years of age are living or staying at this address? Please enter 0 if there are
no children 12-17 years of age at this address.
CHILDREN 12-17 YEARS OF AGE

6. How many children under 12 years of age are living or staying at this address?
CHILDREN UNDER 12 YEARS OF
AGE

OMB No.
NOTICE - We are conducting this survey under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Section 8. FORM SCV-1
Section 9 of this law requires us to keep all information about you and your household strictly
confidential. We may use this information only for statistical purposes. Also, Title 42, Section 3732,
Implementation
United States Code, authorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, to collect Date: (MM/DD/YYY)
information using this survey. Title 42, Sections 3789g and 3735, United States Code, also requires us to
keep all information about you and your household strictly confidential. According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such
collection displays a valid OMB number.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Sample
Serial/
designation/Suffix Suffix

HH No. Spinoff
Indicator

Field representative identification
Code
Name

201

Household Income (HOUSEHOLDINCOME)

Type of living quarters (TYPEOFHOUSINGUNIT)
Housing unit
1
House, apartment, flat

209

2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11

HU in nontransient hotel, motel, etc.
HU permanent in transient hotel, motel, etc
HU in rooming house
Mobile home or trailer with no permanent room added

Less than $5,000

15,000 - 17,499

35,000 - 39,999

$5,000 - 7,499

17,500 - 19,999

40,000 - 49,999

7,500 - 9,999

20,000 - 24,999

50,000 - 74,999

10,000 - 12,499

25,000 - 29,999

75,000 and over

12,500 - 14,999

30,000 - 34,999

Proxy information - Fill for all proxy interviews
b. Proxy respondent
(PICKPROXYRESP)
obtained for

a. Proxy interview

Mobile home or trailer with one or more permanent rooms
added
HU not specified above - Describe

Line No.

OTHER unit
Quarters not HU in rooming or boarding house
Unit not permanent in transient hotel, motel, etc.
Unoccupied site for mobile home, trailer, or tent

Name

Line No.

301

302

304

305

307

308

310

311

6a. Household members 18 years of age and OVER

Use of telephone (TELEPHONELOCATION)
Location of phone - Mark first box that applies.

210

Student quarters in college dormitory
OTHER unit not specified above - Describe

3a.

SCV-1 BASIC SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE

214

SURVEY OF
CRIME VICTIMIZATION

Segment/Suffix

ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT FOR THE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

Control number
PSU

: Approval Expires MM/DD/YYYY
RTI International

Phone in unit ...................

Phone in common area (hallway, etc.) ....
Phone in another unit (neighbor, friend, etc.)
Work/office phone ................
No phone - SKIP to 4

3
4
5

321

Fill 3b

____________ Total number

6b. Crime Incident Reports filled
323

____________ Total number of NCVS-2s filled

None

3b. Is phone interview acceptable? (TELEPHONEACCEPTABLE)
211

Yes

Refused to give number

RESPONDENT'S PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
8.

7. Name of respondent (NAME)

Type of interview

Line
No.

Last

401
1

First

2
3
4

11.

10.
(RELATIONSHIP)
Relationship to
reference
person
403

Age last
Birthday

402
Per. - Self-respondent
Tel. - Self-respondent
Per. - Proxy
Fill 5 on cover page
Tel. - Proxy

________
Line No.

12a.

12b.

13.

14.

15.

(MARITAL)

(From previous
enumeration)
Marital
status LAST
survey period

(SEX)

(SP_
ORIGIN)

(RACE)

Marital status
THIS survey
period
405

404

Sex

Mark all that
apply.
412

413

407

406

Race

Hispanic
Origin

*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Husband
Wife
Son
Daughter
Father
Mother
Brother
Sister
Other relative
Nonrelative
Ref. person

16.

1
2

________
Age

Date of interview

3
4
5

Married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never
married

1
2
3
4
5
6

Married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never
married
Not interviewed
last
survey
period

M
F

1
2

Yes
No

1
2

White
Black/African
American

Asian

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander

American
Indian/Alaska
Native

501
Month

Day

Year

RESPONDENT'S SCREEN QUESTIONS
17a. SQTHEFT
I'm going to read some examples that will give you an idea of the
kinds of crimes this study covers.
As I go through them, tell me if any of these happened to you in the
last 6 months, that is since __________ ______, 20 ____.
Was something belonging to YOU stolen, such as Read each category.
(a) Things that you carry, like luggage, a wallet, purse, briefcase
book (b) Clothing, jewelry, or cellphone (c) Bicycle or sports equipment (d) Things in your home - like a TV, stereo, or tools (e) Things outside your home such as a garden hose or lawn
furniture - (Asked of Household Respondent only)
(f) Things belonging to children in the household (Asked of Household Respondent only)
(g) Things from a vehicle, such as a package, groceries, camera, or
CDs OR
(h) Did anyone ATTEMPT to steal anything belonging to you?
532
Ask only if necessary

Yes - ASK 17b

No - If Household Respondent SKIP to 18a; Else
SKIP to 21a

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

17b. SQTHEFTTIMES

533

How many times?

Number of times (17b)

Briefly describe incident(s)

17c. SQTHEFTSPEC
What happened?

If Household Respondent ASK 18a; else SKIP to 21a

18a. SQBREAKIN (Asked of Household Respondent Only)
(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone Read each category.
(a) Broken in or ATTEMPTED to break into your home by forcing a
door or window, pushing past someone, jimmying a lock, cutting
a screen, or entering through an open door or window?
(b) Has anyone illegally gotten in or tried to get into a garage, shed,
or storage room?
OR
(c) Illegally gotten in or tried to get into a hotel or motel room or
vacation home where you were staying?
Ask only if necessary

534

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

18b. SQBREAKINTIMES (Asked of Household Respondent Only)
How many times?

18c. SQBREAKINSPEC (Asked of Household Respondent Only)
What happened?

Notes

Page 2

Yes - ASK 18b

No - SKIP to 19

535
Number of times (18b)

Briefly describe incident(s)

RESPONDENT'S SCREEN QUESTIONS
19. SQTOTALVEHICLES (Asked of Household Respondent Only)

536

None - SKIP to 21a
1
2
3
4 or more

Yes - ASK 20b

No - SKIP to 21a

What was the TOTAL number of cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, or
other motor vehicles owned by you or any other member of this
household during the last 6 months? Include those you no longer
own.

2
3

20a. SQMVTHEFT (Asked of Household Respondent Only)
During the last 6 months, (other than any incidents already
mentioned,) (was the vehicle/were any of the vehicles) Read each category.
(a) Stolen or used without permission?
(b) Did anyone steal any parts such as a tire, car stereo, hubcap, or
battery?
(c) Did anyone steal any gas from (it/them)?
OR
(d) Did anyone ATTEMPT to steal any vehicle or parts attached to
(it/them)?
Ask only if necessary

537

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

20b. SQMVTHEFTTIMES (Asked of Household Respondent Only)

538

How many times?

Number of times (20b)

20c. SQMVTHEFTSPEC (Asked of Household Respondent Only)

Briefly describe incident(s)

What happened?

21a. SQATTACKWHERE
(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) since __________
______, 20 ____, were you attacked or threatened OR did you have
something stolen from you Read each category.
(a) At home including the porch or yard (b) At or near a friend's, relative's, or neighbor's home (c) At work or school d) In places such as a storage shed or laundry room, a shopping
mall, restaurant, bank, or airport (e) While riding in any vehicle (f) On the street or in a parking lot (g) At such places as a party, theater, gym, picnic area, bowling
lanes, or while fishing or hunting OR
(h) Did anyone ATTEMPT to attack or ATTEMPT to steal
anything belonging to you from any of these places?
Ask only if necessary

539

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

21b. SQATTACKWHERETIMES
How many times?

21c. SQATTACKWHERESPEC

Yes - ASK 21b

No - SKIP to 22a

540
Number of times (21b)

Briefly describe incident(s)

What happened?

Page 3

RESPONDENT'S SCREEN QUESTIONS
22a. SQATTACKHOW
(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked
or threatened you in any of these ways (Exclude telephone threats) Read each category.
(a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife (b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or stick (c) By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle (d) Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,
(e) Any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack (f) Any face to face threats OR
(g) Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all? Please
mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime.
Ask only if necessary

541

Yes - ASK 22b

No - SKIP to 23a

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

22b. SQATTACKHOWTIMES

542

How many times?

Number of times (22b)

22c. SQATTACKHOWSPEC

Briefly describe incident(s)

What happened?

23a. SQTHEFTATTACKKNOWNOFF
People often don't think of incidents committed by someone they
know. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) did you have
something stolen from you OR were you attacked or threatened by (Exclude telephone threats)
Read each category.
(a) Someone at work or school (b) A neighbor or friend (c) A relative or family member (d) Any other person you've met or known?
Ask only if necessary

543

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

23b. SQTHEFTATTACKKNOWNOFFTIMES
How many times?

23c. SQTHEFTATTACKKNOWNOFFSPEC
What happened?

Notes

Page 4

Yes - ASK 23b

No - SKIP to 24a

544
Number of times (23b)

Briefly describe incident(s)

RESPONDENT'S SCREEN QUESTIONS
24a. SQSEXUAL
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often
difficult to talk about. (Other than any incidents already
mentioned,) have you been forced or coerced to engage in
unwanted sexual activity by Read each category.
(a) Someone you didn't know (b) A casual acquaintance OR
(c) Someone you know well?
Ask only if necessary

545

Yes - ASK 24b

No - SKIP to 25a

Did any incidents of this type happen to you?

24b. SQSEXUALTIMES

546

How many times?
Number of times (24b)

Briefly describe incident(s)

24c. SQSEXUALSPEC
What happened?

25a. SQCALLPOLICECRIME

547

Yes - ASK 25b

No - SKIP to 26a

During the last 6 months, (other than any incidents already
mentioned,) did you call the police to report something that
happened to YOU which you thought was a crime?

25b. SQCALLPOLICESPEC

Briefly describe incident(s)

What happened?

25c.

CHECK

ITEM A

SQCALLPOLICEATTACKTHREAT

549

Yes - ASK 25d

No - SKIP to 26a

If not sure ask:
Were you attacked or threatened, or was something stolen or an
attempt made to steal something that belonged to you or another
household member?

25d. SQCALLPOLICEATTCKTHREATTIMES
How many times?

550
Number of times (25d)

Notes

Page 5

RESPONDENT'S SCREEN QUESTIONS
551

26a. SQNOCALLPOLICECRIME

Yes - ASK 26b

No - SKIP to 27a

During the last 6 months, (other than any incidents already
mentioned,) did anything which you thought was a crime happen to
YOU, but you did NOT report to the police?

Briefly describe incident(s)

26b. SQNOCALLPOLICESPEC
What happened?

26c.

SQNOCALLPOLICEATTACKTHREAT

CHECK

553

ITEM B

Yes - ASK 26d

No - SKIP to 27a

If not sure ask:
Were you attacked or threatened, or was something stolen or an
attempt made to steal something that belonged to you or another
household member?

26d. SQNOCALLPOLICEATTACKTHREATTIMES

554

How many times?

Number of times (26d)

RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT QUESTIONS
All incident reports must be completed before asking this series of questions.

27a. JOBLASTWEEK
Did you have a job or work at a business LAST WEEK? (Do not include
volunteer work or work around the house.)

576

Yes - SKIP to 28

No - ASK 27b

Yes

(If farm or business operator in household, ask about unpaid work.)

27b. JOBDURINGREFPERIOD
Ask or verify -

577

Did you have a job or work at a business DURING THE LAST 6
MONTHS?

RESPONDENT'S CHECK ITEM C
CHECK

28.

ITEM C

Is this the last household member to be
interviewed?

Yes - If Household Respondent finish collecting income
and telephone information, then END interview.
Otherwise END interview.
No - GO TO question 17a for the next respondent. See
note below before interviewing next household member.

FIELD REPRESENTATIVE --

Notes

Page 6

(Read to the Household Respondent Only.) If there are any household members under 18, tell the Household Respondent
that you will be asking the same questions you just asked him/her.

OMB No.

: Approval Expires MM/DD/YEAR

NOTICE - We are conducting this survey under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Section 8. Section 9 of this law requires us to keep all information
about you and your household strictly confidential. We may use this information only for statistical purposes. Also, Title 42, Section 3732, United States Code,
authorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, to collect information using this survey. Title 42, Sections 3789g and 3735, United States
Code, also requires us to keep all information about you and your household strictly confidential. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no
persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB number.
FORM

Control number

SCV-2
RTI-INTERNATIONAL

IImplementation Date: (dd-mm-yyyy)

ACTING AS COLLECTING AGENT FOR THE
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS

Segment/Suffix

PSU

Sample
designation/Suffix

Serial/
Suffix

HH No.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SURVEY OF CRIME VICTIMIZATION
LINE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT

1b.

SCREEN QUESTION NUMBER

1c.

INCIDENT NUMBER

601

Line number (ex., 01)

602

Screen question number (ex., 39)

603

605

(description of the crime reported in the screen
question.) Did (this/the first) incident happen

1
2

While living at this address
Before moving to this address

while you were living here or before you moved
to this address?

3. INCIDENTDATE

606

In what month did (this/the first) incident
happen?

Month

Year

Encourage respondent to give exact month.

4. INCIDENTNUMBEROFTIMES

____________ Number of incidents

607

If unsure, ask -

Altogether, how many times did this type of
incident happen during the last 6 months?
5a.

CHECK

How many incidents?
(Refer to 4.)

608

ITEM A

1
2

1-5 incidents (not a "series") - SKIP to 6
6 or more incidents - ASK 5b

5b.

CHECK

INCIDENTSSIMILAR

609

1
2

Similar - ASK 5c
Different (not a "series") - SKIP to 6

610

1
2

Yes (not a "series")
No (is a "series")

ITEM B

If unsure, ask:

Are these incidents similar to each other in
detail or are they for different types of crimes?

5c.

CHECK

ITEM C

RECALLDETAILS

If unsure, ask:

Can you recall enough details of each incident to
distinguish them from each other?
6. INCIDENTTIME
(If box 2 is marked in 5c, read: The following questions
refer only to the most recent incident.)

About what time did (this/the most recent)
incident happen?

612
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

RTI INTERNATIONAL

Incident number (ex., 01)

2. INCIDENTADDRESS
You said that during the last 6 months -

S
C

Notes

CRIME INCIDENT REPORT

1a.

Spinoff
Indicator

During day
After 6 a.m. - 12 noon
After 12 noon - 3 p.m.
After 3 p.m. - 6 p.m.
Don't know what time of day
At night
After 6 p.m. - 9 p.m.
After 9 p.m. - 12 midnight
After 12 midnight - 6 a.m.
Don't know what time of night
OR
Don't know whether day or night

I
N
C
I
D
E
N
T
R
E
P
O
R
T

7a. INCIDENTPLACE

613

In what city, town, or village did this
incident occur?

Outside U.S.
Not inside a city/town/village
SAME city/town/village as present residence
DIFFERENT city/town/village from
present residence

1
2
3
4
5

Don't know

In your home or lodging? - ASK 8b
Near your home? - SKIP to 8c
At, in or near a friend's/relative's/neighbor's
home?

8a. LOCATION_GENERAL

Did this incident happen ...

Read each category until respondent says "yes", then
enter appropriate precode.

At a commercial place?
In a parking lot or garage?
At school?
In open areas, on the street, or
on public transportation?
Some where else?

5
6
7
8

8b. LOCATION_IN_HOME

616

In own dwelling, own attached garage,
or enclosed porch (Include illegal entry
or attempted illegal entry of same)

In detached building on own property,
such as detached garage, storage shed,
etc. (Include illegal entry of same)

In vacation home/second home
(Include illegal entry or attempted
illegal entry of same)

In hotel or motel room respondent was
staying in (Include illegal entry or
attempted illegal entry of same)

Ask if necessary:
Where in your home or lodging did this
incident happen?

Ask if necessary:

Where near your home or lodging did this
incident happen?

9. OFFENDERLIVE

617

618

Did the offender actually get INSIDE your
(house/apartment/room/garage/ shed/
enclosed porch)?
11. OFFENDERTRY

619

Did the offender TRY to get in your (house/
apartment/room/garage/shed/porch)?

12. FORCEDENTRY
Was there any evidence, such as a broken lock
or broken window, that the offender(s) (got in
by force/TRIED to get in by force)?

Page 2

1
2

Did the offender live (here/there) or have a
right to be (here/there), for instance, as a guest
or a repairperson?
10. OFFENDERINSIDE

Own yard, sidewalk, driveway, carport,
unenclosed porch (does not include
apartment yards)
Apartment hall, storage area, laundry
room (does not include apartment
parking lot/garage)
On street immediately adjacent to own
home or lodging

8c. LOCATION_NEAR_HOME

620

Yes - SKIP to 15a
No
ASK 10
Don't know

Yes - SKIP to 12
No

Don't know

1
2

Yes - ASK 12
No - SKIP to 15a

Don't know - ASK 12

Yes - ASK 13
No - SKIP to 14

ASK 11

SKIP
to 15a

SKIP
to 9

SKIP
to 15a

Window

13. EVIDENCE
625

What was the evidence?

Damage to window (include frame,
glass broken/removed/cracked)

Screen damaged/removed

Lock on window damaged/tampered
with in some way

Other - Specify_____________________

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.

SKIP
to 15a

Door

626

Damage to door (include frame, glass
panes or door removed)

Screen damaged/removed

Lock or door handle damaged/tampered
with in some way

Other - Specify _____________________

SKIP
to 15a

Other

Other than window or door - Specify____________

14. OFFENDERGETIN

627

Let in

Offender pushed his/her way in after
door opened

Through OPEN DOOR or other opening

Through UNLOCKED door or window

Through LOCKED door or window - Had
key
Through LOCKED door or window Picked lock, used credit card, etc., other
than key
Through LOCKED door or window Don't know how

How did the offender (get in/TRY to get in)?

15a. HHMEMBERPRESENT

Don't know

Other - Specify _____________________

634

1
2

Yes - ASK 15b
No - SKIP to 34

635

Respondent only
Respondent and other household
member(s)
Only other household member(s), not
respondent - SKIP to 34

Ask or verify Were you or any other member of this
household present when this incident
occurred?
You may need to probe to obtain more details to
determine if respondent was present.
15b. WHICHMEMBER
Ask or verify -

Which household members were present?

16. SEEOFFENDER

636

1
2

Yes
No

637

1
2
3

Yes - ASK 18a
No
Don't know

Ask or verify -

Ask 16

Did you personally see an offender?
17. WEAPONPRESENT
Did the offender have a weapon such as a gun
or knife, or something to use as a weapon, such
as a bottle or wrench?
18a. WEAPON
What was the weapon?
Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.

18b. WEAPON_SPEC
Please specify the other weapon.

Page 3

638

1
2
3
4
5
6

SKIP to 19

Hand gun (pistol, revolver, etc.)
Other gun (rifle, shotgun, etc.)
Knife
Other sharp object (scissors, ice pick, axe,
etc.)
Blunt object (rock, club, blackjack, etc.)
Other - Specify - ASK 18b

Specify

SKIP
to 19

19. ATTACK

639

1
2

Yes - SKIP to 24a
No - ASK 20

640

1
2

Yes - SKIP to 23a
No - ASK 21

641

1
2

Yes - SKIP to 23c
No - ASK 22a

642

1
2

Did the offender hit you, knock you down or
actually attack you in any way?
20. TRYATTACK
Did the offender TRY to attack you?
21. THREATEN
Did the offender THREATEN you with harm in
any way?
22a. WHATHAPPEN

What actually happened?

3
4

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Something taken without permission
Attempted or threatened to take
something
Harassed, argument, abusive language
Unwanted sexual contact with force
(grabbing, fondling, etc.)
Unwanted sexual contact without force
(grabbing, fondling, etc.)
Forcible entry or attempted forcible
entry of house/apartment
Forcible entry or attempted forcible entry
of car
Damaged or destroyed property
Attempted or threatened to damage or
destroy property
Other - Specify - ASK 22b

SKIP
to 28a

Specify - SKIP to 28a

22b. WHATHAPPEN_SPEC
Please specify what actually happened.
23a. HOWTRYATTACK
How did the offender TRY to attack you?

643

Probe: Any other way?

1
2
3
4
5

Enter all that apply.
6
644

7
8
9
10

645

11
12
13
14

Verbal threat of rape
Verbal threat to kill
Verbal threat of attack other than to kill or rape
Verbal threat of sexual assault other than rape
Unwanted sexual contact with force
(grabbing, fondling, etc.)
Unwanted sexual contact without force
(grabbing, fondling, etc.)
Weapon present or threatened with weapon
Shot at (but missed)
Attempted attack with knife/sharp weapon
Attempted attack with weapon other
than gun/knife/sharp weapon
Object thrown at person
Followed or surrounded
Tried to hit, slap, knock down, grab, hold,
trip, jump, push, etc.
Other - Specify - ASK 23b

SKIP
to 28a

Specify - SKIP to 28a

23b. HOWTRYATTACK_SPEC
Please specify how the offender TRIED to attack you.
23c. HOWTHREATEN
How were you threatened?

643

Probe: Any other way?

1
2
3
4
5

Enter all that apply.
6
644

7
8
9
10

645

11
12
13
14

23d. HOWTHREATEN_SPEC
Please specify how you were threatened.
Page 4

Specify - SKIP to 28a

SKIP
to
28a

24a. HOWATTACK

646

How were you attacked?

1
2
3

Probe: Any other way?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Enter all that apply.
647

648

12
13
14

Raped
Tried to rape
Sexual assault other than rape or
attempted rape
Shot
Shot at (but missed)
Hit with gun held in hand
Stabbed/cut with knife/sharp weapon
Attempted attack with knife/sharp weapon
Hit by object (other than gun) held in hand
Hit by thrown object
Attempted attack with weapon other
than gun/knife/sharp weapon
Hit, slapped, knocked down
Grabbed, held, tripped, jumped, pushed, etc.
Other - Specify - ASK 24b

SKIP
to 25a

Specify

24b. HOWATTACK_SPEC
Please specify how you were attacked.
655

25a. INJURY
What were the injuries you suffered, if any?

1
2
3
4

Probe: Anything else?

Enter all that apply.
656

7
8
9
10
11

None
Raped
Attempted rape
Sexual assault other than rape or attempted
rape
Knife or stab wounds
Gun shot, bullet wounds
Broken bones or teeth knocked out
Internal injuries
Knocked unconscious
Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches,
swelling, chipped teeth
Other - Specify - ASK 25b

SKIP to 28a

SKIP
to
26a

Specify

25b. INJURY_SPEC
Please specify the injuries you suffered.
659

26a. MEDICALCARE

1
2

Were you injured to the extent that you
received any medical care, including self
treatment?
26b. RECEIVECAREWHERE
Where did you receive this care?

660

4
5
6
7

At the scene
At home/neighbor's/friend's
Health unit at work/school, first aid
station at a stadium/park, etc.
Doctor's office/health clinic
Emergency room at hospital/emergency clinic
Hospital (other than emergency room)
Other - Specify____________________

1
2

Yes - ASK 27a
No - SKIP to 28a

662

1
2

Yes - ASK 27b
No - SKIP to 28a

663

____________ Number of days

Probe: Anywhere else?
Enter all that apply.

26c.

CHECK

ITEM D

1
2
3

Is (box 6) "Hospital" marked in
26b?

27a. CAREOVERNIGHT
Did you stay overnight in the hospital?
27b. CAREDAYHOSPIT

Yes - ASK 26b
No - SKIP to 28a

How many days did you stay in the hospital?
28a. PROTECTSELF

666

28b. DURINGINCIDENT
Was there anything you did or tried to do about the
incident while it was going on?

1
2

Did you do anything with the idea of
protecting YOURSELF or your PROPERTY while
the incident was going on?
667

1
2

Yes - ASK 29
No/took no action/kept still - ASK 28b

Yes - ASK 29
No/took no action/kept still - SKIP to 30

Page 5

29. ACTIONSDURINGINC
What did you do?
Probe: Anything else?

USED PHYSICAL FORCE TOWARD OFFENDER
668

Enter all that apply.

Attacked offender with gun; fired gun
Attacked with other weapon
Attacked without weapon (hit, kicked, etc.)
Threatened offender with gun
Threatened offender with other weapon
Threatened to injure, no weapon

1
2
3
4
5
6

RESISTED OR CAPTURED OFFENDER
669

Defended self or property (struggled,
ducked, blocked blows, held onto property)
Chased, tried to catch or hold offender

7
8

SCARED OR WARNED OFF OFFENDER
Yelled at offender, turned on lights,
threatened to call police, etc.

PERSUADED OR APPEASED OFFENDER
10
670

Cooperated, or pretended to (stalled, did
what they asked)
Argued, reasoned, pleaded, bargained, etc.
ESCAPED OR GOT AWAY

Ran or drove away, or tried; hid, locked door
GOT HELP OR GAVE ALARM

671

13
14

*
15

Called police or guard
Tried to attract attention or help, warn others
(cried out for help, called children inside)
REACTED TO PAIN OR EMOTION
Screamed from pain or fear
OTHER

30. ANYONEPRESENT

677

Other - Specify __________________________

Yes - ASK 31
No
Don't know

Was anyone present during the incident
besides you and the offender? (Other than
children under age 12.)
31. PERSONSHARMED

682

Not counting yourself, were any of the persons
present during the incident harmed (Pause),
threatened with harm (Pause), or robbed by
force or threat of harm? (Do not include
yourself, the offender, or children under 18
years of age.)

Yes - ASK 32
No
Don't know

SKIP to 34

32. PERSONSHARMEDNUM
How many? (Do not include yourself, the
offender or children under 18 years of age.)

683

____________ Number of persons

33a. HHMEMHARMED

684

____________ Number of persons

How many of these persons are members of
your household now? (Do not include yourself,
the offender or children under 18 years of age.)

33b. HHMEMHARMED_NAMES

None - SKIP to 34

Line number(s)

If not sure ask:
Who are these household members? (Do not
include yourself, the offender, or children
under 18 years of age)
Enter the line number(s) of other household members.

34. ONEORMOREOFFENDERS
Ask or verify Was the crime committed by only one or by
more than one offender?

Page 6

692

1
2
3

Only one - SKIP to 36
More than one - SKIP to 45
Don't know - ASK 35

35. KNOWOFFENDERS

693

1
2

Yes - ASK 36
No - SKIP to 57

698

1
2
3

Male
Female
Don't know

699

1
2
3
4

Under 12
12-14
15-17
18-20

700

1
2
3

Yes (a member of a street gang)
No (not a member of a street gang)
Don't know (if a member of a street gang)

701

1
2
3

Yes (drinking or on drugs) - ASK 39
No (not drinking/not on drugs)
Don't know (if drinking or on drugs)

702

1
2
3
4

Drinking
On drugs
Both (drinking and on drugs)
Drinking or on drugs - could not tell which

703

1
2
3

Knew or had seen before - SKIP to 42
Stranger
Don't know

704

1
2
3

Yes
Not sure (possibly or probably)
No

705

1
2

Sight only - SKIP to 44
Casual acquaintance
Well known

Do you know anything about one of the
offenders?
36. SINGOFFENDERGENDER
Was the offender male or female?

37. SINGOFFENDERAGE
How old would you say the offender was?

38a. SINGOFFENDERGANG
Was the offender a member of a street gang, or
don't you know?
38b. SINGOFFENDERDRINKDRUG
Was the offender drinking or on drugs, or don't
you know?

39. SINGOFFENDERDRINKORDRUG
Which was it? (Drinking or on drugs?)

40. SINGOFFENDERKNEW
Was the offender someone you knew or a
stranger you had never seen before?
41. SINGOFFENDERRECOG
Would you be able to recognize the offender if
you saw him/her?
42. SINGOFFENDERHOWWELL
How well did you know the offender - by sight
only, casual acquaintance, or well known?
43. SINGOFFENDERRELATION

707
1
2
3
4

How well did you know the offender? For
example, was the offender a friend, cousin,
etc.?

5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
13

44. SINGOFFENDERRACE

708

What was the offender 's race?

45. HOWMANYOFFENDERS
How many offenders?
Page 7

710

5
6
7

21-29
30 or older
Don't know

SKIP to 44

ASK 43

RELATIVE
Spouse at time of incident
Ex-spouse at time of incident
Parent or step-parent
Own child or step-child
Brother/sister
Other relative - Specify__________
NONRELATIVE
Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or
ex-girlfriend
Friend or ex-friend
Roommate, boarder
Schoolmate
Neighbor
Customer/client
Patient
Supervisor (current or former)
Employee (current or former)
Co-worker (current or former)
Teacher/school staff
Other nonrelative - Specify___________

White
Black/African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian/otherPacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

Don't know

1
2
3

SKIP to 40

Number of offenders

SKIP to 57

46. MULTOFFENDERGENDER

711

1
2
3
4

All male
All female
SKIP to 48
Don't know sex of any offenders
Both male and female
If only two offenders, SKIP
to 72; otherwise ASK 47

712

1
2
3
4

Mostly male
Mostly female
Evenly divided
Don't know

713

1
2
3

Under 12
12-14
15-17
18-20

5
6
7

21-29
30 or older
Don't know

5
6
7

21-29
30 or older
Don't know

Under 12
12-14
15-17
18-20

715

1
2
3

Yes (a member of a street gang)
No (not a member of a street gang)
Don't know (if a member of a street gang)

716

1
2
3

Yes (drinking or on drugs) - ASK 51
No (not drinking/not on drugs)
Don't know (if drinking or on drugs)

717

1
2
3
4

Drinking
On drugs
Both (drinking and on drugs)
Drinking or on drugs - could not tell which

718

1
2
3
4

All known
Some known
All strangers
Don't know

719

1
2
3

Yes
Not sure (possibly or probably)
No

720

1
2
3

Sight only
Casual acquaintance
Well known

Were they male or female?

47. MULTOFFENDERMOSTGENDER
Were they mostly male or mostly female?

48. MULTOFFENDERYOUNG
How old would you say the youngest was?

49. MULTOFFENDEROLD

714

How old would you say the oldest was?

50a. MULTOFFENDERGANG
Were any of the offenders a member of a street
gang, or don't you know?
50b. MULTOFFENDERDRINKDRUG
Were any of the offenders drinking or on
drugs, or don't you know?
51. MULTOFFENDERDRINKORDRUG
Which was it? (Drinking or on drugs?)

52. MULTOFFENDERKNEW

1
2
3

Were any of the offenders known to you, or
were they strangers you had never seen
before?
53. MULTOFFENDERRECOG
Would you be able to recognize any of them if
you saw them?

54. MULTOFFENDERHOWWELL

How well did you know the offender(s) - by
sight only, casual acquaintance, or well
known?

SKIP
to 54
ASK 53

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.
55. MULTOFFENDERRELATION
How did you know them? For example, were
they friends, cousins, etc.?

723

Probe: Anything else?

1
2
3
4
5
6

Enter all that apply.
724

*
8

725

9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
13

Page 8

SKIP to 52

RELATIVE
Spouse at time of incident
Ex-spouse at time of incident
Parent or step-parent
Own child or step-child
Brother/sister
Other relative - Specify _________
NONRELATIVE
Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or
ex-girlfriend
Friend or ex-friend
Roommate, boarder
Schoolmate
Neighbor
Customer/client
Patient
Supervisor (current or former)
Employee (current or former)
Co-worker (current or former)
Teacher/school staff
Other nonrelative - Specify __________

SKIP to 56

56. MULTOFFENDERRACE

White
Black/African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian/otherPacific Islander
American Indian/Alaska Native

Don't know

Yes - SKIP to 65a

No
Don't know

1
2
3

726

*
What were the offenders' races?

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.

731

57. THEFT
Ask or verify:

Was something stolen or taken without
permission that belonged to you or others in
the household? (Include anything stolen from
the business operated from the respondent's
home.)

58. ATTEMPTTHEFT

732

Ask or verify:
Did the offender(s) ATTEMPT to take something
that belonged to you or others in the household?
(Include anything stolen from the operated from
the respondent's home.)

59. ATTEMPTTHEFTWHAT
What did the offender try to take?

733

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.

1
2

734

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

735

8
9
10

*
11
12
736

737

*
60. ATTEMPTTHEFTOWNER
Did the (property/money) the offender tried to
take belong to you personally, to someone else
in the household, or to both you and other
household members?
61.

CHECK

ITEM E

738

SKIP to 74

Cash
Purse
Wallet
Credit cards, checks, bank cards
Car
Other motor vehicle
Part of motor vehicle (tire, hubcap,
attached car stereo or satellite radio,
attached CB radio, etc.)
Gasoline or oil
Bicycle or parts
TV, DVD player, VCR, stereo, other
household appliances
Silver, china, art objects
Other household furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)
Personal effects (clothing, jewelry, toys,
etc.)

14
15
16
17

Handgun (pistol, revolver)
Other firearm (rifle, shotgun)
Other - Specify ____________________
Don't know

1
2

Respondent only
Respondent and other household
member(s)
Other household member(s) only
Nonhousehold member(s) only
Other - Specify___________________

3
4
5

Yes - ASK 62
No - SKIP to 63

Did the offender try to take cash, a
purse, or a wallet?
(Is box 1, 2, or 3 marked in 59?)

62. ATTEMPTTHEFTONPERSON

Yes - ASK 59
No
Don't know

742

1
2

Yes
No

745

1
2

Yes - ASK 64
No - SKIP to 74

Ask or verify:
Was the (cash/purse/wallet) on your person,
for instance, in a pocket or being held?
63. ATTEMPTTHEFTITEMONPERSON
Ask or verify:
Was there anything (else) the offender(s) tried
to take directly from you, for instance, from
your pocket or hands, or something that you
were wearing?
Exclude property not belonging to respondent
or other household member

Page 9

64. ATTEMPTTHEFTITEMS
Which items did the offender(s) try to take
directly from you?

746

4
5
6
7

Exclude property not belonging to respondent or
other household member.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
40

65a. WHATWASTAKEN
What was taken that belonged to you or
others in the household?

748

Probe: Anything else?
Enter all that apply.
749

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10

750

*
12
13

751

*
752

753

Credit cards, checks, bank cards
Car
Other motor vehicle
Part of motor vehicle (tire, hubcap,
attached car stereo or satellite radio,
attached CB radio, etc.)
Gasoline or oil
Bicycle or parts
TV, DVD player, VCR, stereo, other
household appliances
Silver, china, art objects
Other household furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)
Personal effects (clothing, jewelry, toys,
etc.)
Handgun (pistol, revolver)
Other firearm (rifle, shotgun)
Other

SKIP
to 74

Tried to take everything marked in 63
directly from respondent
CASH/PURSE/WALLET/CREDIT CARDS
Cash
Purse
Wallet
Credit cards, check, bank cards
VEHICLE OR PARTS
Car
Other motor vehicle
Part of motor vehicle (tire, hubcap, attached car
stereo or satellite radio, attached CB radio, etc.)
Unattached motor vehicle accessories or equipment
(unattached CD player or satellite radio, etc.)
Gasoline or oil
Bicycle or parts
HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS
TV, DVD player, VCR, stereo, other household
appliances
Silver, china, art objects
Other household furnishings (furniture, rugs, etc.)

PERSONAL EFFECTS
Portable electronic and photographic gear
(Personal stereo, TV, cellphone, camera, etc.)
Clothing, furs, luggage, briefcase
Jewelry, watch, keys
Collection of stamps, coins, etc.
Toys, sports and recreation equipment
(not listed above)
Other personal and portable objects

20
21

FIREARMS
Handgun (pistol, revolver)
Other firearm (rifle, shotgun)

14
15
16
17
18

MISCELLANEOUS
754

*
755

*
65b.

CHECK

ITEM F

22
23
24
25
26
27

Follow the skip pattern for the first
category met, based on the entries in
65a.

If Box 2 and/or 3 is marked in 65a - SKIP to 65c
If Box 1 is marked in 65a - SKIP to 65d
If none of the conditions above are met - SKIP to 66
1
2

65c. PRSWLT_CONTAINMONEY
Did the stolen (purse/wallet) contain any
money?
65d. AMOUNTCASHTAKEN

Tools, machines, office equipment
Farm or garden produce, plants, fruit, logs
Animals -pet or livestock
Food or liquor
Other - Specify _______________
Don't know

747

Yes - ASK 65d
No

$ ____________ .

If Box 1 is marked in 65a ASK 65d
otherwise SKIP to 66

Amount of cash taken

If not sure, ask:
How much cash was taken?

Page 10

66.

CHECK

ITEM G1

Yes - ASK 67
No - SKIP to 69

Was a car or other motor vehicle
stolen?
(Is box 5 or 6 marked in 69a?)

67. PERMISSIONGIVEN

763

Had permission to use the (car/motor vehicle)
ever been given to the offender(s)?

68. RETURNCAR

764

Did the offender return the (car/motor vehicle)
this time?
69.

CHECK

ITEM G2

1
2
3

Yes - ASK 68
No
Don't know

1
2

Yes
No

Yes - ASK 70a
No - SKIP to 70b

Did the offender(s) take a
handgun?
(Is box 20 marked in 69a?)

70a. NUMBERHANDGUNS

SKIP to 69

923

Number of handguns

How many handguns were taken?
70b.

CHECK

ITEM G3

Yes - ASK 70c
No - SKIP to 70d

Did the offender(s) take some other
type of firearm?
(Is box 21 marked in 65a?)

70c. NUMBERFIREARMS

924

Number of firearms

How many other types of firearms were taken?
70d.

CHECK

ITEM H1

Yes - ASK 71a
No - SKIP to 71b

Was cash, a purse, or a wallet
taken? (Is box 1, 2, or 3 marked in
65a?)

71a. CASHONPERSON

767

1
2

Yes
No

768

1
2

Yes - ASK 72
No - SKIP to 73a

Ask or verify:
Was the (cash/purse/wallet) on your person,
for instance, in a pocket or being held?
71b. OTHERONPERSON
Ask or verify:
Was there anything (else) the offender(s) took
directly from you, for instance, from your
pocket or hands, or something that you were
wearing?
Exclude property not belonging to respondent
or other household member

Notes

Page 11

72. ITEMSTAKEN
Which items did the offender(s) take directly
from you?

769

5
6
7

Exclude property not belonging to respondent or
other household member.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
40

73a.

CHECK

ITEM H2

Were only cash, a purse, or a wallet
taken? (Are boxes 1, 2, or 3 the
only boxes marked in 69a?)

73b. PROPERTYVALUE
What was the value of the PROPERTY that was
taken? Include recovered property. (Exclude
any stolen (cash/checks/credit cards) If jointly
owned with a nonhousehold member(s),
include only the share owned by household
members.)

Credit cards, check, bank cards
Car
Other motor vehicle
Part of motor vehicle (tire, hubcap, attached car
stereo or satellite radio, attached CB radio, etc.)
Unattached motor vehicle accessories or equipment
(unattached CD player or satellite radio, etc.)
Gasoline or oil
Bicycle or parts
TV, DVD player, VCR, stereo, other household
appliances
Silver, china, art objects
Other household furnishings (furniture, rugs, etc.)
Portable electronic and photographic gear
(Personal stereo, TV, cellphone, camera, etc.)
Clothing, furs, luggage, briefcase
Jewelry, watch, keys
Collection of stamps, coins, etc.
Toys, sports and recreation equipment
(not listed above)
Other personal and portable objects
Handgun (pistol, revolver)
Other firearm (rifle, shotgun)
Tools, machines, office equipment
Farm or garden produce, plants, fruit, logs
Animals -pet or livestock
Food or liquor
Other
Everything marked in 96a was taken
directly from respondent
Yes - SKIP to 74
No - ASK 73b

770

$ ____________ .

Value of property taken

Enter total dollar value for all items taken.
74. POLICEINFORMED

800

Were the police informed or did they find out
about this incident in any way?
75a. POLICEFINDOUT
How did the police find out about it?
Enter first precode that applies.
If proxy interview, we want the proxy respondent to
answer questions 75a - 79 for herself/himself, not for
the person for whom the proxy interview is being taken.

75b. POLICEFINDOUT_SPEC
Please specify how the police found out about it.
Notes

Page 12

801

1
2
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Yes - ASK 75a
No - SKIP to 76
Don't know - SKIP to 78

Respondent
Other household member
Someone official called police (guard, apt.
manager, school official, etc.)
Someone else
Police were at scene
Offender was a police officer
Some other way - Specify - ASK 75b

Specify - SKIP to 77

SKIP
to 77

76. NOTREPORTEDPOLICE
What was the reason it was not reported to the
police?

802

*
2

Probe: Can you tell me a little more? Any other
reason?

DEALT WITH ANOTHER WAY
Reported to another official (guard, apt.
manager, school official, etc.)
Private or personal matter or took care of it
myself or informally; told offender's parent

NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO RESPONDENT
Minor or unsuccessful crime, small or no
loss, recovered property
Child offender(s), "kid stuff"
Not clear it was a crime or that harm was
intended
INSURANCE WOULDN'T COVER
No insurance, loss less than deductible, etc.

803

POLICE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING
Didn't find out until too late

Enter all that apply.
4
5

STRUCTURED PROBE Was the reason because you dealt with it
another way, it wasn't important enough to
you, insurance wouldn't cover it, police
couldn't do anything, police wouldn't help, or
was there some other reason?

Could not recover or identify property
Could not find or identify offender, lack of proof
POLICE WOULDN'T HELP

804

*
12
13

805

*
806

15
16
17

18
19

77.

CHECK

ITEM I

Were the police informed? (Is
"Yes" marked in 74?

78. CONTACTAUTHORITIES

829

Have you (or someone in your household) had
contact with any other authorities about this
incident (such as a prosecutor, court, or
juvenile officer)?
79. AUTHORITIES
Which authorities?

830

Probe: Any others?

Police wouldn't think it was important enough,
wouldn't want to be bothered or get involved
Police would be inefficient, ineffective (they'd arrive
late or not at all, wouldn't do a good job, etc.)
Police would be biased, would harass/insult
respondent, cause respondent trouble, etc.)
Offender was police officer
OTHER REASON
Did not want to get offender in trouble with
the law
Was advised not to report to police
Afraid of reprisal by offender or others
Did not want to or could not take time - too
inconvenient
Other - Specify ______________________
Respondent not present or doesn't know why
it wasn't reported

1
2

Yes - ASK 78
No - SKIP to 80

1
2
3

Yes - ASK 79
No
Don't know

1
2
3
4
5

Prosecutor, district attorney
Magistrate
Court
Juvenile, probation, or parole officer
Other - Specify__________________

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Working or on duty - SKIP to 82
On the way to or from work - SKIP to 82
On the way to or from school
On the way to or from other place
Shopping, errands
Attending school
Leisure activity away from home
Sleeping
Other activities at home
Other - Specify__________________
Don't know - ASK 81

1
2

Yes
No

SKIP to 80

Enter all that apply.
80. DOINGATINCIDENTTIME

832

Ask or verify:
What were you doing when this incident
(happened/started)?

81. JOBDURINGINCIDENT
Ask or verify:
Did you have a job at the time of the incident?

Page 13

840

ASK
81

CHECK

ITEM J

Is this incident part of a series of
crimes? (Is box 2 (is a "series")
marked in 5c?)

83a. SERIESNUMTIMES

1
2

883

____________ Number of incidents - SKIP to 84a

You have told me about the most recent
incident. How many times did this kind of
thing happen to you during the last 6 months?
83b. SERIESDK

Yes - ASK 83a
No - SKIP to 89

Don't know - ASK 83b

884

Is that because there is no way of knowing, or
because it happened too many times, or is
there some other reason?

1
2
3

No way of knowing
Happened too many times
Some other reason - Specify___________

Number of incidents per quarter

84a. SERIESWHICHMONTHQ1
In what month or months did these incidents
take place?

885

Jan., Feb., or Mar.
(Qtr. 1)

886

Apr., May, or Jun.
(Qtr. 2)

887

Jul., Aug., or Sept.
(Qtr. 3)

888

Oct., Nov., or Dec.
(Qtr. 4)

Probe: How many in (name months)?
84b. SERIESWHICHMONTHQ2
In what month or months did these incidents
take place?
Probe: How many in (name months)?
84c. SERIESWHICHMONTHQ3
In what month or months did these incidents
take place?
Probe: How many in (name months)?
84d. SERIESWHICHMONTHQ4
In what month or months did these incidents
take place?
Probe: How many in (name months)?
85. SERIESLOCATION

889

Did all, some, or none of these incidents occur
in the same place?
86. SERIESOFFENDER

890

1
2
3
4

All by same person
Some by same person
None by same person
Don't know

893

1
2

Yes - SKIP to 88
No - ASK 87b

Were all, some, or none of these incidents
done by the same person(s)?
87a. SAMETHINGEACHTIME
Did the same thing happen each time?

87b. HOWINCIDENTSDIFFER
How did the incidents differ?
Notes

Page 14

All in the same place
Some in the same place
None in the same place

1
2
3

Specify

SERIESCONTACTORNOT
ITEM K
Do not read to respondent.

88.

CHECK

Enter precode that best describes this series of
crimes. If more than one category describes this
series, enter the appropriate precode with the lowest
number.

CONTACT CRIMES

895
1

3
4

5
6

SUMMARY
ITEM L
Summarize this incident. Also include any details
about the incident that were not asked about in the
incident report that might help clarify the incident.

Notes

Page 15

Completed or threatened violence at school or on
school property
Other contact crimes (other violence,
pocket picking, purse snatching, etc.) Specify ____________________________
NONCONTACT CRIMES
Theft or attempted theft of motor vehicles
Theft or attempted theft of motor vehicle parts (tire,
hubcap, battery, attached car stereo, etc.)
Theft or attempted theft of contents of motor vehicle,
including unattached parts

Theft or attempted theft at school or on school property

Illegal entry of, or attempt to enter, victim's home, other
building on property, second home, hotel, motel

Theft or attempted theft from victim's
home or vicinity by person(s) KNOWN to
victim (roommate, babysitter, etc.)

CHECK

Completed or threatened violence between spouses,
other relatives, friends, neighbors, etc.

89.

Completed or threatened violence in the course of the
victim's job (police officer, security guard, psychiatric
social worker, etc.)

Theft or attempted theft from victim's home or vicinity
by person(s) UNKNOWN to victim
Other theft or attempted theft (at work, while
shopping, etc.) - Specify ____ __________________

Survey of Crime Victimization
Web Instrument
Start Here
Please provide the following information about yourself:
First and Last
Name

(Please print)
First Name
Last Name

Age at Last
Birthday

18-29
1
2 30-49
3 50-69
4 70+

Marital
Status

Married
1
2 Widowed
3 Divorced
4 Separated
5 Never married

Sex

Male
1
2 Female

Hispanic
Origin

Yes
1
2 No

Race
(Check all that apply)

White
1
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
4 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander
5 American Indian or Alaska
Native

\
How long have you lived at this address?
1
2

6 months or more
Less than 6 months

Please provide your telephone number in case we do not understand an answer:
Area Code

+ Number

[ASK 2b IF ANY “YES” IN 2a. ELSE, GO TO 3a.]
Instruction Box A: Display reference period at top of
each survey screen: SURVEY REFERENCE PERIOD:
START DATE – END DATE

Next we have some questions about items that have
been stolen from you, or any breaking in attempts or
vehicle thefts you or another household member might
have experienced during the past 6 months, that is since
[DATE]. The period of time we are interested in is
shown in the right hand corner of your screen as you go
through the survey. Press next to continue.
1a.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
have any of the following items belonging to you
been stolen? Please select “Yes” or “No” for each
item.
Yes
No


Luggage, a wallet, purse, briefcase,
1a
2a
book, or other things that you carry
Clothing, jewelry, or cell phone
1b
2b
Bicycle or sports equipment
1c
2c
Things in your home, such as a TV,
1d
2d
stereo, tools
Things outside your home, such as
1e
2e
a garden hose or lawn furniture
Things belonging to children in the
1f
2f
household
Things from a vehicle, such as a
1g
2g
package, groceries, camera, or CDs

[ASK 1b IF ANY “YES” IN 1a. ELSE, GO TO 2a.]
1b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any thefts? Please enter ‘0’ if you
did not experience any thefts.
Number of times

2a. During the past 6 months, [IF “YES” TO ANY
ITEM IN 1a FILL: other than incidents you
already included,] has anyone broken in or
attempted to break in any of the following places?
Please select “Yes” or “No” for each location.
Yes
No


a. Your home
1a
2a
b. Your garage, shed, or storage room
1b
2b
c. Your hotel room, motel room, or
1c
2c
vacation home
2

2b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any break-ins? Please enter ‘0’ if
you did not experience any break-ins.
Number of times

3a.

During the past 6 months, [IF “YES” TO ANY
ITEM IN 1a OR 2a FILL: other than incidents
you already included,] has anyone stolen,
attempted to steal, or use without permission any
of the following vehicles or parts? Please select
“Yes” or “No” for each item.
Yes
No


a. A vehicle belonging to you or
1a
2a
anyone in your household
b. Any parts from a vehicle, such as a
1b
2b
tire, car stereo, hubcap, or battery
c. Gas from a vehicle belonging to
1c
2c
you or anyone in your household

[ASK 3b IF ANY “YES” IN 3a. ELSE, GO TO 4a.]
3b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any vehicle-related thefts? Please
enter ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

Next, we have some questions about attacks or threats
you might have experienced during the past 6 months,
that is since [DATE]. Press next to continue.
4a.

a.
b.
c.
d.

e.
f.
g.

[IF “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN 1a, 2a, OR 3a
FILL: Other than incidents you already included,]
Have you personally experienced any attacks OR
threats OR thefts at any of the following
locations during the past 6 months? Please select
“Yes” or “No” for each location.
Yes
No


At home including the porch or
1a
2a
yard
At or near a friend’s, relative’s, or
1b
2b
neighbor’s home
At work or school
1c
2c
In places such as a storage shed or
laundry room, a shopping mall,
1d
2d
restaurant, bank, or airport
While riding in any vehicle
1e
2e
On the street or in a parking lot
1f
2f
At a party, theater, gym, picnic
area, bowling lanes, or while
1g
2g
fishing or hunting

[ASK 5b IF ANY “YES” IN 5a. ELSE, GO TO 6a.]
5b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience such attacks or threats? Please
enter ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

6a. People often do not think of incidents committed
by someone they know. During the past 6 months,
[IF “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, OR
5a FILL: other than incidents you already
included,] have any of the following people
attacked or threatened you in any way? Do not
include telephone threats. Please select “Yes” or
“No” for each option.
Yes
No


a. Someone at work or school
1a
2a
b. A neighbor or friend
1b
2b
c. A relative or family member
1c
2c
d. Any other person you have met or
1d
2d
known
[ASK 6b IF ANY “YES” IN 6a. ELSE, GO TO 7a.]

[ASK 4b IF ANY “YES” IN 4a. ELSE, GO TO 5a.]
6b.
4b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience such attacks OR thefts OR threats?
Please enter ‘0’ if you did not experience any.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience attacks or threats by such people?
Please enter ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

Number of times
5a. During the past 6 months, [IF “YES” TO ANY
ITEM IN 1a, 2a, 3A, or 4a FILL: other than
incidents you already included,] have you
personally been attacked or threatened in any of
the following ways? Do not include telephone
threats. Please select “Yes” or “No” for each.
Yes
No


a. With any weapon, such as a gun or
1a
2a
a knife
b. With anything like a baseball bat,
1b
2b
frying pan, scissors, or stick
c. By something thrown, such as a
1c
2c
rock or bottle
d. By grabbing, punching, or choking
1d
2d
e. By raping, attempting to rape, or
1e
2e
being sexually attacked in any way
f. By being threatened face to face
1f
2f

7a. During the past 6 months, [IF “YES” TO ANY
ITEM IN 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, OR 6a FILL: other
than incidents you already included,] have any of
the following people stolen something from you?
Please select “Yes” or “No” for each option.
Yes
No


a. Someone at work or school
1a
2a
b. A neighbor or friend
1b
2b
c. A relative or family member
1c
2c
d. Any other person you have met or
1d
2d
known
[ASK 7b IF ANY “YES” IN 7a. ELSE, GO TO 8a.]

7b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any thefts by such people? Please
enter ‘0’ if you did not experience any.

9c.

How many times did you call the police to report
something that happened to you or another
household member?

Number of times

8a. Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual
acts are often difficult to think about. During the
past 6 months, [IF “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN 1a,
2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, OR 7a FILL: other than
incidents you already included,] have you been
forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual
activity by any of the following people? Please
select “Yes” or “No” for each option.
Yes
No


a. Someone you did not know
1a
2a
b. A casual acquaintance
1b
2b
c. Someone you know well
1c
2c
[ASK 8b IF ANY “YES” IN 8a. ELSE, GO TO 9a.]
8b.

How many times during the past 6 months did
you engage in unwanted sexual activity? Please
enter ‘0’ if you did not engage in any.

Number of times

10a. [IF “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a,
6a, 7a, 8a, OR 9a FILL: Other than incidents you
already included,] During the past 6 months did
anything that you thought was a crime happen to
you or another household member, but you did
NOT report it to the police?
1 Yes
2

No  GO TO Instruction Box B

10b. Were you attacked or threatened in any way?
1 Yes
2 No
10c. Did someone steal or attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or another household
member?
1 Yes
2 No

Number of times
9a. [IF “YES” TO ANY ITEM IN 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a,
6a, 7a, OR 8a FILL: Other than incidents you
already included,] During the past 6 months did
you call the police to report something that
happened to you or another household member,
which you thought was a crime?
1 Yes
2

Did someone steal or attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or another household
member?
1 Yes
2 No

[ASK 9d IF 9a = YES. ELSE, GO TO 10a.]
4

10d. How many times did something happen to you or
another household member that you thought was
a crime, but you did NOT report it to the police?
Number of times

No  GO TO Question 10a

9b. Were you attacked or threatened in any way?
1 Yes
2 No
9c.

[ASK 10d IF 10a = YES. ELSE, GO TO Instruction
Box B.]

Instruction Box B: If at least 1 crime reported in
Screener questions 1a – 10a (a “yes” response to
any crime question), continue with CIR 1. A CIR
should be completed for each counted crime in the
Screener (questions 1b, 2b, 3b, etc.).
CIRs should be completed in the following order:
CIR1: 1st incident of 1st type of crime reported in
Screener. CIR2: 2nd incident of same type of crime in
CIR1, if applicable, or next type of crime from
Screener, Etc. Else, if no crimes reported in
Screener, GO TO Closing Questions 60-62, then exit
survey.

Incident 1
Instruction Box C: Fill text for question 1 IF QUESTION 1a, 7a, 9c, or 10c = YES: items stolen
from you or another household member
IF QUESTION 2a = YES: break in or attempted break
in
IF QUESTION 3a = YES: vehicle, part, or gas stolen
IF QUESTION 4a = YES: experienced personal attack,
threat, or theft
IF QUESTION 5a or 6a = YES: personal attack or
threat
IF QUESTION 8a = YES: forced or unwanted sexual
act
IF QUESTION 9a = YES: possible crime reported to
police
IF QUESTION 10a = YES: possible crime NOT
reported to police

Instruction Box D: If date in question 1 is outside of
reference period, fill: We are only asking about
crimes that happened in the past 6 months. We will
not collect information on this incident. Press next to
continue.
Then ask: 1a. Did you have anything else like this
happen between [FILL REFERENCE PERIOD]?
Yes  Start new CIR to get date of this
1
incident; then proceed with remaining CIR questions.

[FILL TEXT FOR CIR 2+]: The next questions are
about the next theft, break-in, attack, threat or
unwanted sexual act you have experienced in the
past 6 months, that is since [DATE].
1.

No  Start CIR for next type of crime reported
2
in Screener, or go to Closing Questions 60-62 if no
more crimes.

[IF CIR 1, OR CIR 2+ AND NEW TYPE OF
CRIME]: You reported that in the past 6 months,
that is since [DATE], you experienced the
following: [FILL 1st/NEXT REPORTED CRIME
FROM SCREENER].
[IF CIR 2+ AND NEXT INCIDENT OF SAME
TYPE OF CRIME AS IN PREVIOUS CIR]: You
reported that in the past 6 months, that is since
[DATE], you experienced another: [FILL
REPORTED CRIME FROM SCREENER].
When did (IF ONLY 1 CRIME OF THIS TYPE,
FILL: this/IF > 1 CRIME OF THIS TYPE AND
THIS IS FIRST CIR FOR THE CRIME, FILL:
the first/IF > 1 CRIME OF THIS TYPE AND
THIS IS CIR2+ FOR THIS CRIME, FILL: the
next) incident take place?
Month
Year

Instruction Box E: Display CIR crime banner:
CRIME BEING DISCUSSED: (FILL SCREENER CRIME
AS IN Instruction Box C). DATE. INCIDENT: FILL 1, 2,
ETC FOR THIS CRIME).

Did the incident take place during the day or at
night?
1 During the day (6 am – 6 pm)
2 At night (6 pm – 6 am)

In what city, town or village did this incident
occur?
1 The same city, town, or village as my current
residence
2 A different city, town, or village as my current
residence
3 Not inside a city, town or village
4 Outside U.S.

Instruction Box F: If this CIR is for the 2nd or higher
incident of the same type of crime reported in
previous CIR, skip Crime Series questions. GOTO
QUESTION 6.

Altogether, how many times during the past 6
months did this type of incident happen?
Number of times  IF 1-5
TIMES, NOT A SERIES. GO TO
Question 6

5a.

Are these incidents similar to each other in detail
or are they for different types of crimes?
1 Similar
2 Different  NOT A SERIES. GO TO
Question 6

5b.

Can you recall enough detail of each incident to
distinguish them from each other?
1 Yes  NOT A SERIES
2 No  IS A SERIES

(IF CRIME SERIES BASED ON QUESTIONS 4, 5a, or
5b, FILL): The following questions refer only to the
most recent incident.
6,

Where did this [IF SERIES FILL: most recent]
incident happen?
1 In own home, attached garage, or porch
2 In detached building on own property
(detached garage, storage shed)
3 In vacation home, second home, hotel or motel
room
4 Own yard, sidewalk, driveway, carport,
unenclosed porch (Please do not include
apartment yards)  GO TO Question 10
5 Apartment hall, storage area, laundry room
(Please do not include apartment parking lot
or/garage)  GO TO Question 10
6 On street immediately adjacent to own home or
lodging  GO TO Question 10
7 In a public place  GO TO Question 10
8 At work or school  GO TO Question 10
9 Other (Please specify)__________________
GO TO Question 10
Did someone get inside or try to get inside your
home, garage, shed or porch?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10

Was there a broken lock or window, suggesting
that someone got in by force or tried to get in
your home, garage, shed or porch by force?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10

How could you tell that someone got in or tried to
get in by force? Please select all that apply.
1 Damage to window (including frame; broken,
removed, or cracked glass)
2 Window screen damaged or removed
3 Lock on window damaged or tampered with
in some way
4 Damage to door (including frame; glass panes
or door removed)
5 Door screen damaged or removed
6 Lock or door handle damaged or removed
7 Other (Please specify) __________________

10. Were you or other household members present
when this [IF SERIES FILL: most recent]
incident occurred?
1 I was present
2 I and other household members were present
3 Only other household members were present
 GO TO Question 23
4 No one was present  GO TO Question 23
11.

Did the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, have a weapon, such as a gun or
knife, or something to use as a weapon?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 13
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 13

12.

What kind of weapon did the offender have?
Please select all that apply.
1 Hand gun, such as a pistol or revolver
2 Other gun, such as a rifle or a shotgun
3 Knife
4 Sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, axe
5 Blunt object, such as a rock, club, blackjack
6 Other (Please specify) __________________

13.

Did the offender hit you, knock you down, or
actually attack you in any way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 19
2 No

18.

How did the offender threaten you? Please select
all that apply.
1 Verbal threat of rape or other
sexual assault
2 Verbal threat to attack or kill
3 Unwanted sexual contact
4 Weapon present, threatened or
attacked with weapon
GO TO
Question
5 Object thrown at person
23
6 Followed or surrounded
7 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
8 Other (Please specify): _______

19.

How were you attacked? Please select all that
apply.
1 Raped
2 Tried to rape
3 Sexual assault other than rape or attempted
rape
4 Shot, shot at (but missed), hit with a gun held
in hand
5 Attempted attack with knife or sharp weapon
6 Stabbed, cut with knife, sharp weapon or hit
by object (other than gun) held in hand
7 Hit by thrown object
8 Attempted attack with weapon other than
gun/knife/sharp weapon
9 Hit, slapped, knocked down, grabbed, held,
tripped, jumped, pushed, etc
10 Other (Please specify) ____________________

20.

Did you suffer any injuries?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 24a

14. Did the offender try to attack you?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 17
2 No
15.

Did the offender threaten you with harm in any
way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 18
2 No

16. What happened during the incident? Please
select all that apply.
1 Something was taken without
permission
2 Offender attempted or
threatened to take something
3 Offender harassed or argued
GO TO
with someone or used abusive
Question
language
23
4 Unwanted sexual contact
5 Forcible entry (or attempted
forcible entry) of house/
apartment or car
6 Damaged or destroyed property
7 Other (Please specify)
_________________________
17.

How did the offender try to attack you? Please
select all that apply.
1 Unwanted sexual contact
2 Weapon present or attempted
attack with weapon (shot at but
GO TO
missed, attempted attack)
Question
5 Object thrown at person
23
6 Followed or surrounded
7 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
8 Other (Please specify)
__________________________

21. What were the injuries you suffered? Please select
all that apply.
1 Raped, attempted rape or sexual assault
2 Knife, stab wounds, gunshot, or bullet wounds
3 Broken bones, teeth knocked out, internal
injuries, knocked unconscious
4 Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling,
chipped teeth
5 Other (Please specify) ____________________
7

22a. Were you injured to the extent that you received
any medical care, including self treatment?
1 Yes
2 No
6 Hospital
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
22b. Where did you receive medical care, including
self treatment?
1 At the scene
2 At home or at a neighbor’s
or friend’s house
GO TO
3 Heath unit at work or school,
Question
or a first aid station
24a
4 Doctor’s office or health clinic
5 Emergency room at hospital
or emergency clinic
6 Hospital GO TO Question 23
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
 GO TO Question 24a

25.

Was anyone present during the incident besides
you and the offender?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 28

26. Not counting yourself and the offender, how
many people present during the incident were
harmed, threatened with harm, or robbed by
force or threat of harm? Do not include children
under 18 years of age. Please enter ‘0’ if no one
else was harmed.
Number of people
27. Not counting yourself and the offender, how
many persons currently living or staying at this
address were harmed, threatened with harm, or
robbed by force or threat of harm? Do not
include children under18 years of age. Please
enter ‘0’ if no one currently living or staying at
this address was harmed, threatened or robbed.
Number of people

23.

How many days did you stay in the hospital?
Please enter ‘0’ if you did not stay in the hospital
overnight.
Number of days

24a. Did you do anything with the idea of protecting
yourself or your property while the incident was
going on?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 25

28. Was the crime committed by only one or by more
than one person?
1 Only one
2 More than one  GO TO Question 35
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 44
29.

Was the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, male or female?
1 Male
2 Female
3 Don’t know

24b. What did you do or try to do to protect yourself
or your property while this incident was going on?
Please select all that apply.
30. How old would you say the offender was?
Attacked
offender
with
weapon
1
1 Under 12
Threatened
offender
with
weapon
2
2 12-17
Threatened
to
injure
offender
without
a
3
3 18-29
weapon
4 30 or older
4 Defended self or property
5 Don’t know
5 Ran or drove away, or tried to run/drive way;
hid; locked door
31. Was the offender a member of a street gang?
6 Called police or guard, tried to attract
1 Yes
attention
2 No
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
3 Don’t know
8

32. Was the offender drinking or on drugs?
1 Not drinking or on drugs
2 Drinking only
3 On drugs only
4 Both drinking and on drugs
5 Drinking or on drugs – could not tell which
6 Don’t know
33. At the time of the incident, what was your
relationship with the offender?
1 Spouse or ex-spouse at time of incident
2 Parent or step-parent at time of incident
3 Child or step-child at time of incident
4 Brother or sister
5 Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or exgirlfriend, friend or ex-friend
6 Roommate, neighbor, co-worker or
schoolmate
7 Casual acquaintance
8 Stranger
9 Other (Please specify) __________________
34.

What was the offender’s race? Please select all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
GO TO
4 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Question
Islander
44
5 American Indian or Alaska
Native
Don’t
know
6
How many persons were there?

Number of offenders
36. Were the persons who committed the crime, that
is, the offenders, male or female?
1 All male
2 All female
3 Both male and female, but mostly male
4 Both male and female, but mostly female
5 Both male and female, evenly divided
6 Don’t know

37. How old would you say the youngest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
38. How old would you say the oldest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
39.

Were any of the offenders members of a street
gang?
1 Yes
2 No
3 Don’t know

40. Were any of the offenders drinking or on drugs?
Please select one.
1 Not drinking or on drugs
2 Drinking only
3 On drugs only
4 Both drinking and on drugs
5 Drinking or on drugs – could not tell which
6 Don’t know
41.

Were any of the offenders known to you, or were
they strangers you had never seen before?
1 All known
2 Some known
3 All strangers  GO TO Question 43

42. What was your relationship with any of the
offenders? Please select all that apply.
1 Spouse or ex-spouse at time of incident
2 Parent or step-parent at time of incident
3 Child or step-child at time of incident
4 Brother or sister
5 Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or exgirlfriend
6 Friend or ex-friend
7 Other (Please specify) __________________

43.

What were the offenders’ races? Please select all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5 American Indian or Alaska Native
6 Don’t know

Instruction Box G: If CASH, PURSE or WALLET
selected in Question 46, continue with Question 47.
Otherwise, GO TO Question 50.

47. Was the cash, purse, or wallet on your person?
1 Yes
2 No
Instruction Box H: If CASH selected in Question 46,
GO TO Question 49.

44. Was something stolen or taken without
permission that belonged to you or other
household members?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 46
2 No

If PURSE or WALLET selected in Question 46,
continue with Question 48.

45. Did the offender (s) attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or others in the household?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 57

48. Did the stolen purse or wallet contain any money?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 50
49. How much cash was taken?
$

46. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
items such as cash, purse, or credit cards? Please
select all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Cash

b. Purse or wallet

c. Credit cards, check,
or bank cards

50.

Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
vehicles or vehicle parts? Please select all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Car or other motor
vehicle

b. Part of motor vehicle,
accessories or
equipment

c. Gasoline or oil

d. Bicycle or bicycle
parts

Instruction Box I: If CAR or MOTOR VEHICLE
selected in Question 50, continue with Question 51.
Otherwise, GO TO Question 53.

51. Had permission to use the car or motor vehicle
been given to the offender(s)?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 53
10

52. Did the offender return the car or motor vehicle?
1 Yes
2 No

55.

Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following miscellaneous items? Please select
all that apply.

53. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following objects? Please select all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. TV, DVD player,
VCR, stereo, other
household appliances

b. Silver, china, art
objects

c. Other household
furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)
54.

Stole

a. Handgun or other
firearm

b. Tools, machines,
office equipment

c. Farm or garden
produce

d. Pets or livestock

e. Food or liquor

56.

Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following personal items? Please select all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Portable electronics
and cameras

b. Clothing, furs,
luggage

c. Jewelry, watch, keys,
stamps or coin
collections

d. Toys, sports and
recreation equipment

e. Other personal and
portable objects

Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


Not counting any stolen cash, checks or credit
cards, what was the value of the property that
was taken? Please include recovered property.
$

57.

Were the police informed or did they find out
about this most recent incident any way?
1 No, incident was NOT reported to the police
 GO TO Question 59
2 Yes, someone living or staying at this address
called the police
3 Yes, someone official called the police (guard,
apartment manager, etc.)
4 Yes, someone else informed the police
5 Yes, police were at scene
6 Yes, offender was a police officer
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________

58a. Have you or someone else in your household had
contact with any other authorities about this
incident?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 59

58b. What other authorities were contacted about this
most recent incident?
1 Prosecutor, district attorney
2 Magistrate
3 Court
4 Juvenile officer, probation officer, or parole
officer
5 Other (Please specify) __________________

59. How would you describe what happened during
the incident in your own words

Instruction Box J: Start new CIR for the next crime
reported in the Screener. If no additional crimes reported
in Screener,continue with questions 60-62 below, then
exit survey.

The last questions are about your work and annual
household income.
60.

Did you have a job or work at a business last
week?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 62
2 No

61. Did you have a job or work at a business during
the last 6 months?
1 Yes
2 No
62. What was the total combined income of all
members of this household during the past 12
months, that is since [DATE]? Please include
money from jobs, business, farm or rent, pensions,
dividends, interest, Social Security payments, and
any other money income received by members of
this HOUSEHOLD who are 18 years of age or
older.
1 Less than $10,000
2 $10,000-$19,999
3 $20,000-$34,999
4 $35,000-$49,999
5 $50,000-$75,999
6 $75,000 or more ________________________________________

Thank you for completing the survey!
[IF HH ELIGIBLE FOR INCENTIVE, FILL]: We will mail $10 cash
to you as compensation for your time. Please confirm we have
your correct name and address for this mailing. [DISPLAY
NAME AND SAMPLE ADDRESS FOR VERIFICATION.]
[DISPLAY ON CLOSING SCREEN]: If there are other adults age
18 or older living in this household, please have them go
online to the SCV website and complete this survey.

Survey of Crime Victimization

Start Here
Thank you for filling out the Survey of Crime
Victimization. This survey asks for information
about possible crimes you and other household
members might have experienced during the past
6 months. It also includes questions on the
characteristics of the persons who committed
them. The survey will take about 10-20 minutes
to complete on average, depending on your
experiences. Please complete this form and
return in the postage paid envelope.
If you need help or have questions about
completing this form, please call 1-800XXX-XXXX. The telephone call is free.
For additional information about the
survey, or to complete the questionnaire
online, please visit www.scv.rti.org

Please print today’s date:
Month

Day

Year

How long have you lived at this address?
1
2

6 months or more
Less than 6 months

Please print your name and telephone number in
case we do not understand an answer:
First Name
Last Name

Area Code

+ Number

1a. During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
have any of the following items belonging to you
been stolen? Please mark “Yes” or “No” for each
item.
Yes
No


a. Luggage, a wallet, purse, briefcase,
1a
2a
book, or other things that you carry
b. Clothing, jewelry, or cell phone
1b
2b
c. Bicycle or sports equipment
1c
2c
d. Things in your home, such as a TV,
1d
2d
stereo, tools
e. Things outside your home, such as
1e
2e
a garden hose or lawn furniture
f. Things belonging to children in the
1f
2f
household
g. Things from a vehicle, such as a
1g
2g
package, groceries, camera, or CDs

3a. During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
has anyone stolen, attempted to steal, or use
without permission any of the following vehicles
or parts? Please mark “Yes” or “No” for each item.
Yes
No


a. A vehicle belonging to you or
1a
2a
anyone in your household
b. Any parts from a vehicle, such as a
1b
2b
tire, car stereo, hubcap, or battery
c. Gas from a vehicle belonging to
1c
2c
you or anyone in your household

3b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any vehicle-related thefts? Please
write ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

1b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any thefts? Please write ‘0’ if you
did not experience any thefts.
Number of times

2a. During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
has anyone broken in or attempted to break in
any of the following places? Please mark “Yes” or
“No” for each location.
Yes
No


a. Your home
1a
2a
b. Your garage, shed, or storage room
1b
2b
c. Your hotel room, motel room, or
1c
2c
vacation home

4a. Have you personally experienced any attacks,
OR threats, OR thefts at any of the following
locations during the past 6 months? Please mark
“Yes” or “No” for each location.
Yes
No


a. At home including the porch or
1a
2a
yard
b. At or near a friend’s, relative’s, or
1b
2b
neighbor’s home
c. At work or school
1c
2c
d. In places such as a storage shed or
laundry room, a shopping mall,
1d
2d
restaurant, bank, or airport
e. While riding in any vehicle
1e
2e
f. On the street or in a parking lot
1f
2f
g. At a party, theater, gym, picnic
area, bowling lanes, or while
1g
2g
fishing or hunting

2b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any break-ins? Please write ‘0’ if
you did not experience any break-ins.
Number of times

4b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience such attacks OR thefts OR threats?
Please write ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

5a. During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
have you personally been attacked or threatened
in any of the following ways? Do not include
telephone threats. Please mark “Yes” or “No” for
each.
Yes
No


a. With any weapon, such as a gun or
1a
2a
a knife
b. With anything like a baseball bat,
1b
2b
frying pan, scissors, or stick
c. By something thrown, such as a
1c
2c
rock or bottle
d. By grabbing, punching, or choking
1d
2d
e. By raping, attempting to rape, or
1e
2e
being sexually attacked in any way
f. By being threatened face to face
1f
2f

7a. During the past 6 months, that is since [DATE],
have any of the following people stolen something
from you? Please mark “Yes” or “No” for each
option.
Yes
No


a. Someone at work or school
1a
2a
b. A neighbor or friend
1b
2b
c. A relative or family member
1c
2c
d. Any other person you have met or
1d
2d
known

7b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience any thefts by such people? Please
write ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times

5b. Altogether, how many times during the past 6
months did this type of incident happen? Please
write ‘0’ if you did not experience any.
Number of times  IF more than 5
times, GO TO Question 6. IF 5 times
or less, continue with Question 4.

6a. People often do not think of incidents committed
by someone they know. During the past 6 months,
that is since [DATE], have any of the following
people attacked or threatened you in any way? Do
not include telephone threats. Please mark “Yes” or
“No” for each option.
Yes
No


a. Someone at work or school
1a
2a
b. A neighbor or friend
1b
2b
c. A relative or family member
1c
2c
d. Any other person you have met or
1d
2d
known

6b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you experience attacks or threats by such people?
Please write ‘0’ if you did not experience any.

8a. Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual
acts are often difficult to think about. During the
past 6 months, that is since [DATE], have you
been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted
sexual activity by any of the following people?
Please mark “Yes” or “No” for each option.
Yes
No


a. Someone you did not know
1a
2a
b. A casual acquaintance
1b
2b
c. Someone you know well
1c
2c

8b. How many times during the past 6 months did
you engage in unwanted sexual activity? Please
write ‘0’ if you did not engage in any.
Number of times

9a. Other than the incidents you already counted in
previous questions, during the past 6 months did
you call the police to report something that
happened to you or another household member,
which you thought was a crime?
1 Yes

Number of times
2

No  GO TO Question 10a

9b. Were you attacked or threatened in any way?
1 Yes
2 No

9c.

Did someone steal or attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or another household
member?
1 Yes
2 No

9d. How many times did you call the police to report
something that happened to you or another
household member?
Number of times

10a. Other than the incidents you already counted in
previous questions, during the past 6 months did
anything that you thought was a crime happen to
you or another household member, but you did
NOT report it to the police?
1 Yes
2

11. What is your gender?
1 Male
2 Female

12. What is your age?
1 18-29
2 30-49
3 50-69
4 70+

13. Did you have a job or work at a business last
week?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 19
2 No

14. Did you have a job or work at a business during
the last 6 months?
1 Yes
2 No

No  GO TO Question 11

10b. Were you attacked or threatened in any way?
1 Yes
2 No

10c. Did someone steal or attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or another household
member?
1 Yes
2 No

10d. How many times did something that you thought
was a crime happen to you or another household
member, but you did NOT report it to the police?
Number of times

The following questions collect basic demographic
information that is used for classification purposes.

15. What was the total combined income of all
members of this household during the past 12
months, that is since [DATE]? Please include
money from jobs, business, farm or rent, pensions,
dividends, interest, Social Security payments, and
any other money income received by members of
this HOUSEHOLD who are 18 years of age or
older.
1 Less than $10,000
2 $10,000-$19,999
3 $20,000-$34,999
4 $35,000-$49,999
5 $50,000-$75,999
6 $76,000 or more ________________________________________
Instruction Box A: If you reported at least one crime
incident during the past 6 months, please continue
with Incident 1 on the next page. Otherwise, please
follow the mailing istructions at the back of this
questionnaire booklet and return in the prepaid
envelope.

Incident 1
1.

When did the first incident take place? Please
think only about crimes within the past 6 months.
Month
Year

What did you experience during this incident?
Please check all that apply.
1 Stolen item(s)
2 Break in or attempted break in
3 Stolen vehicle, part or gas
4 An attack or a threat
5 Forced or unwanted sexual act
6 Other (Please specify)__________________

Altogether, how many times the type of incident
described above in Question 2 happened during
the past 6 months?

Where did this incident happen?
1 In own home, attached garage, or porch
2 In detached building on own property
(detached garage, storage shed)
3 In vacation home, second home, hotel or motel
room
4 Own yard, sidewalk, driveway, carport,
unenclosed porch (Do not include apartment
yards)  GO TO Question 10 page 6
5 Apartment hall, storage area, laundry room
(Please do not include apartment parking lot
or/garage)  GO TO Question 10 on page 6
6 On street immediately adjacent to own home or
lodging  GO TO Question 10 on page 6
7 In a public place  GO TO Question 10, p.6
8 At work or school  GO TO Question 10, p.6
9 Other (Please specify)__________________
GO TO Question 10 on page 6

Did someone get inside or try to get inside your
home, garage, shed or porch?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 6

Was there a broken lock or window, suggesting
that someone got in by force or tried to get in by
force?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 6

How could you tell that someone got in or tried to
get in by force? Please check all that apply.
1 Damage to window (including frame; broken,
removed, or cracked glass)
2 Window screen damaged or removed
3 Lock on window damaged or tampered with
in some way
4 Damage to door (including frame; glass panes
or door removed)
5 Door screen damaged or removed
6 Lock or door handle damaged or removed
7 Other (Please specify) __________________

Number of times  IF more than 5
times, GO TO Question 6. IF 5 times
or less, continue with Question 4.

Are the incidents similar to each other in detail or
are they for different types of crimes?
1 Similar
2 Different  GO TO Question 6

Can you recall enough detail of each incident to
distinguish them from each other?
1 Yes
2 No

Instruction Box B: If you answered “Yes” to
Question 5, please answer the following questions
about the FIRST incident of this type.
If you asnwered “No” to Question 5, please answer
the following questions about the MOST RECENT
incident of this type.

Incident 1 (continued)
10. Were you or other household members present
when this incident occurred?
1 I was present
2 I and other household members were present
3 Only other household members were present
 GO TO Question 23 on page 7
4 No one was present  GO TO Question 23
on page 7
11. Did the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, have a weapon, such as a gun or
knife, or something to use as a weapon?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 13
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 13
12. What kind of weapon did the offender have?
Please check all that apply.
1 Hand gun, such as a pistol or revolver
2 Other gun, such as a rifle or a shotgun
3 Knife
4 Sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, axe
5 Blunt object, such as a rock, club, blackjack
6 Other (Please specify) __________________
13. Did offender hit you, knock you down, or actually
attack you in any way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 19 on page 7
2 No
14. Did the offender try to attack you?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 17
2 No
15. Did the offender threaten you with harm in any
way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 18
2 No

16. What happened during the incident? Please
check all that apply.
1 Something was taken without
permission
2 Offender attempted or
threatened to take something
3 Offender harassed or argued
GO TO
with someone or used abusive
Question
language
23 on
4 Unwanted sexual contact
page 7
5 Forcible entry (or attempted
forcible entry) of house/
apartment or car
6 Damaged or destroyed property
7 Other (Please specify)
_________________________
17. How did the offender try to attack you? Please
check all that apply.
1 Unwanted sexual contact
2 Weapon present or attempted
attack with weapon (shot at but
GO TO
missed, attempted attack)
Question
3 Object thrown at person
23 on
4 Followed or surrounded
page 7
5 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
6 Other (Please specify)
__________________________
18. How did the offender threaten you? Please check
all that apply.
1 Verbal threat of rape or other
sexual assault
2 Verbal threat to attack or kill
3 Unwanted sexual contact
GO TO
4 Weapon present, threatened or
Question
attacked with weapon
23 on
5 Object thrown at person
page 7
Followed
or
surrounded
6
7 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
8 Other (Please specify)
_________________________

Incident 1 (continued)
19. How were you attacked? Please check all that
apply.
1 Raped
2 Tried to rape
3 Sexual assault other than rape or attempted
rape
4 Shot, shot at (but missed), hit with a gun held
in hand
5 Attempted attack with knife or sharp weapon
6 Stabbed, cut with knife, sharp weapon or hit
by object (other than gun) held in hand
7 Hit by thrown object
8 Attempted attack with weapon other than
gun/knife/sharp weapon
9 Hit, slapped, knocked down, grabbed, held,
tripped, jumped, pushed, etc
10 Other (Please specify) ____________________
20. Did you suffer any injuries?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 23
21. What were the injuries you suffered? Please
check all that apply.
1 Raped, attempted rape or sexual assault
2 Knife, stab wounds, gunshot, or bullet wounds
3 Broken bones, teeth knocked out, internal
injuries, knocked unconscious
4 Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling,
chipped teeth
5 Other (Please specify) ____________________
22. Were you injured to the extent that you received
any medical care, including self treatment?
1 Yes
2 No
6 Hospital
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
23. Was the crime committed by only one or by more
than one person?
1 Only one
2 More than one  GO TO Question 28
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 35 on page 8

24. Was the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, male or female?
1 Male
2 Female
3 Don’t know
25. How old would you say the offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
26. At the time of the incident, what was your
relationship with the offender?
1 Spouse or ex-spouse at time of incident
2 Parent or step-parent at time of incident
3 Child or step-child at time of incident
4 Brother or sister
5 Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or exgirlfriend, friend or ex-friend
6 Roommate, neighbor, co-worker or
schoolmate
7 Casual acquaintance
8 Stranger
9 Other (Please specify) __________________

27. What was the offender’s race? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
GO TO
4 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Question
Islander
35 on
5 American Indian or Alaska
page 8
Native
6 Don’t know
28. How many persons were there?

Number of persons

Incident 1 (continued)
29. Were the persons who committed the crime, that
is, the offenders, male or female?
1 All male
2 All female
3 Both male and female, but mostly male
4 Both male and female, but mostly female
5 Both male and female, evenly divided
6 Don’t know
30. How old would you say the youngest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
31. How old would you say the oldest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know

34. What were the offenders’ races? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5 American Indian or Alaska Native
6 Don’t know
35. Was something stolen or taken without
permission that belonged to you or other
household members?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 37
2 No
36. Did the offender (s) attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or others in the household?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 48 on page 10
37. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
items such as cash, purse, or credit cards? Please
check all that apply.

32. Were any of the offenders known to you, or were
they strangers you had never seen before?
1 All known
2 Some known
3 All strangers  GO TO Question 34
33. What was your relationship with any of the
offenders? Please check all that apply.
1 Spouse or ex-spouse at time of incident
2 Parent or step-parent at time of incident
3 Child or step-child at time of incident
4 Brother or sister
5 Boyfriend or girlfriend, ex-boyfriend or exgirlfriend
6 Friend or ex-friend
7 Other (Please specify) __________________

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Cash

b. Purse or wallet

c. Credit cards, check,
or bank cards

Instruction Box C: If you marked CASH, PURSE or
WALLET in Question 37, continue with Question 38
on page 9. Otherwise, GO TO Question 41 on page 9.

Incident 1 (continued)
38. Was the cash, purse, or wallet on your person?
1 Yes
2 No
Instruction Box D: If you marked CASH in Question
37, GO TO Question 40.
If you marked PURSE or WALLET in Question 37,
continue with Question 39.

39. Did the stolen purse or wallet contain any money?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 41
40. How much cash was taken?
$

41. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
vehicles or vehicle parts? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Car or other motor
vehicle

b. Part of motor vehicle,
accessories or
equipment

c. Gasoline or oil

d. Bicycle or bicycle
parts

Instruction Box E: If you marked CAR or MOTOR
VEHICLE in Question 41, continue with Question 42.
Otherwise, GO TO Question 44.

43. Did the offender return the car or motor vehicle?
1 Yes
2 No
44. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following objects? Please check all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. TV, DVD player,
VCR, stereo, other
household appliances

b. Silver, china, art
objects

c. Other household
furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)

45. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following personal items? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Portable electronics
and cameras

b. Clothing, furs,
luggage

c. Jewelry, watch, keys,
stamps or coin
collections

d. Toys, sports and
recreation equipment

e. Other personal and
portable objects

42. Had permission to use the car or motor vehicle
been given to the offender(s)?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 44
9

Incident 1 (continued)
46. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following miscellaneous items? Please check
all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


50. How would you describe what happened during
the incident in your own words?

Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Handgun or other
firearm

b. Tools, machines,
office equipment

c. Farm or garden
produce

d. Pets or livestock

e. Food or liquor

47. Not counting any stolen cash, checks or credit
cards, what was the value of the property that
was taken? Please include recovered property.
$

48. Were the police informed about this incident?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 50

49.

Who informed the police about the incident?
1 Someone living or staying with me
2 Someone official (guard, apartment manager,
etc.)
3 Someone else informed the police
4 Police were at scene
5 Offender was a police officer
6 Other (Please specify)___________________

Instruction Box F: Please go to the next page and
continue with the questions about the NEXT theft,
break-in, attack, threat or unwanted sexual act you
have experienced in the past 6 months, that is since
[DATE].
If you reported only one incident in Questions 1a-10d
on pages 2 and 4, please follow the mailing
instructions at the end of the questionnaire.

Incident 2
1.

When did the next incident take place? Please
think only about crimes within the past 6 months.
Month
Year

Altogether, how many times the type of incident
described above in Question 2 happened during
the past 6 months?

Where did this incident happen?
1 In own home, attached garage, or porch
2 In detached building on own property
(detached garage, storage shed)
3 In vacation home, second home, hotel or motel
room
4 Own yard, sidewalk, driveway, carport,
unenclosed porch (Do not include apartment
yards)  GO TO Question 10 on page 12
5 Apartment hall, storage area, laundry room
(Please do not include apartment parking lot
or/garage)  GO TO Question 10 on page 12
6 On street immediately adjacent to own home or
lodging  GO TO Question 10 on page 12
7 In a public place  GO TO Question 10
8 At work or school  GO TO Question 10
9 Other (Please specify)__________________
GO TO Question 10 on page 12

Did someone get inside or try to get inside your
home, garage, shed or porch?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 12

Was there a broken lock or window, suggesting
that someone got in by force or tried to get in by
force?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 12

Number of times  IF more than 5
times, GO TO Question 6. IF 5 times
or less, continue with Question 4.

Are the incidents similar to each other in detail or
are they for different types of crimes?
1 Similar
2 Different  GO TO Question 6

Can you recall enough detail of each incident to
distinguish them from each other?
1 Yes
2 No

Incident 2 (continued)
10. Were you or other household members present
when this incident occurred?
1 I was present
2 I and other household members were present
3 Only other household members were present
 GO TO Question 23 on page 13
4 No one was present  GO TO Question 23
on page 13
11. Did the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, have a weapon, such as a gun or
knife, or something to use as a weapon?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 13
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 13
12. What kind of weapon did the offender have?
Please check all that apply.
1 Hand gun, such as a pistol or revolver
2 Other gun, such as a rifle or a shotgun
3 Knife
4 Sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, axe
5 Blunt object, such as a rock, club, blackjack
6 Other (Please specify) __________________
13. Did offender hit you, knock you down, or actually
attack you in any way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 19 on page 13
2 No
14. Did the offender try to attack you?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 17
2 No
15. Did the offender threaten you with harm in any
way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 18
2 No

16. What happened during the incident? Please
check all that apply.
1 Something was taken without
permission
2 Offender attempted or
threatened to take something
3 Offender harassed or argued
GO TO
with someone or used abusive
Question
language
23 on
4 Unwanted sexual contact
page 13
5 Forcible entry (or attempted
forcible entry) of house/
apartment or car
6 Damaged or destroyed property
7 Other (Please specify)
_________________________
17. How did the offender try to attack you? Please
check all that apply.
1 Unwanted sexual contact
2 Weapon present or attempted
attack with weapon (shot at but
GO TO
missed, attempted attack)
Question
3 Object thrown at person
23 on
4 Followed or surrounded
page 13
5 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
6 Other (Please specify)
__________________________
18. How did the offender threaten you? Please check
all that apply.
1 Verbal threat of rape or other
sexual assault
2 Verbal threat to attack or kill
3 Unwanted sexual contact
GO TO
4 Weapon present, threatened or
Question
attacked with weapon
23 on
5 Object thrown at person
page 13
Followed
or
surrounded
6
7 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
8 Other (Please specify)
_________________________

Incident 2 (continued)
19. How were you attacked? Please check all that
apply.
1 Raped
2 Tried to rape
3 Sexual assault other than rape or attempted
rape
4 Shot, shot at (but missed), hit with a gun held
in hand
5 Attempted attack with knife or sharp weapon
6 Stabbed, cut with knife, sharp weapon or hit
by object (other than gun) held in hand
7 Hit by thrown object
8 Attempted attack with weapon other than
gun/knife/sharp weapon
9 Hit, slapped, knocked down, grabbed, held,
tripped, jumped, pushed, etc
10 Other (Please specify) ____________________
20. Did you suffer any injuries?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 23
21. What were the injuries you suffered? Please
check all that apply.
1 Raped, attempted rape or sexual assault
2 Knife, stab wounds, gunshot, or bullet wounds
3 Broken bones, teeth knocked out, internal
injuries, knocked unconscious
4 Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling,
chipped teeth
5 Other (Please specify) ____________________
22. Were you injured to the extent that you received
any medical care, including self treatment?
1 Yes
2 No
6 Hospital
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
23. Was the crime committed by only one or by more
than one person?
1 Only one
2 More than one  GO TO Question 28
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 35 on page 8

27. What was the offender’s race? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
GO TO
4 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Question
Islander
35 on
5 American Indian or Alaska
page 14
Native
6 Don’t know
28. How many persons were there?

Number of persons

Incident 2 (continued)
29. Were the persons who committed the crime, that
is, the offenders, male or female?
1 All male
2 All female
3 Both male and female, but mostly male
4 Both male and female, but mostly female
5 Both male and female, evenly divided
6 Don’t know
30. How old would you say the youngest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
31. How old would you say the oldest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know

34. What were the offenders’ races? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5 American Indian or Alaska Native
6 Don’t know
35. Was something stolen or taken without
permission that belonged to you or other
household members?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 37
2 No
36. Did the offender (s) attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or others in the household?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 48 on page 16
37. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
items such as cash, purse, or credit cards? Please
check all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Cash

b. Purse or wallet

c. Credit cards, check,
or bank cards

Instruction Box H: If you marked CASH, PURSE or
WALLET in Question 37, continue with Question 38
on page 15. Otherwise, GO TO Question 41 on page
15.

Incident 2 (continued)
38. Was the cash, purse, or wallet on your person?
1 Yes
2 No
Instruction Box I: If you marked CASH in Question
37, GO TO Question 40.
If you marked PURSE or WALLET in Question 37,
continue with Question 39.

39. Did the stolen purse or wallet contain any money?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 41
40. How much cash was taken?
$

41. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
vehicles or vehicle parts? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Car or other motor
vehicle

b. Part of motor vehicle,
accessories or
equipment

c. Gasoline or oil

d. Bicycle or bicycle
parts

Instruction Box J: If you marked CAR or MOTOR
VEHICLE in Question 41, continue with Question 42.
Otherwise, GO TO Question 44.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. TV, DVD player,
VCR, stereo, other
household appliances

b. Silver, china, art
objects

c. Other household
furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)

45. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following personal items? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Portable electronics
and cameras

b. Clothing, furs,
luggage

c. Jewelry, watch, keys,
stamps or coin
collections

d. Toys, sports and
recreation equipment

e. Other personal and
portable objects

42. Had permission to use the car or motor vehicle
been given to the offender(s)?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 44
15

Incident 2 (continued)
46. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following miscellaneous items? Please check
all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


50. How would you describe what happened during
the incident in your own words?

Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Handgun or other
firearm

b. Tools, machines,
office equipment

c. Farm or garden
produce

d. Pets or livestock

e. Food or liquor

47. Not counting any stolen cash, checks or credit
cards, what was the value of the property that
was taken? Please include recovered property.
$

48. Were the police informed about this incident?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 50

49.

Instruction Box K: Please go to the next page and
continue with the questions about the NEXT theft,
break-in, attack, threat or unwanted sexual act you
have experienced in the past 6 months, that is since
[DATE].
If you reported only one incident in Questions 1a-10d
on pages 2 and 4, please follow the mailing
instructions at the end of the questionnaire.

Incident 3
1.

When did the next incident take place? Please
think only about crimes within the past 6 months.
Month
Year

Altogether, how many times the type of incident
described above in Question 2 happened during
the past 6 months?

Where did this incident happen?
1 In own home, attached garage, or porch
2 In detached building on own property
(detached garage, storage shed)
3 In vacation home, second home, hotel or motel
room
4 Own yard, sidewalk, driveway, carport,
unenclosed porch (Do not include apartment
yards)  GO TO Question 10 page 18
5 Apartment hall, storage area, laundry room
(Please do not include apartment parking lot
or/garage)  GO TO Question 10 on page 18
6 On street immediately adjacent to own home or
lodging  GO TO Question 10 on page 18
7 In a public place  GO TO Question 10
8 At work or school  GO TO Question 10
9 Other (Please specify)__________________
GO TO Question 10 on page 18

Did someone get inside or try to get inside your
home, garage, shed or porch?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 18

Was there a broken lock or window, suggesting
that someone got in by force or tried to get in by
force?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 10 on page 18

Number of times  IF more than 5
times, GO TO Question 6. IF 5 times
or less, continue with Question 4.

Are the incidents similar to each other in detail or
are they for different types of crimes?
1 Similar
2 Different  GO TO Question 6

Can you recall enough detail of each incident to
distinguish them from each other?
1 Yes
2 No

Incident 3 (continued)
10. Were you or other household members present
when this incident occurred?
1 I was present
2 I and other household members were present
3 Only other household members were present
 GO TO Question 23 on page 19
4 No one was present  GO TO Question 23
on page 19
11. Did the person who committed the crime, that is,
the offender, have a weapon, such as a gun or
knife, or something to use as a weapon?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 13
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 13
12. What kind of weapon did the offender have?
Please check all that apply.
1 Hand gun, such as a pistol or revolver
2 Other gun, such as a rifle or a shotgun
3 Knife
4 Sharp object such as scissors, ice pick, axe
5 Blunt object, such as a rock, club, blackjack
6 Other (Please specify) __________________
13. Did offender hit you, knock you down, or actually
attack you in any way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 19 on page 19
2 No
14. Did the offender try to attack you?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 17
2 No
15. Did the offender threaten you with harm in any
way?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 18
2 No

16. What happened during the incident? Please
check all that apply.
1 Something was taken without
permission
2 Offender attempted or
threatened to take something
3 Offender harassed or argued
GO TO
with someone or used abusive
Question
language
23 on
4 Unwanted sexual contact
page 19
5 Forcible entry (or attempted
forcible entry) of house/
apartment or car
6 Damaged or destroyed property
7 Other (Please specify)
_________________________
17. How did the offender try to attack you? Please
check all that apply.
1 Unwanted sexual contact
2 Weapon present or attempted
attack with weapon (shot at but
GO TO
missed, attempted attack)
Question
3 Object thrown at person
23 on
4 Followed or surrounded
page 19
5 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
6 Other (Please specify)
__________________________
18. How did the offender threaten you? Please check
all that apply.
1 Verbal threat of rape or other
sexual assault
2 Verbal threat to attack or kill
3 Unwanted sexual contact
GO TO
4 Weapon present, threatened or
Question
attacked with weapon
23 on
5 Object thrown at person
page 19
Followed
or
surrounded
6
7 Tried to hit, slap, knock down,
grab, hold, trip, jump, push
8 Other (Please specify)
_________________________

Incident 3 (continued)
19. How were you attacked? Please check all that
apply.
1 Raped
2 Tried to rape
3 Sexual assault other than rape or attempted
rape
4 Shot, shot at (but missed), hit with a gun held
in hand
5 Attempted attack with knife or sharp weapon
6 Stabbed, cut with knife, sharp weapon or hit
by object (other than gun) held in hand
7 Hit by thrown object
8 Attempted attack with weapon other than
gun/knife/sharp weapon
9 Hit, slapped, knocked down, grabbed, held,
tripped, jumped, pushed, etc
10 Other (Please specify) ____________________
20. Did you suffer any injuries?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 23
21. What were the injuries you suffered? Please
check all that apply.
1 Raped, attempted rape or sexual assault
2 Knife, stab wounds, gunshot, or bullet wounds
3 Broken bones, teeth knocked out, internal
injuries, knocked unconscious
4 Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling,
chipped teeth
5 Other (Please specify) ____________________
22. Were you injured to the extent that you received
any medical care, including self treatment?
1 Yes
2 No
6 Hospital
7 Other (Please specify) ____________________
23. Was the crime committed by only one or by more
than one person?
1 Only one
2 More than one  GO TO Question 28
3 Don’t know  GO TO Question 35, page 20

27. What was the offender’s race? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
GO TO
4 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Question
Islander
35 on
5 American Indian or Alaska
page 20
Native
6 Don’t know
28. How many persons were there?

Number of persons

Incident 3 (continued)
29. Were the persons who committed the crime, that
is, the offenders, male or female?
1 All male
2 All female
3 Both male and female, but mostly male
4 Both male and female, but mostly female
5 Both male and female, evenly divided
6 Don’t know
30. How old would you say the youngest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know
31. How old would you say the oldest offender was?
1 Under 12
2 12-17
3 18-29
4 30 or older
5 Don’t know

34. What were the offenders’ races? Please check all
that apply.
1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian
4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
5 American Indian or Alaska Native
6 Don’t know
35. Was something stolen or taken without
permission that belonged to you or other
household members?
1 Yes  GO TO Question 37
2 No
36. Did the offender (s) attempt to steal something
that belonged to you or others in the household?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 48 on page 22
37. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
items such as cash, purse, or credit cards? Please
check all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Cash

b. Purse or wallet

c. Credit cards, check,
or bank cards

Instruction Box M: If you marked CASH, PURSE or
WALLET in Question 37, continue with Question 38
on page 21. Otherwise, GO TO Question 41 on page
21.

Incident 3 (continued)
38. Was the cash, purse, or wallet on your person?
1 Yes
2 No
Instruction Box N: If you marked CASH in Question
37, GO TO Question 40.
If you marked PURSE or WALLET in Question 37,
continue with Question 39.

39. Did the stolen purse or wallet contain any money?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 41
40. How much cash was taken?
$

41. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any
vehicles or vehicle parts? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Car or other motor
vehicle

b. Part of motor vehicle,
accessories or
equipment

c. Gasoline or oil

d. Bicycle or bicycle
parts

Instruction Box O: If you marked CAR or MOTOR
VEHICLE in Question 41, continue with Question 42.
Otherwise, GO TO Question 44.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. TV, DVD player,
VCR, stereo, other
household appliances

b. Silver, china, art
objects

c. Other household
furnishings (furniture,
rugs, etc.)

45. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following personal items? Please check all that
apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Portable electronics
and cameras

b. Clothing, furs,
luggage

c. Jewelry, watch, keys,
stamps or coin
collections

d. Toys, sports and
recreation equipment

e. Other personal and
portable objects

42. Had permission to use the car or motor vehicle
been given to the offender(s)?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 44
21

Incident 3 (continued)
46. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you
or others living or staying at this address any of
the following miscellaneous items? Please check
all that apply.

Stole


Tried
to
Steal


Did Not
Steal or
Try to
Steal


a. Handgun or other
firearm

b. Tools, machines,
office equipment

c. Farm or garden
produce

d. Pets or livestock

e. Food or liquor

47. Not counting any stolen cash, checks or credit
cards, what was the value of the property that
was taken? Please include recovered property.
$

48. Were the police informed about this incident?
1 Yes
2 No  GO TO Question 50

49.

50. How would you describe what happened during
the incident in your own words?

Thank you for completing the survey!
Please place your Questionnaire in the envelope provided and
return to RTI International. If the envelope has been misplaced,
please mail the questionnaire to:
RTI International – [project number]
3040 E Cornwallis Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Appendix B:

Cognitive Test Materials

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-1

SCV-mail

Survey of Crime Victimization
Testing Protocol Guide: Mail
Participant ID #:
|___|___|___|___|___|
(First & last initial, 3-digit sequential)
Interview Date:
Start Time:

|___|___| / |___|___| / |_2_|_0_|_1_|_1_| (mm/dd/yyyy)

____________ AM / PM

Screening notes (WRITE DOWN TYPES OF CRIMES RESPONDENT REPORTED DURING SCREENING):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-2

SCV-mail

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
READ OR PARAPHRASE THE INTRODUCTION:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview and filling out the survey form. The Survey of Crime
Victimization (SCV) is a study designed to collect information on the types and amount of crime committed
against households and individuals. The purpose of the SCV is to evaluate the best ways to collect crime
victimization data from households across the United States. The study is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice. Today, we are hoping to get your feedback and opinions on these
questions, as well as your thoughts on whether you were able to answer them.
We will start by having you fill out a portion of the questionnaire, then I will stop you and ask you some
questions about your answers and your interpretation of the questions. Sometimes the questions I ask you may
sound a little strange. For example, I might ask you what a certain word means to you. The reason for this is to
see if people interpret things differently. There are no right or wrong answers and we are interviewing as many
people as possible so that we can find the terms and questions that will work best for everyone. Please feel free
to tell me anything that comes to mind or ask me anything you are unclear about. We are also very interested in
finding out which questions required a lot of effort, which ones made you feel uncomfortable, and which ones
you were not able to answer at all.
Your participation in this interview is very important because it will help the Bureau of Justice Statistics
improve the questionnaire. When we are done, I will give you $40 as compensation for your time, and I will ask
you to sign a receipt to document that you have received it.
Do you have any questions before we begin?

NOTE:


PARTICIPANT‘S RESPONSES TO SCV QUESTIONS WILL BE COMPLETED ON THE SEPARATE
QUESTIONNAIRE ("SURVEY OF CRIME VICTIMIZATION‖ SELF-ADMINISTERED MAIL VERSION).



RECORD PARTICIPANT‘S RESPONSES TO PROBES ON THIS FORM.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-3

SCV-mail

SECTION II: CONSENT
Before we start, I‘m going to give you a written consent form that we‘ll go over together. Please feel free to ask
any questions you may have as we go through the form. This document explains the following:







The purpose of this interview is to test the survey instrument designed by RTI and BJS for the Survey of
Crime Victimization. IF OBSERVERS: Some members of the Bureau of Justice Statistics are here
today to observe the interviews to see how well the questions work.
The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes, depending on your experiences. You will receive
$40 as compensation for your time.
Your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may choose not to answer any
questions you don‘t want to answer.
All the information you give us will be kept confidential and you will not be identified on any of our
reports.
If you have any questions about the study, you may contact Susan Kinsey at 1-800-334-8571 ext. 7726.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may call 1-866214-2043, a toll free number.
In addition, with your permission we would like to have this session audio recorded – this will help us
when we write the summary report. [ADD IF APPLICABLE: We would also like your permission for
this interview to be observed by another member of the RTI-BJS project team.]

Once we‘re finished going over the form and have all of your questions answered, I‘ll ask you to sign and date
both sections on the form.
INTERVIEWER:
1. DID THE PARTICIPANT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?
1 Yes
2 No

 (SKIP TO QUESTION 3)

2. PLEASE SPECIFY:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
INTERVIEWER: READ THE INFORMED CONSENT TO THE PARTICIPANT AND HAVE
HIM/HER SIGN IT.
3. HAS THE PARTICIPANT SIGNED THE INFORMED CONSENT?
1 Yes
2 No

 (END INTERVIEW)

4. GIVE RESPONDENT AN UNSIGNED COPY OF THE CONSENT FORM: Here is a copy of this form for
you to keep.
Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-4

SCV-mail

SECTION III: COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING
IF CONSENT WAS GIVEN, START TAPE RECORDER. COLLECT VERBAL CONSENT FOR
TAPE RECORDING.
Now, if you‘re ready, I‘d like to get started asking you some of the questions from the Survey of Crime
Victimization. This is the type of survey you would receive in the mail or be asked to complete over the
Internet. While we go over the questions, please try to remember how difficult it was to find the requested
information and what questions you were NOT able to answer by yourself or had difficulty interpreting.
As I said earlier, this is NOT any kind of test and there are no right or wrong answers. We are reviewing these
questions with as many people as possible to see how different people interpret the questions.
Do you have any questions?
I would like for you to start by completing the first four pages of this survey, starting with the cover. Pretend I am not here
and you just received this in the mail. Let me know when you are done, so that I can ask you some follow-up questions
about what you completed. SHOW RESPONDENT WHICH PAGES TO COMPLETE ON SURVEY. WRITE ―STOP‖
AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4. When asked for your name or the name of any household member, please give only
first and last initials. Also, enter ―Xs‖ when asked for your phone number.
You may begin.
ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO COMPLETE THE SCREENER (PAGES 1-4) AND THEN STOP THEM.
RECORD HOW LONG IT TAKES TO COMPLETE EACH SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
SCREENER OBSERVATIONS: DOCUMENT ANY ITEMS WHERE THE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR
APPEARED TO HAVE PROBLEMS COMPLETING THE PAPER FORM, CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER,
OR STRUGGLED WITH NAVIGATION/SKIP INSTRUCTIONS.

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR HAD TROUBLE:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT STRUGGLED WITH NAVIGATION: _____________________
ITEM(S) REQUIRED BUT LEFT BLANK BY RESPONDENT:

_____________________

Thank you. I would like to review the answers you have provided so far to see if there any sections of this survey that you
can skip. Can you give me just a minute to review your answers?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-5

SCV-mail

CHECKPOINT – DETERMINE IF INCIDENT REPORTS ARE NEEDED
WRITE DOWN THE QUESTION NUMBER (E.G., Q3a) FROM THE SCREENER THAT HAS AT LEAST ONE
“YES” RESPONSE MARKED:
SCREEN QUESTION NUMBER: __________________
SCREEN QUESTION NUMBER: __________________
SCREEN QUESTION NUMBER: __________________
IF AT LEAST ONE QUESTION HAS AT LEAST ONE YES MARKED, CONTINUE WITH SECTION A.
SCREENER BELOW.
IF RESPONDENT DID NOT REPORT ANY CRIMES IN THE SCV SCREENER, REFER TO SCREENING
NOTES ON P.1 OF THIS PROTOCOL GUIDE TO FIND OUT WHY CRIMES WERE REPORTED DURING
TELEPHONE SCREENING. IF RESPONDENT HAS NOT EXPERIENCED ANY CRIMES DURING THE
PAST 6 MONTHS, PROBE ON EVERY SCREENER QUESTION AND THEN END INTERVIEW.
A. SCREENER
Start Time: ______________AM/PM End Time: ____________ AM / PM
[Now, I'd like to ask your opinion about some of the questions you have answered. Some of these questions may sound
like I am giving you a test, but remember there are no right or wrong answers. We just want to see what people think
about the questions and if they make sense to everyone. I am going to repeat the survey question and I will ask you some
follow up questions.
POSITION SURVEY FORM SO THAT BOTH YOU AND RESPONDENT CAN SEE IT. POINT TO THE QUESTION
THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING AND REPEAT ALOUD IF NECESSARY.
INTRODUCE THE SURVEY QUESTIONS ONE BY ONE (e.g ―The first question I want to ask you about is…‖.]
1a. During the past 6 months, that is since ________2010, have any of the following items belonging to you been
stolen?
1b. How many times?


What were you thinking when you answered this question? Were you thinking of anything else that was not on the
list?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-6

SCV-mail



When you answered about things outside your home, such as a garden hose, or lawn furniture, were you thinking of
items belonging only to you, or in general, items belonging to the household or someone else in the household?

What period of time were you thinking about?



[IF A NUMBER >1 PROVIDED] How easy was it to remember the number of times you experienced any thefts?
(Did you count separate occasions during the past 6 months or did you count different things that might have been
stolen at the same time?)

Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking?

Were you thinking of anyone else in your household when you answered this question?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-7

SCV-mail



[IF A NUMBER >1 PROVIDED] How easy was it to remember the number of times you experienced any thefts or
attempted thefts of vehicles or vehicle parts? (Did you count separate occasions during the past 6 months or did you
count different things that might have been stolen at the same time?)

Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking? (Were you thinking of attacks AND threats AND
thefts that occurred at the same time, or were you thinking of ANY of those you might have experienced?)

What kind of attacks were you thinking about?

What kind of threats were you thinking about? Were you also considering telephone threats?

What kind of thefts were you thinking about? Were you considering possible thefts already reported in Q1a and 3a?

Were you thinking of your experiences only, or also about someone else living with you?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-8

SCV-mail



What does ―incident‖ mean to you in this context?

Did you read the whole questions? (Did you find the question too long?)

Were you thinking of your experiences only, or also about someone else living with you?

What did you think of the introduction (Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to
think about)?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-9

SCV-mail



Can you think of crimes (you have experienced) that are not covered by these questions?

Other than the incidents you already counted in previous questions, did you call the police to report
something that happened to you or another household member, which you thought was a crime?
In your own words, what is this question asking?

What does ―household‖ mean to you? (Who were you thinking of when answering this question?)

Did you notice the instruction ―other than the incidents you already counted‖? How did you come up with your
answer?

[IF YES] Why did not include this crime in your answers to the previous questions (1a-8b)?

What does ―crime‖ mean to you?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-10

SCV-mail

10a. Other than the incidents your already counted in previous questions, during the past 6 months, did anything
that you thought was a crime happen to you personally, but you did NOT report it to the police?
 How did you come up with your answer? (Do you think this question is asking for a different type of information than
Q9a?)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Did you notice the instruction ―other than the incidents you already counted‖? How did you come up with your
answer?

[IF YES] Why did not include this crime in your answers to the previous questions (1a-8b)?

[Apart from the questions you already pointed out] What questions were difficult for you to answer? (IF
RESPONDENT LEFT CERTAIN QUESTIONS BLANK: Why didn‘t you answer this question?)

How did you feel about providing your demographic information? Would you have any reservations if you receive
this questionnaire in the mail and decide to fill it out?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-11

SCV-mail

15. What was the total combined income of all members in this household during the past 12 months?
 Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


How did you come up with your answer? (What did you include?)

Did you find the response options appropriate? (Did you have difficulty identifying the category you fall into?)

[Apart from the questions you already pointed out] What questions were difficult for you to answer? (IF
RESPONDENT LEFT CERTAIN QUESTIONS BLANK: Why didn‘t you answer this question?)

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-12

SCV-mail

B. INCIDENT 1
Start Time: ______________AM/PM End Time: ____________ AM / PM

CIR 1 OBSERVATIONS: DOCUMENT ANY ITEMS WHERE THE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR APPEARED
TO HAVE PROBLEMS COMPLETING THE PAPER FORM, CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER, OR STRUGGLED
WITH NAVIGATION/SKIP INSTRUCTIONS.
ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR HAD TROUBLE:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT STRUGGLED WITH NAVIGATION: _____________________
ITEM(S) REQUIRED BUT LEFT BLANK BY RESPONDENT:

_____________________

QUESTION NUMBERING AND HEADER
 Did you notice the next section started with Question 1? Did you find this confusing?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Did you notice the ―Incident 1‖ header at the top of the page? What did this suggest to you?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-13

SCV-mail

1. When did the first incident take place?
 How did you come up with your answer? (Did you consider different types of crimes that happened at the same time
as one incident, or are you counting them as separate incidents even though they occurred at the same time?)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
 How sure are you of this date?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What did you experience during this incident?
 How did you come up with your answer? (Did you consider different types of crimes that happened at the same time
as one incident, or are you counting them as separate incidents even though they occurred at the same time?)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


OBSERVATION DATA: WHICH SCREENER CRIME(S) DID RESPONDENT CHOOSE TO REPORT AS
HIS/HER FIRST INCIDENT? IS THE SELECTED CRIME EASY TO TIE BACK TO THE SCREENER
QUESTIONS?

[IF MULTIPLE ITEMS CHECKED IN Q2] Did you count the times when more than 1 crime happened at the same
time, or did you count each of them separately?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-14

SCV-mail



How did you interpret ―the type of incident described above in Q2‖ ?

How did you decide which question to answer next? How easy did you find the instructions about what question to
answer next?

How would you report on something that happens every day (e.g. home violence/assault)? Would you count every
separate occasion in Q3? Would you report it as one crime incident?

How did you interpret ―incident of this type‖?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-15

SCV-mail



Did this question flow well with the rest? Did you know which crime incident it was referring to? How did you
answer it? [NOTE IF R GOT TO Q6 FROM Q3, OR HAD TO ANSWER Q4 AND Q5)

To whom does ―someone‖ refer?

9. How could you tell that someone got in or tried to get in by force?


Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking?

Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking? (TRY TO UNDERSTAND HOW RESPONDENT
INTERPRETED THE QUESTION ESPECIALLY IF INCIDENT DID NOT OCCUR AT RESPONDENT‘S HOME)

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-16

SCV-mail



Did you notice the ―Incident 1 Continued‖ header at the top of the page? What did this suggest to you?

NOT ALL RESPONDENTS RECEIVED THIS QUESTION. ONLY ASKS PROBES ABOUT CLARITY OF
QUESTION, READ THE INTRODUCTION IF NECESSARY.
[You may not have had to answer this next question, but we would still like to get your thoughts on it.]

16. What happened during the incident?


How did you come up with your answer?

What does ‗unwanted sexual contact‖ mean to you?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-17

SCV-mail

19. How were you attacked?
 How did you come up with your answer?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


What does ‗sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape‘ (one of the response options) mean to you?

How did you come up with your answer?

How did you interpret ―offender‖ in this question?

What do you think of the response options? Do you think anything is missing?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-18

SCV-mail

34. What were the offenders’ races?


How would you answer this question if you knew the races of only some of the offenders?

Q37-42: CHECK RESPONSES TO Q37 AND 41 AND SKIP LOGIC. IF SKIPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED
CORRECTLY, ASK RESPONDENTS WHY THEY ANSWERED CERTAIN QUESTIONS THEY WERE NOT
SUPPOSED TO ANSWER AND HOW THEY INTERPRETED THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION.
PROBE ON ANY MISSED SKIPS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS, ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NOT ALL RESPONDENTS RECEIVED THIS QUESTION. ONLY ASKS PROBES ABOUT CLARITY OF
QUESTION, READ THE INTRODUCTION IF NECESSARY.
[You may not have had to answer this next question, but we would still like to get your thoughts on it.]

44.


Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you or others living or staying at this address any of the
following objects?
Can you tell me in your own words what this question is asking?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-19

SCV-mail

45. Did the offender(s) steal or try to steal from you or others living or staying at this address any of the following
personal items?
 What does ‗portable electronics‘ mean to you?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
 What does ‗personal and portable objects‘ mean to you?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
 How did you come up with your answer?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NOT ALL RESPONDENTS RECEIVED THIS QUESTION. ONLY ASK OF THOSE WHO WERE ELIGIBLE TO
RESPOND.
47. Not counting any stolen cash, checks or credit cards, what was the value of the property that was taken?
 How did you come up with your answer? Did you include the value of everything that was stolen, or did you exclude
cash, checks, etc.?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


How confident are you in this number?

INSTRUCTION BOX F:
 Did you notice the instruction box? Did you read the instructions? Did you find them easy or difficult to understand?
How did you decide which question to answer next?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-20

SCV-mail

Now, before we move to the next section, I would like to know how many of these questions you had difficulties
answering, felt uncomfortable, or did not want to provide a response.


[Apart from the questions you already pointed out] What questions were difficult for you to answer? (IF
RESPONDENT LEFT CERTAIN QUESTIONS BLANK: Why didn‘t you answer this question?)

C. INCIDENT 2

Start Time: ______________AM/PM End Time: ____________ AM / PM
CIR 2 OBSERVATIONS: DOCUMENT ANY ITEMS WHERE THE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR APPEARED
TO HAVE PROBLEMS COMPLETING THE PAPER FORM, CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER, OR STRUGGLED
WITH NAVIGATION/SKIP INSTRUCTIONS.
ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR HAD TROUBLE:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT STRUGGLED WITH NAVIGATION: _____________________
ITEM(S) REQUIRED BUT LEFT BLANK BY RESPONDENT:



_____________________

Did you notice the next section started with Question 1? Did you find this confusing?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-21

SCV-mail



Did you notice the ―Incident 2‖ header at the top of the page? What did this suggest to you?

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1. When did the next incident take place?
 How did you interpret ‗the next incident‘?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What did you experience during this incident?
OBSERVATION DATA: WHICH SCREENER CRIME(S) DID RESPONDENT CHOOSE TO REPORT AS HIS/HER
FIRST INCIDENT? IS THE SELECTED CRIME EASY TO TIE BACK TO THE SCREENER QUESTIONS?
________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
CHECK SKIP LOGIC. IF SKIPS WERE NOT FOLLOWED CORRECTLY, ASK RESPONDENTS WHY THEY
ANSWERED CERTAIN QUESTIONS THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO ANSWER AND HOW THEY
INTERPRETED THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.
PROBE ON ANY MISSED SKIPS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS, ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

D. INCIDENT 3
Start Time: ______________AM/PM End Time: ____________ AM / PM

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-22

SCV-mail

CIR 3 OBSERVATIONS: DOCUMENT ANY ITEMS WHERE THE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR APPEARED
TO HAVE PROBLEMS COMPLETING THE PAPER FORM, CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER, OR STRUGGLED
WITH NAVIGATION/SKIP INSTRUCTIONS.
ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR HAD TROUBLE:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT STRUGGLED WITH NAVIGATION: _____________________
ITEM(S) REQUIRED BUT LEFT BLANK BY RESPONDENT:



_____________________

Did you notice the next section started with Question 1? Did you find this confusing?

Did you notice the ―Incident 3‖ header at the top of the page? What did this suggest to you?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-23

SCV-mail

E. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
We are considering making this table part of the survey to be able to gather information on everyone who lives in
the household. This would let us send questionnaires to all the other adults in the household. Please take your time
to fill out this information. Pretend this was the second page of the survey you just filled out.

Start Time: ______________AM/PM End Time: ____________ AM / PM



Did you have any difficulties answering this question? Was it difficult to provide any of the requested information
about your other household members?

Who did you include in the table?

Would you have any reservations providing this information in a mail survey? Why or why not?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-24

SCV-mail

SECTION IV: CONCLUSION
These are all my questions. Thank you very much for your opinions.


Do you have any overall opinions about the questions?

Do you have any other comments or concerns?

After hearing all of my questions, do you have any questions for me?

I want to thank you very much for your participation.
INTERVIEWER: TURN OFF THE TAPE RECORDER. HAND THE CASH INCENTIVE TO THE PARTICIPANT.
End Time: ____________ AM / PM

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-25

Craig’s List Recruitment Advertisement
Research Volunteers Needed. RTI International, a not-for-profit research organization located in RTP, is
looking for adults over the age of 18 who have ever experienced any of the following crimes: theft, burglary or
robbery; actual or attempted unwanted sexual experiences; and/or physical violence. Information will be kept
confidential. The private interview will be conducted at our RTP office and will take approximately 60-90
minutes, depending on your experiences. The purpose of the interview is to help test survey questions. Receive
$40 as compensation for your time if you qualify and complete the interview. Please call XXXXXXX at 919541-XXXX to determine eligibility for participation.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-26

Survey of Crime Victimization Cognitive Interview Recruitment Flyer

Crime Experience Interview
RTI International, a not-for-profit research organization
located in RTP, is looking for adults over age 18 to
participate in an interview to test survey questions.
Please contact RTI if you have ever experienced
any of the following:
 Theft, burglary or robbery
 Actual or attempted unwanted sexual experiences
 Physical violence


 Information will be kept confidential
 Private interview takes about 60–90 minutes and will be held
at RTI‘s office in Research Triangle Park
 Participants will be given $40 cash in compensation for their
time if they qualify and complete the interview
 No tests required
Please Call XXXXXXX (RTI International)
at 919-541-XXXX to see if you qualify.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-27

Survey of Crime Victimization
Cognitive Interview Participant Recruitment Script
Hello, this is [NAME] from [RTI]. (Are you calling about the ad?)
Let me tell you a little about the study. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is interested in identifying new ways to collect
data for the National Crime and Victimization Survey. The survey collects information about the types and amount of
crime experienced by households and individuals across the U.S. We are testing a new questionnaire format for the study
to be sure that the questions we have designed make sense to different people across the country. We are trying to find
people who are interested in helping us by providing their opinions about the questions and how easy or difficult it was to
complete the survey. If you are interested and eligible, we would like to schedule an in-person interview, which will take
about 60-90 minutes, depending on your experiences. At the end of the interview you will receive $40 in cash as
compensation for your time. To make sure you are eligible for the study, I need to ask you some screening questions. This
will only take about 5 minutes. Is this a good time?
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. RECORD GENDER. (IF NECESSARY, ASK: Are you male or female?)
1
FEMALE
2
MALE
2. How did you hear about the study?
1
FROM CRAIG‘S LIST
2
FROM A FLYER
3
FROM RTI CLASSIFIEDS
4
FROM A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER
5
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: _______________
6
SOME OTHER METHOD
2a.

Are you an RTI staff member or a family member of an RTI employee?
1
YES [RESPONDENT IS INELIGIBLE. THANK R AND END CALL.]
2
NO

3. And how old are you? [IF CALLER IS UNDER 18, (S)HE IS INELIGIBLE. THANK R AND END CALL.]
CODE AGE RANGE BELOW
1
18-35
2
36-59
3
60+
4. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
1
YES
2
NO

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-28

5. Are you White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander, or Some other race?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE.
1
White
2
Black or African American
3
American Indian or Alaskan Native
4
Asian
5
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
6
Other Race
6. What is the highest grade or level of education you have completed?
1
2
3

Less than high school
High school diploma/GED or some college (technical/vocational school)
College graduate (do not include Associate degree)

THEFT
7. Has anything ever been stolen from you?
1
2

YES → CONTINUE
NO → GO TO Q10

8. When was the LAST time anything was stolen from you?
1
2
3

Within the past 6 months
More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago
More than 2 years ago

9. What was stolen?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

A motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts
Cash, purse, or a wallet
TV, DVD, or other household appliances
Portable electronics, clothing or jewelry
Tools, machines, or office equipment
Food, produce or animals
Other (Please specify)______________________

BREAKING IN
10. Have you ever experienced any breaking in attempts or has someone ever broken into your home or where you were
staying?
1
2

YES → CONTINUE
NO → GO TO Q13

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-29

11. When was the LAST time you experienced any breaking in or breaking in attempt?
1
2
3

Within the past 6 months
More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago
More than 2 years ago

12. What happened?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1
2
3

Someone broke into your home
Someone broke into your garage, shed or storage
Someone broke into your hotel, motel room or vacation home

ATTACKS
13. Have you ever experienced any threats or attacks, such as sexual attacks or threats, attacks with any kind of weapon,
or have you ever been punched?
1
2

YES → CONTINUE
NO → GO TO END

14. When was the LAST time you were attacked or threatened in any way?
1
2
3

Within the past 6 months
More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago
More than 2 years ago

15. How were you LAST attacked or threatened?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1
2
3
4
4
5
6

Unwanted sexual contact
Threatened with a weapon
Shot at
Stabbed or cut with a knife or sharp object
Object thrown at
Hit, slapped, knocked down or bruised
Other (Please specify)______________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-30

RECRUITER: FILL IN A CODING SHEET TO INDICATE IF PERSON IS ELIGIBLE. CANDIDATES ARE
INELIGIBLE IF THEY (1) ARE AN RTI EMPLOYEE OR FAMILY MEMBER; (2) ARE UNDER AGE 18; (3) DO
NOT SPEAK ENGLISH; OR (4) HAVE NOT BEEN A VICTIM OF A CRIME IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS.
[IF PARTICIPANT IS INELIGIBLE, SAY]: Thank you for calling about the Survey of Crime Victimization.
Unfortunately, we are unable to include you in the survey because we are only interviewing persons who [FILL
APPROPRIATE RESPONSE: are not an RTI employees or family members / are age 18 or older / speak English / have
been the victim of a crime in the past 6 months.] We appreciate you taking the time to respond to our ad. Have a nice day.
[IF PARTICIPANT IS ELIGIBLE, ASK]: Could I have your name and the best telephone number to reach you?
CANDIDATE NAME: ___________________________________________________
CANDIDATE PHONE NUMBER: _____________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-31

Survey of Crime Victimization – Mail Questionnaire
Participant Informed Consent
Cognitive Interview
You are one of up to 30 persons being asked to participate voluntarily in this interview for the Survey of Crime
Victimization (SCV), a study designed to collect information on the types and amount of crime committed against
households and individuals. The purpose of the SCV is to evaluate the best ways to collect crime victimization data from
households across the United States. The study is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of
Justice. RTI International, a not-for-profit research firm, is conducting the study for BJS. The results of the SCV will be
used to improve the way BJS the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is conducted. The NCVS is a large
national survey conducted annually for BJS by the U.S. Census Bureau to measure crime in the U.S.
The purpose of this interview is to test the mail version of the questionnaire to ensure all questions are well understood
and respondents can navigate through the instrument as intended. The interview will take approximately 60-90 minutes,
depending on your experiences, and there are no right or wrong answers to the questions you will be asked. We want to
ask your opinion about some of the questions that have been developed and what your reactions are to navigating through
the questionnaire. We will first ask you to fill out the Survey of Crime Victimization (SCV) by yourself. We will then go
back to certain questions and ask about your understanding of the survey questions and how you came up with your
answer. We will also discuss some of the instructions and get your opinion on how easy it was to navigate through the
questionnaire. Finally, we will ask about your thoughts and suggestions on changing the wording of the questions or the
skip patterns in the questionnaire. You can help us by describing anything you find confusing or difficult to understand. In
appreciation for your participation in this interview, you will receive $40.00 as compensation for your time.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may stop at any time. Even if you choose not to participate, you will
not lose any benefits or services that you may be receiving from any government agency. The only potential risk to
participating is that you may become uneasy about some of the questions in the interview. You may choose not to answer
any question. You will be paid $40 in compensation for your time, even if you decide to stop the interview. Your answers
and your participation will be kept confidential, and the information you provide will be combined with the responses of
other participants in a summary report that does not identify you as an individual. RTI and BJS will not share any personal
information you provide during the interview with any person outside the SCV project staff. There is one exception to our
guarantee of confidentiality. If in the course of this interview, I learn that you or someone else is in immediate risk of
harm, I may need to tell someone whose job it is to keep you safe.
If you have any questions about the study you may call Susan Kinsey at 1-800-334-8571 ext. 7726. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact the Office of Research Protection at
RTI International at 1-866-214-2043, a toll-free number.
______________________________________________________________________________
The above document describing this research study has been explained to me. I agree to participate.
Signature of participant________________________________ Date ___/___/___
I certify that the nature and purpose of this research have been explained to the above individual.
Signature of Person Who Obtained Consent_______________________________ Date ___/___/___
The OMB control number for this study is XXXX-XXXX.
This valid approval number legally certifies this information collection.

B-32

document our findings. If you would rather not have your interview recorded, or if at any time during the interview you
decide that you would like the audio-recoding to be stopped, please tell the interviewer and we will stop recording.
______________________________________________________________________________
I agree to allow the interview to be audio-recorded and to be listened to by staff at RTI and BJS who are working on this
project:
Signature of participant ________________________________ Date ____________________

[ADMINISTER ONLY IF APPLICABLE] Permission for Interview to be Observed:
With your permission, another member of the SCV project team, [INSERT NAME OF RTI OR BJS OBSERVER], would
like to observe this interview. He/She will not ask you any questions but is here to listen and learn how best to improve
the mail survey questionnaire we are testing today. If you would rather not have an observer in the room, or if at any time
during the interview you decide that you would like the observer to leave, please tell the interviewer.
______________________________________________________________________________
I agree to allow the interview to be observed by another member of the SCV project team from RTI or BJS.
Signature of participant ________________________________ Date ___/___/___

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

B-33

Appendix C:

Usability Test Materials

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-1

Survey of Crime Victimization
Testing Protocol Guide: Web
Participant ID #:
|___|___|___|___|___|
(First & last initial, 3-digit sequential)
Interview Date:
Start Time:

|___|___| / |___|___| / |_2_|_0_|_1_|_1_| (mm/dd/yyyy)

____________ AM / PM

Screening notes (WRITE DOWN TYPES OF CRIMES RESPONDENT REPORTED DURING
SCREENING):
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-2

SCV-web

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
READ OR PARAPHRASE THE INTRODUCTION:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study and testing our questionnaire. The Survey of Crime
Victimization (SCV) is a study designed to collect information on the types and amount of crime committed
against households and individuals. The purpose of the SCV is to evaluate the best ways to collect crime
victimization data from households across the United States. The study is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice. Today, we are hoping to get your feedback and opinions on these
questions, as well as your thoughts on how well you were able to answer them and navigate through the survey.
We will start by completing the survey online, then I will ask you to perform certain tasks, such as change a
response or navigate to a particular question. I may also ask some questions related to your answers and your
interpretation of the questions and their instructions, or I may ask you about certain features of the web page.
The reason for this is to see if people experience any problems going through the survey. Sometimes the
questions I ask you may sound a little strange. There are no right or wrong answers and we are interviewing as
many people as possible so that we can find what web interface and survey questions will work best for
everyone. Please feel free to tell me anything that comes to mind or ask me anything you are unclear about. We
are also very interested in finding out if certain questions required a lot of effort to answer, or if certain sections
made you feel uncomfortable or were difficult to navigate through.
Your participation in this study is very important because it will help the Bureau of Justice Statistics improve
the web questionnaire. When we are done, I will give you $40 as a token of our appreciation, and I will ask you
to sign a receipt to document that you have received it.
Do you have any questions before we begin?

NOTE:


PARTICIPANT‘S RESPONSES TO SCV QUESTIONS WILL BE COMPLETED ONLINE.



RECORD PARTICIPANT‘S RESPONSES TO PROBES ON THIS FORM.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-3

SCV-web

The purpose of this study is to test the survey instrument designed by RTI and BJS for the Survey of
Crime Victimization. IF OBSERVERS: Some members of [the Bureau of Justice Statistics/RTI] are
here today to observe the interviews to see how well the questions work.
The study will take approximately 1 hour. You will receive $40 for your participation.
Your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may choose not to answer any
questions you don‘t want to answer.
All the information you give us will be kept confidential and you will not be identified on any of our
reports.
If you have any questions about the study, you may contact Susan Kinsey at 1-800-334-8571 ext. 7726.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may call 1-866214-2043, a toll free number.
In addition, with your permission we would like to have this session audio recorded – this will help us
when we write the summary report. [ADD IF APPLICABLE: We would also like your permission for
this interview to be observed by another member of the SCV project team.]

 (SKIP TO QUESTION 3)

2. PLEASE SPECIFY:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
3. HAS THE PARTICIPANT READ AND SIGNED THE INFORMED CONSENT?
1 Yes
2 No

 (END INTERVIEW)

4. GIVE RESPONDENT AN UNSIGNED COPY OF THE CONSENT FORM: Here is a copy of this form for
you to keep.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-4

SECTION III: USABILITY TESTING
IF CONSENT WAS GIVEN, START TAPE RECORDER. COLLECT VERBAL CONSENT FOR
TAPE RECORDING.
Now, if you‘re ready, I‘d like to get started with the Survey of Crime Victimization. This is the type of survey
you would receive in the mail or be asked to complete over the Internet. While we go over the questions, please
try to remember how difficult it was to provide the requested information and with what questions you
experienced any difficulty.
As I said earlier, this is NOT any kind of test and there are no right or wrong answers. We are reviewing the
survey instrument with as many people as possible to see how different people navigate through it.
Do you have any questions?
Now, please read the letter you would receive in the mail and follow the instructions to complete the web survey. You can
start the web survey now. I may stop you and ask you some questions as you go through the instrument. When the
questions ask about your name or the name of any household member, please give only first and last initials. Also, enter
―Xs‖ for your phone number.
You may begin.
OBSERVATION DATA: RECORD ANY NAVIGATION PROBLEMS RESPONDENT EXPERIENCED (AND
PROBE ON WHAT RESPONDENT WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE AS HE/SHE NAVIGATED THROUGH THE
SCREEN). ALSO DOCUMENT AND PROBE ON ITEMS WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED OR HAD
TROUBLE ANSWERING, CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER (INCLUDING BACKING UP), OR QUESTIONS THEY
DID NOT ANSWER. FINALLY, PROBE ON ANY ITEMS WHERE PROGRAMMED RANGE CHECKS OR OTHER
PROMPTS APPEARED, AND THE RESPONDENT‘S REACTION TO THEM.
OBSERVED LOG IN (URL OR PASSWORD) PROBLEMS:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT HESITATED/HAD TROUBLE
SELECTING A RESPONSE:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RESPONDENT CHANGED HIS/HER ANSWER:

_____________________

ITEM(S) REQUIRED BUT LEFT BLANK BY RESPONDENT:

_____________________

GRID QUESTION(S) WITH RESPONSE OPTIONS LEFT BLANK:

_____________________

ITEM(S) WHERE RANGE CHECK OR OTHER PROMPT APPEARED:

_____________________

NUMBER OF TIMES R LOGGED OUT BY ACCIDENT:

_____________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-5

SCV-web

NUMBER OF TIMES R HIT PREVIOUS/NEXT BY MISTAKE:

_____________________

BEFORE THE PARTICIPANT PRESSES THE FINISH BUTTON: INSTRUCT HIM/HER TO LOG OUT OF THE
SURVEY AND LOG BACK IN. RECORD TIME ON TASK.
START TIME:_______ AM/PM
END TIME: _________ AM/PM
SCREENER TIME:

START TIME _____ AM/PM
END TIME ______ AM/PM

CIR1 TIME:

START TIME _____ AM/PM
END TIME ______ AM/PM

CIR2 TIME:

START TIME _____ AM/PM
END TIME ______ AM/PM

CIR3 TIME:

START TIME _____ AM/PM
END TIME ______ AM/PM

RECORD ADDITIONAL CIR TIMES HERE:

PROBE ON ANY MISSED SKIPS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS, ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-6

SCV-web

Now, I'd like to go through the instrument with you again and ask your opinion about some of the questions and web
instructions. Some of these questions may sound like I am giving you a test, but remember there are no right or wrong
answers. We just want to see what people think about the questions and if they make sense to everyone.

GENERAL QUESTIONS:


Did you have any difficulties finding the website? Was the url easy or difficult to type?



Did you have problems creating your own unique password? How confident were you that this would help keep your
information private and secure?



What did you think of the website?



Did you use any of the other links on the web site, such as the Frequently Asked Questions? Did you find that
information helpful?



Did you have any difficulties logging into the survey? Did you have any difficulties logging out and then logging
back in?



What did you think of the instructions on the first screen of the survey? Did you know what you were required to do?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-7

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SCV-web

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Did you read the full informed consent? What kind of information was there?

How easy or difficult was it to navigate from one page to another? Did you find the placement of buttons intuitive?
Why or why not?

Did you notice the progress indicator? When? (What did you think it showed?) Did you find it useful? Why or why
not?

How easy or difficult did you find typing your responses, or marking your answers in the checkboxes on the right side
of some screens? Does this apply to all questions?

How easy or difficult did you find selecting a response from the drop down menu?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-8

SCV-web

A. SCREENER

1. Screener_A/ BoxA


What did you think of this screen? (Was there anything missing? Were you expecting to see a question?)

How easy or difficult was it to navigate to the next page? Were the Previous and Next buttons where you expected
them to be?

Did you look at the progress indicator? Did you find it useful?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-9



SCV-web

Did you notice some of the text was italicized? What did you think this meant?

PROBE ON ANY MISSED INSTRUCTIONS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS, ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________



INCIDENT 1

1. FBoxD
Did you read the introduction to the next section? What did you think of it? Did you expect to see a question on the
screen?

________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-10

SCV-web

Did you notice the banner that reflected your responses from previous questions? What did you think of that? Why do
you think it was provided? Did you find it helpful or not? Why?
_______________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
3. CIR_Incident/Q 9 OR ANOTHER “CHECK ALL THAT APPLY” QUESTION
 What did you think of the response options? Did you know you could select more than one? (How did you know?)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
4. CIR_Incident/ Q59
 What did you think of the write-in field? Do you feel you provided a lot or a little detail about what happened? What
details did you leave out, if any? If you were filling this survey out on the web, would you write something in the
box?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
5. INCIDENTS AND SERIES
 Do you think the questions were about different types of crimes that happened on the same day, or about the same
types of crimes, regardless of when they occurred?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


How would have answered these questions if you had experienced 2 crimes of the same type (e.g. 2 thefts)? Which
crime would you report first?

Do you think the questions were about different types of crimes that happened on the same day, or about the same
types of crimes, regardless of when they occurred? [IF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CRIME AT THE SAME TIME]
How were you thinking about these crimes? What did you think of the banner in this case?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-11



SCV-web

If you experienced the same types of crime during the same month (but on different occasions), which one do you
think the banner refers to?

How would you report on crimes of the same type that happened more than 5 times during the past 6 months and you
can‘t distinguish them from one another?

AT ANY POINT, ASK RESPONDENT TO GO BACK TWO QUESTIONS AND CHANGE HIS/HER
RESPONSE.
7.
Did you have any problems backing up and changing your answers? How did you move forward once you had
changed your answer?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-12

SCV-web

G. INCIDENT 2
(IF ADMINISTERED) PROBE ON ANY MISSED INSTRUCTIONS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS,
ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
H. INCIDENT 3
(IF ADMINISTERED) PROBE ON ANY MISSED INSTRUCTIONS, ANY HESITATIONS, BLANK ITEMS,
ETC.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS - Income



What did you think of this question? Did you read the instructions? Did you find them useful?

Would you have any reservations answering this question on the web?



What did you think of this screen? Did you read the instructions to ask other adults in the household to complete the
survey? How likely are you to do that?

C-13

SCV-web

HOUSEHOLD ROSTER

DURING THE COMPLETION OF THE HOUSEHOLD ROSTER, INSTRUCT RESPONDENT TO GO BACK
AND EDIT THE RESPONSE FOR MARITAL STATUS FOR A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER (IF RESPONDENT
LIVES ALONE, INSTRUCT HIM/HER TO CHANGE ONE OF HIS/HER RESPONSES). RECORD START
AND END TIME OF THIS TASK.
START TIME:_______ AM/PM
END TIME: _________ AM/PM

1. Screener_HBSQ/FS1_OtherHH screen
 Did you read the instructions on this screen?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Screener_HBSQ/HouseholdMembers/FS1_AnyMore
 Did you notice the grid above the question? What did you think of that?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Did you notice the instructions about how to make changes to information in the grid? What did you think of that?

If you want to change the name of the person you entered there, what would you do?

What would you do if you made a mistake and you wanted to remove a person you entered altogether?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-14

SCV-web



Would you be comfortable providing this kind of information in a web survey?

If someone else in your household filled out the survey as well, do you think you would be able to see their responses
when you log in? Do you think they would be able to see yours?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-15

SCV-web

SECTION IV: CONCLUSION
Now I have just a few final questions about your overall opinion about the web survey.


Do you have any overall opinions about the survey questions you answered?

What are your overall impressions of the survey web site?

_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
 Are there any changes we could make to the web site overall or to the question screens to make them easier to read,
easier to use, or easier to navigate?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Do you have any other comments or concerns?

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-16



SCV-web

After hearing all of my questions, do you have any questions for me?

Usability Test End Time: ____________ AM / PM

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-17

Craig’s List Recruitment Advertisement
Research Volunteers Needed. RTI International, a not-for-profit research organization located in RTP, is looking for
adults over the age of 18 who have ever experienced any of the following crimes: theft, burglary or robbery; actual or
attempted unwanted sexual experiences; and/or physical violence. Information will be kept confidential. The private
interview will be conducted at our RTP office and will take approximately 60 minutes, depending on your experiences.
The purpose of the interview is to help test a web survey questionnaire. Receive $40 as compensation for your time if you
qualify and complete the interview. Please call XXXXXXX at 919-541-XXXX to determine eligibility for participation.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-18

 Information will be kept confidential
 Private interview takes about 60 minutes and
will be held at RTI‘s office in Research
Triangle park
 Participants will be given $40 cash in
compensation for their time if they qualify and
complete the interview
 No tests required

Please Call XXXXXXX (RTI International)
at 919-541-XXXX to see if you qualify.
Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-19

Survey of Crime Victimization
Usability Test Participant Recruitment Script
Hello, this is [NAME] from [RTI]. (Are you calling about the ad?)
Let me tell you a little about the study. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is interested in identifying new ways to collect
data for the National Crime Victimization Survey. The survey collects information about the types and amount of crime
experienced by households and individuals across the U.S. We are testing a new web survey format for the study to be
sure that the questions we have designed make sense to different people across the country and are easy to answer on-line.
We are trying to find people who are interested in helping us by providing their opinions about how easy or difficult it
was to complete the web survey. If you are interested and eligible, we would like to schedule an in-person interview,
which will take about an hour. At the end of the interview you will receive $40 in cash. To make sure you are eligible for
the study, I need to ask you some screening questions. This will only take about 5 minutes. Is this a good time?
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. RECORD GENDER. (IF NECESSARY, ASK: Are you male or female?)
1
FEMALE
2
MALE
2. How did you hear about the study?
1
FROM CRAIG‘S LIST
2
FROM A FLYER
3
FROM RTI CLASSIFIEDS
4
FROM A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER
5
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: _______________
6
SOME OTHER METHOD
2a.

Are you an RTI staff member or a family member of an RTI employee?
1
YES [RESPONDENT IS INELIGIBLE. THANK R AND END CALL.]
2
NO

3. And how old are you? [IF CALLER IS UNDER 18, (S)HE IS INELIGIBLE. THANK R AND END CALL.]
CODE AGE RANGE BELOW
1 18-35
2 36-59
3 60+
4. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
1
YES
2
NO

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-20

Less than high school

High school diploma/GED or some college (technical/vocational school)

College graduate (do not include Associate degree)

THEFT
7. Has anything ever been stolen from you?
1

YES → CONTINUE

NO → GO TO Q10

8. When was the LAST time anything was stolen from you?
1

Within the past 6 months

More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago

More than 2 years ago

9. What was stolen?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1

A motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts

Cash, purse, or a wallet

TV, DVD, or other household appliances

Portable electronics, clothing or jewelry

Tools, machines, or office equipment

Food, produce or animals

Other (Please specify)______________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-21

BREAKING IN
10. Have you ever experienced any breaking in attempts or has someone ever broken into your home or where you
were staying?
1

YES → CONTINUE

NO → GO TO Q13

11. When was the LAST time you experienced any breaking in or breaking in attempt?
1

Within the past 6 months

More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago

More than 2 years ago

12. What happened?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1

Someone broke into your home

Someone broke into your garage, shed or storage

Someone broke into your hotel, motel room or vacation home

ATTACKS
13. Have you ever experienced any threats or attacks, such as sexual attacks or threats, attacks with any kind of weapon,
or have you ever been punched?
1

YES → CONTINUE

NO → GO TO END

14. When was the LAST time you were attacked or threatened in any way?
1

Within the past 6 months

More than 6 months, but less than 2 years ago

More than 2 years ago

15. How were you LAST attacked or threatened?
CAN SELECT MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE
1

Unwanted sexual contact

Threatened with a weapon

Shot at

Stabbed or cut with a knife or sharp object

Object thrown at

Hit, slapped, knocked down or bruised

Other (Please specify)______________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-22

END
Thank you for answering these screening questions. I‘ll pass this information on to the study recruiter. If you are eligible,
(s)he will give you a call to schedule a time that is convenient for you to participate in the study. As I said before, the
interview will take about an hour and will be conducted in-person. The interview will be done at RTI International‘s
headquarters in Research Triangle Park and you will receive $40 for participating. Also, if you agree, we'd like to tape
record the interview. (This is just to help us take good notes about any feedback you may have about the questions. Your
name won‘t be associated with the responses on the tape. We will ask your permission to tape record the interview before
we begin.)
RECRUITER: FILL IN A CODING SHEET TO INDICATE IF PERSON IS ELIGIBLE. CANDIDATES ARE
INELIGIBLE IF THEY 1) ARE AN RTI EMPLOYEE OR FAMILY MEMBER; 2) ARE UNDER AGE 18; 3) DO NOT
SPEAK ENGLISH; OR 4) HAVE NOT BEEN A VICTIM OF A CRIME IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS.
[IF PARTICIPANT IS INELIGIBLE, SAY]: Thank you for calling about the Survey of Crime Victimization.
Unfortunately, we are unable to include you in the survey because we are only interviewing persons who [FILL
APPROPRIATE RESPONSE: are not an RTI employees or family members / are age 18 or older / speak English / have
been the victim of a crime in the past 6 months.] We appreciate you taking the time to respond to our ad. Have a nice day.
[IF PARTICIPANT IS ELIGIBLE, ASK]: Could I have your name and the best telephone number to reach you?
CANDIDATE NAME: ___________________________________________________
CANDIDATE PHONE NUMBER: _________________________________________

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-23

Survey of Crime Victimization
Web Survey Usability Test
Participant Informed Consent
You are one of up to 20 persons being asked to participate voluntarily in this interview for the Survey of Crime
Victimization (SCV), a study designed to collect information on the types and amount of crime committed against
households and individuals. The purpose of the SCV is to evaluate the best ways to collect crime victimization data from
households across the United States. The study is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of
Justice. RTI International, a not-for-profit research firm, is conducting the study for BJS. The results of the SCV will be
used to improve the way the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is conducted. The NCVS is a large national
survey conducted annually for BJS by the U.S. Census Bureau to measure crime in the U.S.
The purpose of this interview is to test the ―usability‖ of the web version of the questionnaire. By ―usability,‖ we mean
how easy or difficult it is to move from one screen to the next, enter answers to questions or change your answers, or to
understand instructions and definitions that are shown on the screens. The interview will take about an hour, and there are
no right or wrong answers to the questions you will be asked. We will first ask you to complete the SCV web survey by
yourself. We will then go back to certain screens and ask how easy or difficult it was to find the information on the screen
and to do certain tasks, such as entering an answer or changing an answer. Finally, we will ask for your suggestions on
ways we can make the web survey easier to complete. You can help us by describing anything you find confusing or
difficult to do on-line. In appreciation for your participation in this interview, you will receive $40.00 as compensation for
your time.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and you may stop at any time. Even if you choose not to participate, you will
not lose any benefits or services that you may be receiving from any government agency. The only potential risk to
participating is that you may become uneasy about some of the questions in the interview. You may choose not to answer
any question. You will be paid $40 in compensation for your time, even if you decide to stop the interview. Your
answers and your participation will be kept confidential, and the information you provide will be combined with the
responses of other participants in a summary report that does not identify you as an individual. RTI and BJS will not share
any personal information you provide during the interview with any person outside the SCV project staff. There is one
exception to our guarantee of confidentiality. If in the course of this interview, I learn that you or someone else is in
immediate risk of harm, I may need to tell someone whose job it is to keep you safe.
If you have any questions about the study you may call Susan Kinsey at 1-800-334-8571 ext. 7726. If you have any
questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, you may contact the Office of Research Protection at
RTI International at 1-866-214-2043, a toll-free number.
______________________________________________________________________________
The above document describing this research study has been explained to me. I agree to participate.
Signature of participant________________________________ Date ___/___/___
I certify that the nature and purpose of this research have been explained to the above individual.
Signature of Person Who Obtained Consent_______________________________ Date ___/___/___
The OMB control number for this study is XXXX-XXXX.
This valid approval number legally certifies this information collection.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-24

Audio-taping the interview:
In order to make best use of our findings, we also request that you allow the interview to be audio-recorded, through the
use of a recorder or laptop computer that will be on the table. The audio-recording will only be heard by people who are
working on this project at RTI and BJS. The only purpose of audio-recording is to allow us to review the interview as we
document our findings. If you would rather not have your interview recorded, or if at any time during the interview you
decide that you would like the audio-recoding to be stopped, please tell the interviewer and we will stop recording.
______________________________________________________________________________
I agree to allow the interview to be audio-recorded and to be listened to by staff at RTI and BJS who are working on this
project:
Signature of participant ________________________________ Date ___/___/___

[ADMINISTER ONLY IF APPLICABLE] Permission for Interview to be Observed:
With your permission, another member of the SCV project team, [INSERT NAME OF RTI OR BJS OBSERVER], would
like to observe this interview. He/She will not ask you any questions but is here to listen and learn how best to improve
the questionnaire we are testing today. If you would rather not have an observer in the room, or if at any time during the
interview you decide that you would like the observer to leave, please tell the interviewer.
______________________________________________________________________________
I agree to allow the interview to be observed by another member of the SCV project team from RTI or BJS.
Signature of participant ________________________________ Date ___/___/___

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

C-25

Appendix D:

Distressed Respondent Protocol

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

D-1

Respondents Who Become Distressed
The SCV questionnaire contains questions that may be upsetting for a respondent to answer. Your
job as an interviewer is to ask these questions in a matter-of-fact, non-judgmental manner. Despite your
best efforts, you may still encounter a respondent who is upset by a question or series of questions. You
should try to handle these situations by offering appropriate support. Such occurrences may be very rare;
most interviewers will never encounter this problem. However, if such problems do occur, we have
designed procedures for you to follow.
A respondent‘s emotional distress may be expressed in different ways and will likely vary as a
function of the age of the respondent. For example, a respondent may be overcome with emotion or
become so agitated or distracted that he/she is temporarily unable to continue with the interview.
Occasionally a respondent may become preoccupied with a powerful memory and give you much more
detail about a particular event than the question requires.
People do not generally have sudden emotional outbursts. There is usually a progression of verbal
and nonverbal cues indicating that a respondent is becoming upset. As you conduct the interview, (1)
observe the respondent for cues that suggest distress (e.g., sudden agitated pacing); (2) listen carefully for
cues (e.g., lump in the throat; quivering voice), and (3) acknowledge the behavior or feelings. For
example, if the respondent‘s voice becomes soft and frail, you can say something like ―Are you all right?‖
or ―Is this becoming difficult for you?‖ If you observe a respondent struggling to maintain composure, or
if he/she begins to cry, acknowledge the distress by saying something like ―Would you like to take a short
break?‖ and allow him/her time to regain composure.
Most often, the respondent will be able to continue. Once the respondent is composed, you should
attempt to finish the interview. However, if he/she is too agitated or upset to continue, arrange to finish
the interview at another time.
When a particular question triggers an emotionally-charged story from a respondent whose other
responses have been to the point, it may be best not to try to redirect him or her as you would ordinarily.
The respondent may need to describe a particular event, and you should wait patiently until you feel
he/she is ready to continue. You may want to help regain focus with a comment such as ―I see‖ and move
on. Remember that you are responsible for getting the interview back on track. When you feel that the
time is right, use a soft, direct manner and say something like, ―I have a few more questions. If we go
slowly, do you think we can continue with the interview?‖
When a respondent becomes distressed, it may seem hard to avoid taking on the role of counselor.
Regardless of your background, your function on this job is that of an interviewer, not a counselor.
Providing counseling interferes with the interviewer-respondent relationship and compromises the quality
of the data. Additionally, your counseling—despite your good intentions—could do more harm than good

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

D-2

for the respondent. Never adopt the role of ―patient advocate.‖ Some individuals can be manipulative and
lead well-intentioned, overly sympathetic interviewers in undesirable directions.
There are a few helpful ―nevers‖ for you to remember regarding the interviewer-respondent
relationship:


Never engage in conversation with the respondent about events, behaviors, or feelings.



Never give advice. Each person has his/her own best answers. Any advice that you give only
means that this is what might work for you. More importantly, you may do harm by giving
advice.



Never tell a person that he/she ―should‖ or ―should not‖ feel a certain way. Feelings are not
right or wrong, they‘re just ―feelings.‖



Never say that you are ―surprised‖ about something that was said or done. This denotes
judgment and criticism.

It is important to trust the respondent‘s ability to handle personal feelings or emotions. Most
feelings are transitory. Sometimes just expressing feelings to a nonjudgmental adult helps respondents to
feel better. Although some parts of the interview may have been emotionally trying for the respondent, an
extensive history of survey research on sensitive topics (such as emotional and behavioral problems),
suggests you have not done any harm. Whatever the short-term effect of the interview, it is unlikely to
have any lasting negative effect. In fact, some respondents may be relieved to have a neutral outsider to
listen to the story, knowing there will be no further consequences.
When respondents become emotionally overwhelmed, agitated, or preoccupied, you should be
aware that you may feel emotionally drained after the interview. Just being aware that your reaction is
normal should make it easier for you to deal with the situation. Remember that you cannot discuss
information, even if that information or observation is distressful to you, with your friends or family
members. If you need support – and we all do at one time or another – call your task leader or project
director.
If respondents exhibit any kind of threatening behavior towards you, call RTI security
immediately and terminate the interview. The RTI campus security will be aware of when and where
interviews are being conducted and will call the police if necessary.
All instances of distress during the interview should be reported to RTI‘s IRB within 48 hours.
Document your experience in an e-mail to your task leader and project director – they will contact the
IRB to report the instance.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

D-3

Respondents Whose Life or Health are in Imminent Danger
During the SCV cognitive interviews, there is a very small chance that you could encounter a
situation that causes you to believe that the life or health of the respondent or someone else is is in
imminent danger. You must be prepared to handle such a situation, using the procedures outlined below.
Even though the questionnaire will be self-administered, during the cognitive interview you will become
aware not only of the responses to the specific survey questions, but also some additional information
cued by the probes in the cognitive interview protocol guide. You may suspect that a respondent‘s life or
health, or the life or health of someone else (e.g., the respondent‘s spouse or child) is in imminent danger
in their current living situation, even if the respondent does not explicitly say so.
If you believe that someone‘s life or health is in imminent danger, you should (1) offer resource
information to the respondent; and (2) volunteer to make a call to one of the toll-free numbers for him/her
while in the cognitive interview setting. The following resources should be made available to the
respondent:


National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH): 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)



Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673)



National Suicide hotline: 1-800-237-TALK (8255)

You must also notify the RTI Project Director immediately upon completing the interview so she can
discuss the need for any further action with the RTI IRB.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

D-4

Appendix E:

Literature Reviews: Examination
of Data Collection Methods for
the NCVS

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-1

August 13, 2009

Literature Reviews:
Examination of Data Collection
Methods for the NCVS
Report

Prepared for
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Prepared by
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
RTI Project Number 0211889

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-2

RTI Project Number
0211889

Literature Reviews:
Examination of Data Collection
Methods for the NCVS
Report
August 13, 2009

Prepared for
Bureau of Justice Statistics
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
Prepared by
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-3

Contents
Section

Page

Address-Based Sampling .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2 References ........................................................................................................................... 1-3

Mixed-Mode Surveys.................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Attractiveness of Mixed-Mode Data Collection ................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Mode Effects ....................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Things to Consider When Mixing Modes ........................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2-4
2.5 References ........................................................................................................................... 2-4

Self-Administered Modes of Data Collection ............................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Mail Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Self-Administered Modes and Sensitive Questions ............................................................ 3-2
3.3 Web Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3-4
3.5 References ........................................................................................................................... 3-5

Use of Incentives........................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Theories on Incentive Effectiveness ................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Impact on Response Rate and Nonresponse Bias ............................................................... 4-2
4.3 Prepaid Versus Postpaid Incentives .................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Incentives and Survey Mode ............................................................................................... 4-3
4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.6 References ........................................................................................................................... 4-4

Additional Issues in Measuring Crime Victimization in Surveys ................................................. 5-1
5.1 Event Recall ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Proxy Respondents .............................................................................................................. 5-2
5.3 Crime Severity, Survey Context, Stigma, and Terminology ............................................... 5-3
5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5-4
5.5 References ........................................................................................................................... 5-4

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-4

1. ADDRESS-BASED SAMPLING
The development and improvement of a database of addresses in the United States has
provided a potential alternative to the costly creation of sampling frames for area probability
surveys through field listing. Address-based sampling (ABS) is possible using the Delivery
Sequence File (DSF), a computerized file that contains all delivery point addresses serviced
by the U.S. Postal Service (with the exception of general delivery). So far, evaluations of
DSF for replacing enumeration of household units have shown promise, with potential
household coverage as high as 97% on average. All evaluations have shown higher
household coverage in urban areas than in rural areas.
The survey literature so far has focused on various approaches to a sampling frame
construction from an address list and evaluation of its coverage and usability properties.
The different approaches yield a uniform finding: using mailing addresses to develop a
sampling frame for metropolitan households is a good and less costly alternative to
household enumeration. For example, Iannacchione, Staab, and Redden (2003) applied
Kish‘s half-open interval (Kish, 1965) frame-linking procedure to evaluate the coverage of
an ABS frame using DSF. It was estimated that half-open intervals could be constructed and
located for 94% of the addresses in the newly constructed frame. In another study designed
to compare the coverage of ABS to field enumeration, Iannacchione et al. (2007) used
global positioning system (GPS) technology to match the housing units from each frame.
Even though field enumeration yielded higher overall coverage (98% vs. 82% in ABS), there
was no difference when the matching was restricted to occupied urban housing units.
Morton et al. (2007) applied Geographic information system (GIS) and GPS technologies to
match postal (mailing address lists by postal carrier routes) to census geography (tracts and
blocks). Not surprisingly, housing units in urban areas were more likely to geocode to the
correct census block than housing units in rural areas (73% vs. 38%). O‘Muircheartaigh et
al. (2006) compared the coverage and cost-benefit tradeoffs of traditional enumeration and
ABS on a national scale, employing a process in which a benchmark frame was constructed
and ABS and traditional enumeration were evaluated against it. Overall, ABS was found to
be more effective than the traditional enumeration, with the exception of areas with
irregular street patterns and high population growth rates.
A few studies present methods for improving the coverage of ABS. Dohrmann, Han, and
Mohadjer (2006) proposed enhancing the existing ―Waksberg approach‖ to select segments
with high growth rates at higher probabilities and applying lower subsampling rates for
inclusion of missed units in such segments. O‘Muircheartaigh, English, and Eckman (2007)
proposed a model-based approach to inform decisions prior to data collection on whether
field enhancement to ABS would be needed in particular segments. ABS was found
appropriate for small-scale, low-cost surveys but was seen as not yet ready to fully replace
traditional enumeration for high-quality national surveys. McMichael, Ridenhour, and

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-5

Shook-Sa (2008) proposed an alternative to HOI—a three-component procedure called
Check for Housing Units Missed (CHUM). In initial evaluation, the first component of CHUM
picked 79% of the missing units, while the second component picked the remaining 21%.
The quality of the address lists and of their coverage varies by vendors. Various vendors
maintain and provide current versions of DSF that could be purchased for surveys (USPS
does not offer it to survey organizations). Dohrmann, Han, and Mohadjer (2006) compared
list quality by vendors (Compact Information Systems [CIS], Donnelly Marketing, and
ADVO) for an urban/suburban area and compared ABS to traditional enumeration in
urban/suburban, very urban, and rural areas. CIS and ADVO were found to be comparable.
Consistent with other findings, high match rates between ABS and traditional enumeration
were reported mainly for urban areas.
Alternatives to DSF have also been considered in investigating alternative methods for
sampling frame construction. For example, Kalsbeek, Kavanagh, and Wu (2004) examined
the utility of using lists of property tax parcels in U.S. counties. A test of the proposed
approach yielded high levels of validity and reliability, similar to the levels associated with
the traditional housing unit enumeration.
Finally, the evaluation of ABS for sampling frame creation for the general population has
been expanded by a comparison to random-digit dialing (RDD) sampling methods (Link et
al., 2008). In addition to the lower cost of the ABS mail survey, ABS reported significantly
higher response rates than RDD in five of the six studied states.

1.1

Summary

Overall, the existing research presents a promising future for ABS in survey design and
suggests that its true potential may be in mixed-mode surveys. The attractiveness of ABS is
that it is cost efficient and time efficient. Large-scale surveys often require several months
to list all dwelling units in the selected segments (usually, census blocks). In contrast, ABS
offers greater geographic diversity (selection of housing units is not restricted to small
segments based on census blocks) and thus presents a potential for improving statistical
efficiency. There are some drawbacks associated with the construction of an address-based
sampling frame related to the overall completeness of the list, the current status of the
addresses, and the adequacy of the list coverage in rural areas. The typical sources of
undercoverage for ABS are post office boxes, when used as the only method for mail
delivery (making up 1.3% of households in the United States, according to Staab and
Iannacchione [2003]); rural routes (making up 3.9% of households nationwide); and
noninstitutional group quarters (e.g., dormitories, assisted living facilities, shelters) that are
not identified on the USPS lists because they operate their own post office or because mail
is delivered to the business unit.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-6

1.2

References

Dohrmann, Sylvia, Daifeng Han, and Leyla Mohadjer. 2006. ―Residential Address Lists vs.
Traditional Listing: Enumerating Households and Group Quarters.‖ In Proceedings of
the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp.295964.
Iannacchione, Vincent, Katherine Morton, Joseph McMichael, David Cunningham, James
Cajka, and James Chromy. 2007. ―Comparing the Coverage of a Household Sampling
Frame Based on Mailing Addresses to a Frame Based on Field Enumeration.‖ In
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research
Methods, pp.3323-32.
Iannacchione, Vincent, Jennifer Staab, and David Redden. 2003. ―Evaluating the Use of
Residential Mailing Lists in a Metropolitan Household Survey.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 67(2):202-10.
Kalsbeek, William, Sarah Kavanagh, and Jingjing Wu. 2004. ―Using GIS-Based Property Tax
Records as an Alternative to Traditional Household Listing in Area Samples.‖ In
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research
Methods, pp.3750-57.
Kish, Leslie. 1965. Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley
Link, Michael, Michael Battaglia, Martin Frankel, Larry Osborn, and Ali Mokdad. 2008. ―A
Comparison of Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Versus Random-Digit Dialing (RDD)
for General Population Surveys.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 72(1):6-27.
McMichael, Joseph, Jamie Ridenhour, and Bonnie Shook-Sa. 2008. ―A Robust Procedure to
Supplement the Coverage of Address-Based Sampling Frames for Household
Surveys.‖ In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey
Research Methods, pp. 4329-35.
Morton, Katherine, Vincent Iannacchione, Joseph McMichael, James Cajka, Ross Curry, and
David Cunningham. 2007. ―Linking Mailing Addresses to a Household Sampling
Frame Based on Census Geography.‖ In Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 3971-74.
O‘Muircheartaigh, Colm, Edward English, and Stephanie Eckman. 2007. ―Predicting the
Relative Quality of Alternative Sampling Frames.‖ In Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp.3239-48.
O‘Muircheartaigh, Colm, Edward English, Stephanie Eckman, Heidi Upchurch, Erika Garcia,
and James Lepkowski. 2006. ―Validating a Sampling Revolution: Benchmarking
Address Lists Against Traditional Listing.‖ In Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 4189-96.
Staab, Jennifer, and Vincent Iannacchione. 2003. ―Evaluating the Use of Residential Mailing
Addresses in a National Household Survey.‖ In Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp.4028-33.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-7

2. MIXED-MODE SURVEYS
Researchers are continually trying to find the optimal mix of methods to minimize total
survey error in survey estimates. Declining response rates, increasing costs, coverage
issues, and data collection deadlines have all led to the increasing use of mixed-mode
survey designs. With the popularity of telephone surveys in the 1970s, the mix of face-toface and telephone data collection modes soon became attractive for large national surveys
(e.g., the Current Population Survey). The development of computer technology marked the
next change in data collection—computer-assisted equivalents were implemented in all
major modes of data collection (de Leeuw and Collins, 1997; Couper and Nicholls, 1998).
The development of web surveys gave rise to a combination of mail and web surveys.
When discussing mixed-mode surveys, it is important to investigate the reasons for mixing
modes, mode effects, and issues to consider when mixing modes. These items are discussed
in more detail below.

2.1

Attractiveness of Mixed-Mode Data Collection

Groves et al. (2004) identified three main reasons for using mixed-mode data collection:
cost reduction, response rate maximization, and money saving in longitudinal surveys. The
use of a combination of data collection methods reduces cost, as it typically involves an
attempt to collect data in a cheaper mode (e.g., mail), followed by a more expensive mode
(e.g., telephone), and possibly moving to an even more costly mode (e.g., face-to-face
interviewing) for the nonrespondent sample persons. The American Community Survey is an
example of this approach: it starts in a mail mode; this is followed by telephone follow-up of
nonrespondents; and then there are face-to-face follow-ups with a subsample of the
remaining nonrespondents (Alexander and Wetrogan, 2000). Maximization of response rates
is often achieved through mixed-mode data collection. For example, the Current
Employment Statistics program offers multiple modes of data collection, such as web, fax,
inbound interactive voice response (IVR), telephone, and mail. While the Current
Employment Statistics survey, which includes 390,000 business establishments, employs six
methods of data collection, the use of two or three modes is more common in increasing
response rates and decreasing costs.
Longitudinal surveys also employ mixed-mode data collection to reduce cost in later waves,
when rapport between the interviewer and the respondent has already been established in
the first wave, usually administered in face-to-face mode. An example of this approach is
the Current Population Survey, where interviewers obtain telephone numbers in the first
wave of data collection that are to be used in subsequent rounds.
Biemer and Lyberg (2003) note that mixed-mode designs have now become the norm of
data collection in the United States and Western Europe. The attractiveness of mixed-mode
designs is in their ability to compensate for the weaknesses of individual modes. For

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-8

example, to reduce coverage bias in the early days of telephone data collection, mixedmode dual frame designs were often employed, benefiting from the cost savings of
telephone interviewing and the complete coverage of face-to-face data collection (e.g.,
Massey, Marquis, and Tortora, 1982; Marquis and Blass, 1985; for a detailed discussion, see
Groves and Lepkowski, 1985). Another feature that makes mixed-mode designs attractive is
their application in reducing nonresponse bias. Since nonresponse includes both
noncontacted respondents and those who refuse to cooperate under the initial protocol,
implementing a different mode of data collection can be addressed both by changing the
method of contact and using different persuasive techniques, particularly through the use of
interviewers. It is not necessarily that some modes are better than others for a particular
population; to the extent that individuals vary in their likelihood to participate across modes
and that respondents to different modes are somewhat different, the threat of nonresponse
bias is minimized through the use of multiple modes.
The possibility that some respondents prefer one mode over another has been recognized.
Often, however, the mode in which respondents are asked about their mode of preference is
selected as the mode of choice. For example, Groves and Kahn (1979) reported that among
respondents in a national telephone survey, 39% expressed a preference to be interviewed
by phone, 23% in a face-to-face setting, and 28% by mail. The preferred mode of interview
in a face-to-face survey was overwhelmingly face-to-face (78%), followed by mail (only
17%). Some studies suggest that giving the choice of mode to the respondent does not
necessarily improve response rates. For example, Dillman, Clark, and West (1995) showed
that offering the respondent the choice of returning a questionnaire by mail or calling in to
be interviewed did not improve response rates. On the other hand, sequential change of
modes has been reported to significantly improve response rates. For example, Shettle and
Mooney (1999) reported a response rate of 68% after four mailings and an incentive, which
increased to 81% with telephone follow-up and to 88% with a final switch to face-to-face
interviewing.

2.2

Mode Effects

Different data collection modes possess different strengths and weaknesses. In searching
for reasonable alternatives, studies have contrasted pairs of modes. Compared with face-toface surveys, telephone surveys have been found to yield lower response rates (Groves and
Kahn, 1979; Cannell et al., 1987; Sykes and Collins, 1988), shorter responses to openended questions (Groves and Kahn, 1979; Sykes and Collins, 1988; Kormendi and
Noordhoek, 1989), and higher rates of satisficing and socially desirable responding
(Holbrook, Green, and Krosnick, 2003; Kirsch, McCormack, and Saxon-Harrold, 2001). In
addition, sensitive questions have been found to increase mode differences (Aquilino and
LoSciuto, 1990). Similarly, comparisons between mail and telephone modes show higher
social desirability effects (Dillman and Tarnai, 1991; Walker and Restuccia, 1984) and

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-9

increased response order and question order effects (Bishop et al., 1988) for telephone
surveys. A meta-analysis of face-to-face versus mail response rates did not find significant
differences between modes (Goyder, 1986). Research so far has produced mixed results on
the effect of these modes on reports of sensitive behaviors. For example, Bongers and van
Oers (1998) found no difference between mail and face-to-face interviewing on responses to
alcohol-related questions, but Hochstim (1967) and Tourangeau and Smith (1996) found
greater reporting of sensitive behaviors in self-administered surveys.

2.3

Things to Consider When Mixing Modes

There are potential drawbacks to using mixed-mode survey designs, affecting different
sources of survey error: coverage, nonresponse, measurement, and processing. Coverage
error can be affected in mixed-mode designs when multiple sampling frames are needed.
Although the use of multiple frames can reduce undercoverage, it involves the use of
statistical adjustments to sample weights to merge data from each mode—a procedure that
can induce varying, and often unknown, amounts of error, depending on the particular
frames and study design.
As noted earlier, mixed-mode designs are often used to increase response rates, but when
they are used to reduce costs, they can lead to lower response rates—likely respondents to
face-to-face survey requests may be less likely to participate if first asked in a different
mode, such as by mail. Apart from the choice of modes to be implemented in a study, the
order of modes can also have an impact on cost and response rates—and may likely result
in a different mix of survey errors. An equally important decision is whether to implement
modes simultaneously, giving the choice of mode to the respondent, or sequentially, often
offering the lower-cost modes first. While this is an important design decision, one that
could affect response rates, nonresponse bias, and the measurement properties of the data,
it is still in need of empirical research.
Perhaps the greatest source of error from implementing a mixed-mode design is from
measurement. Differences across modes have been identified in the research literature,
which for the most part can be attributed to three factors: interviewer versus self, visual
versus auditory, and computer versus paper-and-pencil administration. In a seminal paper
covering two of these three dimensions, Tourangeau and Smith (1996) found greater
reporting of sensitive behaviors in computer-assisted self-interviewing than in computerassisted personal interviewing, and even greater reporting of sensitive behaviors in audio
computer-assisted self-interviewing.
A large body of literature reports that interviewer-administered modes evoke socially
desirable reporting to a greater extent than do self-administered modes (Aquilino, 1994; de
Leeuw, 1992; De Maio, 1984; Hochstim, 1967). It has also been suggested that
respondents are more likely to acquiesce in the presence of an interviewer (Schuman and

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-10

Presser, 1981). Additionally, the presentation of the survey questions (visual vs. auditory)
in each mode contributes to primacy or recency effects, as described by Krosnick and Alwin
(1987).
Finally, the mix of modes in a survey can result in different processing errors. Often
overlooked, the errors made by interviewers (e.g., coding of occupation) are different from
the errors made in the processing of paper questionnaires, which in turn are different from
those in computerized self-administered modes. Like measurement error, this is particularly
threatening when these mode-specific errors are not randomly distributed across different
sample members—and the interview mode is seldom, if ever, a random choice or
assignment.

2.4

Summary

Overall, mixed-mode designs will continue to gain popularity mainly because of their ability
to reduce costs and maximize response rates. However, careful consideration should be
given to the potential impact of such designs on the coverage, nonresponse, and
measurement properties of the data.

2.5

References

Alexander, C.H., Jr., and S. Wetrogan. (2000). ―Integrating the American Community
Survey and the Intercensal Demographic Estimates Program.‖ In Proceedings of the
American Statistical Association.

Aquilino, W.S. 1994. ―Interview Mode Effects in Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use.‖ Public
Opinion Quarterly 58:210-40.
Aquilino, W.S., and L.A. LoSciuto. 1990. ―Interview Mode Effects in Drug Use Surveys.‖
Public Opinion Quarterly 54(3):362-95.
Biemer, P.P., and L.E. Lyberg. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. New York: John Wiley.
Bishop, G., H. Hippler, N. Schwarz, and F. Strack. 1988. ―A Comparison of Response Effects
in Self-Administered and Telephone Surveys.‖ In Telephone Survey Methodology, R.
Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W. Nicholls, II, and J. Waksberg, eds., pp.
321-40. New York: Wiley.
Bongers, I.M.B., and J.A.M. van Oers. 1998. ―Mode Effects on Self-Reported Alcohol Use and
Problem Drinking: Mail Questionnaires and Personal Interviewing Compared.‖ Journal
of Studies on Alcohol 59:280-85.
Cannell, C.F., R.M. Groves, L. Magilavy, N. Mathiewetz, P. Miller, and O. Thornberry. 1987.
An Experimental Comparison of Telephone and Personal Health Interview Surveys.
Vital and Health Statistics, series 2, no. 106. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)87-1380.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-11

Couper, M.P., and W.L. Nicholls, II. 1998. ―The History and Development of ComputerAssisted Survey Information Collection Methods.‖ In Computer-Assisted Survey
Information Collection, M.P. Couper, R.P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C.Z.F. Clark, J.
Martin, W.L. Nicholls, II, and J.M. O‘Reilly, eds., pp. 1-22. New York: John Wiley.
de Leeuw, E.D. 1992. Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face-to-Face Surveys.
Amsterdam: TT-Publicaties.
de Leeuw, E., and M. Collins. 1997. ―Data Collection Methods and Survey Quality: An
Overview.‖ In Survey Measurement and Process Quality, L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M.
Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, and D. Trewin, eds., pp. 199-220. New
York: John Wiley.
De Maio, T.J. 1984. ―Social Desirability and Survey Measurement: A Review.‖ In Surveying
Subjective Phenomena, Vol. 2, C. Turner and E. Martin, eds., pp. 257-82. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Dillman, D.A., J.R. Clark, and K.K. West. 1995. ―Influence of an Invitation to Answer by
Telephone on Response to Census Questionnaires.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 51:20119.
Dillman, D., and J. Tarnai. 1991. ―Mode Effects of Cognitively Designed Recall Questions: A
Comparison of Answers to Telephone and Mail Surveys.‖ In Measurement Errors in
Surveys, P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, M. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman., eds., pp.
73-93. New York: Wiley.
Goyder, J. 1986. ―Surveys on Surveys: Limitations and Potentialities.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 50:27-41.
Groves, R.M., F. Fowler, M. Couper, J. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2004.
Survey Methodology. New York: Wiley.
Groves, R.M., and R. Kahn. 1979. Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison With
Personal Interviews. New York: Academic Press.
Groves, R.M., and J.M. Lepkowski. 1985. ―Dual Frame, Mixed-Mode Survey Designs.‖
Journal of Official Statistics 1:263-86.
Hochstim, J.R. 1967. ―A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data From
Households.‖ Journal of the American Statistical Association 62:976-89.
Holbrook, A.L., M.C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. 2003. ―Telephone vs. Face-to-Face
Interviewing of National Probability Samples With Long Questionnaires: Comparisons
of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 67:79-125.
Kirsch, A.D., M.T. McCormack, and S.K.E. Saxon-Harrold. 2001. ―Evaluation of Differences
in Giving and Volunteering Data Collected by In-Home and Telephone Interviewing.‖
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30:495-504.
Kormendi, E., and J. Noordhoek. 1989. Data Quality in Telephone Surveys. Copenhagen:
Danmarks Statistik.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-12

Krosnick, Jon A., and D.F. Alwin. 1987. ―An Evaluation of a Cognitive Theory of ResponseOrder Effects in Survey Measurement.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 51:201-19.
Marquis, K.H., and R. Blass. 1985. ―Nonsampling Error Considerations in the Design and
Operation of Telephone Surveys.‖ In Proceedings of the First Annual Research
Conference of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, pp. 301-29.
Massey, J.T., K. Marquis, and R. Tortora. 1982. ―Methodological Issues Related to Telephone
Surveys by Federal Agencies.‖ In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section,
American Statistical Association, pp. 63-72.
Schuman, H., and S. Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys:
Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
Shettle, C., and G. Mooney. 1999. ―Monetary Incentives in U.S. Government Surveys.‖
Journal of Official Statistics 15:231-50.
Sykes, W., and M. Collins. 1988. ―Effects of Mode of Interview: Experiments in the UK.‖ In
Telephone Survey Methodology, R. Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W.
Nicholls, II, and J. Waksberg, eds., pp. 301-20. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tourangeau, R., and T. Smith. 1996. ―Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data
Collection, Question Format, and Question Context.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly
60:275-304.
Walker, A.H., and J.D. Restuccia. 1984. ―Obtaining Information on Patient Satisfaction With
Hospital Care: Mail Versus Telephone.‖ Health Services Research 19:291-306.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-13

3. SELF-ADMINISTERED MODES OF DATA COLLECTION
Self-administered surveys involve indirect contact with the respondent, may utilize both
visual (e.g., mail) and aural (e.g., audio computer-assisted self-interviewing [ACASI])
channels of communication, and usually do not allow for complex instruments (unless
computer administered). Self-administered modes can be used as stand-alone modes, in
mixed-mode designs, or in portions of face-to-face surveys where sensitive questions are
asked. A common feature in self-administered modes (when used as stand-alone modes or
in mixed-mode designs) is the sequence of the distribution of materials—such as advance
letters; the cover letter and questionnaire; and the reminder message and follow-up
questionnaire—used to maximize response rates (see Dillman, 1978; Dillman, 2000).
There are various types of self-administered methods of data collection that differ largely in
the extent to which they employ technology and utilize aural and visual presentation. Mail
surveys remain one of the most popular modes, in part due to the ability to use address
sampling frames. Other self-administered modes include e-mail, web, fax, optical character
recognition (OCR), disk-by-mail (DBM), touchtone data entry (TDE), voice recognition entry
(VRE), automatic speech recognition (ASR), and inbound interactive voice response (IVR).
Several self-administered modes are used as part of an interviewer-administered survey,
where the interviewer sets up the equipment, instructs the respondent in how to use it, and
is available during the interview to assist, if necessary: computer-assisted self-interviewing
(text-CASI), audio-CASI (ACASI), video-CASI (V-CASI), and audio-visual CASI (AV-CASI).
From a cost-and-error perspective, self-administered modes are often characterized by
relatively low costs when used as the primary mode but are associated with lower response
rates than interviewer-administered surveys. This leaves a substantial potential for
nonresponse bias in self-administered surveys. Often, it is not possible to disentangle
refusals from noncontacts—for example, Mathiowetz, Couper, and Singer (1994) reported
that in 63% of households in the United States, one person is responsible for opening mail
and that 63% of households throw some mail away without opening. In addition, even in
interviewer-administered surveys, breakoff rates are very high: for example, in their review
of IVR studies, Tourangeau, Steiger, and Wilson (2002) reported breakoff rates as high as
31%; similarly, Couper, Singer, and Tourangeau (2004) reported a 24% overall breakoff
rate in outbound IVR, and Gribble et al. (2000) reported a 24% breakoff rate for telephoneCASI, compared with 2% for computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).

3.1

Mail Surveys

Mail surveys continue to be one of the most popular methods for data collection. The
research on mail surveys is voluminous: a bibliography compiled in the 1990s on research
to improve mail survey procedures published since 1970 included more than 400 entries
(Dillman and Sangster, 1990). Nonresponse has been the biggest challenge to mail surveys

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-14

so far; thus, various studies have focused on procedures and techniques for maximizing
response rates. Such techniques include incentives; personalization of correspondence;
content of cover letter; questionnaire layout, length and color; follow-up reminders; and so
forth (see Dillman, 1978; Dillman, 2000). The Total Design Method (TDM) proposed by
Dillman (Dillman, 1978) and later renamed the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000)
utilizes social exchange theory to guide the integration of specific procedures. The theory
posits that sample members are more likely to return the questionnaire if the perceived
benefit of doing so outweighs the perceived cost of responding. This has led to practical
recommendations on how to design a mail survey that appears interesting, trustworthy,
easy, and less time consuming to complete.
In terms of coverage, mail surveys so far have not enjoyed the degree of coverage
accomplished by face-to-face surveys. However, with the development and improvement of
a database of addresses and the promising future of the Delivery Sequence File for
7

address-based sampling, mail surveys may become a mode that offers almost complete
coverage of households in the United States at a relatively low price.
From a measurement error perspective, mail surveys have been reported to be less
susceptible to response order effects (mainly recency effects, i.e., choosing the last
response category) relative to telephone surveys (Bishop, Hippler, and Schwarz, 1988;
Ayidiya and McClendon, 1990). Another difference between mail and intervieweradministered modes that is frequently observed in research is the tendency for mail
respondents to use the entire scale when vague quantifiers are used as scale categories
rather than selecting the extremes. Such an effect was first reported by Hochstim (1967)
and was later supported by studies on mode comparisons by Dillman and Mason (1984),
Mangione, Hingson, and Barrett (1982), Talley et al. (1983), Walker and Restuccia (1984),
and Zapka, Stoddard, and Lubin (1988). One possible explanation for the observed
differences is that respondents do not interact with an interviewer and thus are less
concerned about self-representation and less likely to provide socially desirable responses
(extremes on scales). In fact, self-administered surveys in general have been reported to
yield higher rates of sensitive and socially undesirable behaviors and attitudes, possibly due
to the increased social distance between respondent and researcher and the private
environment in which the survey can be filled out.

3.2

Self-Administered Modes and Sensitive Questions

In response to the need for a private data collection environment, various (usually CASI)
techniques in which the respondents interact directly with a laptop computer for a portion of
the face-to-face interview have been utilized. A seminal article by Tourangeau and Smith
(1996) examined responses to computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and
7

A computerized file that contains all delivery point addresses serviced by the U.S. Postal
Service with the exception of general delivery.
Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-15

interviews conducted using text-CASI and ACASI. Topics ranged from illicit drug use to
sexual behavior. The findings supported the notion that the privacy of the CASI setting
encouraged respondents‘ honesty in reporting such sensitive behaviors. It was also
demonstrated that the audio component of the interview (ACASI) enhanced the feeling of
privacy, thereby increasing the level of reporting. Similar findings were reported by Aitken
et al. (2000), Hewett et al. (2004), Fu et al. (1998), Kissinger et al. (1999), and Moskowitz
(2004). A recent study by Couper, Tourangeau, and Marvin (2009) demonstrates that the
gains from using ACASI are modest relative to text-CASI and that most respondents make
limited use of the audio component.
Many national surveys that gather data about sensitive topics employ self-administration for
part of the interview. For example, the National Survey of Family Growth administers items
about pregnancies and abortions in ACASI and also in the main CAPI module. A difference of
17% in reports of abortions has been reported between ACASI and CAPI (Fu et al., 1998).
Similar findings have been reported on illicit drug use in the National Longitudinal Study of
Youth (Schoeber et al., 1992) and in a randomized experiment embedded in the 1990
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) field test.
Recently, the effects of self-administered modes on socially desirable and sensitive reporting
were reexamined by Kreuter, Presser, and Tourangeau (2008). The authors used survey
and university record data to look at mode effects on the reporting of potentially sensitive
information by a sample of recent university graduates. Conventional CATI, IVR, and web
modes were compared. Web administration was found to increase the level of reporting of
sensitive information and reporting accuracy relative to conventional CATI, followed by IVR.
No significant differences in reports to sensitive and socially desirable questions have been
reported across self-administered modes (e.g., Dillman and Tarnai, 1991; Knapp and Kirk,
2003; Lensvelt-Mulders et al., 2006). Generally, computerization does not add an additional
advantage (e.g., Dillman and Tarnai, 1991), even though the use of ACASI can be
invaluable for low-literate populations.

3.3

Web Surveys

With the mass use of the Internet, web surveys became popular very fast. Web surveys
offer access to millions of potential respondents, at low cost and with rapid turnaround.
Coverage remains the biggest threat to inference from web surveys (unless the target
population is made up entirely of web users). Sampling frames for web surveys are hard to
construct because the ―internet population‖ is different in many aspects from the general
population in the United States (Couper, 2000). Thus, web surveys often use nonprobability-based sample designs. Many survey organizations create panels of web
respondents that are recruited via a probability mode, such as phone, face-to-face, or mail.
However, this strategy adds another layer of concern—panel conditioning that occurs with

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-16

continuous experience with a survey over time (Kalton and Citro, 1993; Kalton, Kasprzyk,
and McMillen, 1989).
When frames are available and probability methods employed (e.g., lists of e-mail
addresses of university students), web surveys generally produce lower response rates than
mail surveys (e.g., Guterbock et al., 2000; Kwak and Radler, 2002; Lesser and Newton,
2001; Lesser and Newton, 2002). The reasons for this may be many—the fact that
techniques that have proven successful in increasing response rates in mail surveys may not
work for web surveys, technical difficulties, and so forth. Concerns of privacy and
confidentiality may be a crucial factor affecting not only web survey response rates but also
the ability to collect sensitive information with less social desirability bias (Couper, 2000).
We are not familiar with research that examines the extent to which the use of web surveys
negates the ability of self-administered surveys to collect sensitive information.
From a measurement error perspective, web surveys possess unique features, such as the
ability to deliver multimedia content to respondents; however, there may be variation in
how a survey appears on a respondent‘s screen (dependent on browser settings, screen
size, etc.). Various aspects of visual design features have been tested, including the use of
progress indicators (e.g., Crawford, Couper, and Lamias, 2001; Conrad et al., 2005;
Heerwegh and Loosveldt, 2006); paging versus scrolling web survey design (e.g., Peytchev
et al., 2006); definitions (e.g., Conrad et al., 2006); visual analog scales (e.g., Couper et
al., 2006); response formats (e.g., Heerwegh and Loosveldt, 2002); and interviewer
pictures, scale colors, and other visual features (e.g., Couper, Conrad, and Tourangeau,
2007; Tourangeau, Couper, and Conrad, 2007).
Web surveys are increasingly becoming a popular option in mixed-mode designs using the
choice of completion method, where the focus is on minimizing respondent burden and cost
(rather than concern about possible mode effects). Many government agencies have
introduced a web option (usually in panel surveys of establishments): for example, the
Current Employment Statistics program at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Clayton and
Werking, 1998); and the U.S. Census Bureau‘s Library Media Center survey (see Tedesko,
Zuckerberg, and Nichols, 1999; Zuckerberg, Nichols, and Tedesco, 1999).

3.4

Summary

Self-administration is a preferred mode of data collection for survey questions related to
sensitive or socially undesirable events and behaviors. This is usually achieved through the
use of various CASI techniques, even though research suggests that it is the use of selfadministration rather than computerization of the survey interview and audio components
that is believed to enhance a respondent‘s privacy. Mail and web modes are the dominating
self-administered options that are used as stand-alone modes or in mixed-mode designs.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-17

3.5

References

Aitken, Sherrie S., James DeSantis, Thomas C. Harford, M. Fe Caces. 2000. ―Marijuana Use
Among Adults: A Longitudinal Study of Current and Former Users.‖ Journal of
Substance Abuse 12(3):213-26.
Ayidiya, S.A., and M.J. McClendon. 1990. ―Response Effects in Mail Surveys.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 54:229-47.
Bishop, G.G., H. Hippler, and F. Schwarz. 1988. ―A Comparison of Response Effects in SelfAdministered and Telephone Surveys.‖ In Telephone Survey Methodology, R.M.
Groves, P. Biemer, L. Lyberg, J. Massey, W. Nicholls, II, and J. Waksberg , eds., pp.
321-40. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Clayton, R.L., and G.S. Werking. 1998. ―Business Surveys of the Future: The World Wide
Web as a Data Collection Methodology.‖ In Computer Assisted Survey Information
Collection, M.P. Couper, R.P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C.Z.F. Clark, J. Martin, W.L.
Nicholls, II, and J. O‘Reilly, eds., pp. 543-562. New York: Wiley.
Conrad, F.G., M.P. Couper, R. Tourangeau, and A. Peytchev. 2005. ―Impact of Progress
Feedback on Task Completion: First Impressions Matter.‖ In SIGCHI 2005: Human
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1921-24. Portland, OR: ACM Press.
Conrad, F.G., M.P. Couper, R. Tourangeau, and A. Peytchev. 2006. ―Use and Non-Use of
Clarification Features in Web Surveys.‖ Journal of Official Statistics 22(2):245-69.
Couper, M.P. 2000. ―Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 64:464-94.
Couper, M.P., F.G. Conrad, and R. Tourangeau. 2007. ―Visual Context Effects in Web
Surveys.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 71(4):623-34.
Couper, M.P., E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2004. ―Does Voice Matter? An Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) Experiment.‖ Journal of Official Statistics 20(3):551-70.
Couper, M.P., R. Tourangeau, F.G. Conrad, and E. Singer. 2006. ―Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Visual Analog Scales: A Web Experiment.‖ Social Science Computer
Review 24(2):227-45.
Couper, M. P., R. Tourangeau, and T. Marvin. 2009. ―Taking the Audio Out of Audio-CASI.‖
Public Opinion Quarterly 73(2):281-303.
Crawford, S.D., M.P. Couper, and M.J. Lamias. 2001. ―Web Surveys—Perceptions of
Burden.‖ Social Science Computer Review 19(2):146-62.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley
and Sons.
Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York:
Wiley and Sons.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-18

Dillman, D.A., and R.G. Mason. 1984. ―The Influence of Survey Methods on Question
Response.‖ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Public Opinion and Research, Delavan, WI, May 17-20.
Dillman, D.A., and R.L. Sangster. 1990. Mail Surveys: A Comprehensive Bibliography 1974–
1989. Technical Report. Pullman, WA: Social and Economic Sciences Research
Center, Washington State University.
Dillman, D., and J. Tarnai. 1991. ―Mode Effects of Cognitively Designed Recall Questions: A
Comparison of Answers to Telephone and Mail Surveys.‖ In Measurement Errors in
Surveys, P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, eds., pp.
73-93. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Fu, Haishan, Jacqueline E. Darroch, Stanley K. Henshaw, Elizabeth Kolb. 1998. ―Measuring
the Extent of Abortion Underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family
Growth.‖ Family Planning Perspectives 30(3):128-38.
Gribble, James N., Heather G. Miller, Joseph A. Catania, Lance Pollack, and Charles F.
Turner. 2000. ―The Impact of T-ACASI Interviewing on Reported Drug Use among
Men Who Have Sex with Men.‖ Substance Use and Misuse 35:869–90.
Guterbock, T.M., B.J. Meekins, A.C. Weaver, and J.C. Fries. 2000. ―Web Versus Paper: A
Mode Experiment in a Survey of University Computing.‖ Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland,
OR, May 18-21.
Heerwegh, D., and G. Loosveldt. 2002. ―An Evaluation of the Effect of Response Formats on
Data Quality in Web Surveys.‖ Social Science Computer Review 20(4):471-84.
Heerwegh, D., and G. Loosveldt. 2006. ―An Experimental Study on the Effects of
Personalization, Survey Length Statements, Progress Indicators, and Survey Sponsor
Logos in Web Surveys.‖ Journal of Official Statistics 22:191-210.
Hewett, P.C., B. S. Mensch, and A. Erulkar. 2004. ―Consistency in the Reporting of Sexual
Behaviour by Adolescent Girls in Kenya: A Comparison of Interviewing Methods.‖
Sexually Transmitted Infections 80(Suppl.2):43-8.
Hochstim, J. R. 1967. ―A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data From
Households.‖ Journal of the American Statistical Association 62:976-89.
Kalton, G., and C.F. Citro. 1993. ―Panel Surveys: Adding the Fourth Dimension.‖ Survey
Methodology 19(2):205-15.
Kalton, G., D. Kasprzyk, and D.B. McMillen. 1989. ―Nonsampling Errors in Panel Surveys.‖
In Panel Surveys, D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton, and M.P. Singh, eds., pp. 24970. New York: Wiley.
Kissinger, Patricia, Janet Rice, Thomas Farley, Shelly Trim, Kayla Jewitt, Victor Margavio,
and David H. Martin. 1999. ―Application of Computer-Assisted Interviews to Sexual
Behavior Research.‖ American Journal of Epidemiology 149(10):950-54.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-19

Knapp, H., and S.A. Kirk. 2003. ―Using Pencil and Paper, Internet and Touch-Tone Phones
for Self-Administered Surveys: Does Methodology Matter?‖ Computers in Human
Behavior 19(1):117-34.
Kreuter, F, S. Presser, and R. Tourangeau. 2008. ―Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and
WEB Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 72(5):847-65.
Kwak, N., and B. Radler. 2002. ―A Comparison Between Mail and Web Surveys: Response
Pattern, Respondent Profile, and Data Quality.‖ Journal of Official Statistics
18(2):257-74.
Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., P.G.M. van der Heijden, O. Laudy, and G. van Gils. 2006. ―A
Validation of a Computer-Assisted Randomized Response Survey to Estimate the
Prevalence of Fraud in Social Security.‖ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series
A–Statistics in Society 169:305-18.
Lesser, V.M., and L. Newton. 2001. ―Mail, Email, and Web Surveys. A Cost and Response
Rate Comparison in a Study of Undergraduate Research Activity.‖ Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research,
Montreal, Canada, May 17-20.
Lesser, V.M., and L. Newton, L. 2002. ―Comparison of Response Rates and Quality of
Response in a Survey Conducted by Mail, E-mail, and Web.‖ Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Pete
Beach, FL, May 16-19.
Mangione, T.W., R. Hingson, and J. Barrett. 1982. ―Collecting Sensitive Data: A Comparison
to Three Survey Strategies.‖ Sociological Methods Research 10:337-46.
Mathiowetz, Nancy, Mick P. Couper, and Eleanor Singer. 1994. ―Where Does All the Mail Go?
Mail Receipt and Handling in U.S. Households.‖ Survey Methodology Program
Working Paper No. 25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Moskowitz, J.M. 2004. ―Assessment of Cigarette Smoking and Smoking Susceptibility Among
Youth—Telephone Computer-Assisted Self-Interviews Versus Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviews.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 68(4):565-87.
Peytchev, A., M.P. Couper, S.E. McCabe, and S. Crawford. 2006. ―Web Survey Design:
Paging vs. Scrolling.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 70(4):596-607.
Schoeber, Susan E., M. Fe Caces, Michael R. Pergamit, and Laura Branden. 1992. ―Effect of
Mode of Administration on Reporting of Drug Use in the National Longitudinal
Survey.‖ In Survey Measurement of Drug Use: Methodological Studies, Charles F.
Turner, Judith T. Lessler, and Joseph C. Gfroerer, eds., pp. 267-76. DHHS Publication
no. (ADM) 92-1929. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration.
Talley, J.E., J.C. Barrow, K.F. Fulkerson, and C.A. Moore. 1983. ―Conducting a Needs
Assessment of University Psychological Services: A Campaign of Telephone and Mail
Strategies.‖ Journal of American College Health 32:101-03.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-20

Tedesco, H., R.L. Zuckerberg, and E. Nichols. 1999. ―Designing Surveys for the Next
Millennium: Web-Based Questionnaire Design Issues.‖ In Proceedings of the Third
Association for Survey Computing International Conference, pp. 103-12. Edinburgh,
September 22-4.
Tourangeau, R., M.P. Couper, and F. Conrad. 2007. ―Color, Labels, and Interpretive
Heuristics for Response Scales.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 71(1):91-112.
Tourangeau, R., and T.W. Smith. 1996. ―Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data
Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly
60:275-304.
Tourangeau, R., D. Steiger, and D. Wilson. 2002. ―Self-Administered Questions by
Telephone: Evaluating Interactive Voice.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 66:265-78.
Walker, A.H., and J.D. Restuccia. 1984. ―Obtaining Information on Patient Satisfaction With
Hospital Care: Mail Versus Telephone.‖ Health Service Research 19:291-306.
Zapka, J.G., A.M. Stoddard, and H. Lubin. 1988. ―A Comparison of Data From Dental Charts,
Client Interview, and Client Mail Survey.‖ Medical Care 26:27-33.
Zuckerberg, A., E. Nichols, and H. Tedesco. 1999. ―Designing Surveys for the Next
Millennium: Internet Questionnaire Design Issues.‖ Paper presented at the annual
conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg
Beach, FL, May 16-19.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-21

4. USE OF INCENTIVES
The use of incentives in surveys has been studied for decades. The literature surrounding
the use of incentives details multiple dimensions that impact the effectiveness of incentives.
These include theories on why incentives work, impact on response rate and nonresponse
bias, prepaid versus postpaid incentives, and mode differences.

4.1

Theories on Incentive Effectiveness

Different reasons for the effectiveness of incentives have been provided in the literature.
The theory of social exchange in the field of social psychology suggests a mechanism of
social indebtedness, in response to which the individual cooperates with a survey request
(Dillman, 1978). While social exchange would require that the sample member does not link
the incentive to the survey request, a feature of the use of social exchange is that the
incentive is rather small, so it is construed as a token of appreciation rather than a form of
compensation for time and effort. This would suggest an incentive amount that has a small
value. Kulka (1994) conducted an extensive overview of the existing literature and
concluded that there was support for the belief that small monetary incentives increased
response rates—a phenomenon largely attributed to social exchange.
Another reason for the effectiveness of incentives is more direct and can be described by
theories such as economic exchange: an incentive is a form of compensation for
participating in the survey. For some respondents, a particular compensation amount may
be below a threshold level at the time of a survey request, but the higher the incentive, the
more respondents decide to participate in the survey. Indeed, multiple studies have
demonstrated that, for incentives, more is usually better. Trussel and Lavrakas (2004)
examined the effect of incremental incentive increase in an experiment launched in a largescale, mixed-mode survey. The levels of tested incentives ranged from $0 to $10.
Consistent with previous findings, sending $1 versus not sending an incentive at all resulted
in higher response rates. The incremental increase in the incentive amount had a differential
effect, depending on the outcome of the prior contact with the household. For households
with positive outcome, it was not until the amount of $5 was reached when the response
and cooperation rates became significantly higher, relative to $1. More interestingly, the $7
to $10 condition did not differ significantly from $6. In contrast, in households that were
never initially contacted or had negative outcome, each incremental dollar had a larger
impact on response and cooperation than the previous dollar amount. The result suggests
that when there is negative previous contact with the sample person, researchers should
spend the maximum allowed in the budget on incentives.
Brick et al. (2005) compared the effectiveness of prepaid $0, $2, and $5 incentives at
various stages of a random-digit dialing (RDD) survey on educational topics. Brick et al.
(2005) found that $5 was more effective than $2 in achieving initial cooperation, but the

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-22

relative effectiveness of the incentive (defined as the percentage point increase in the initial
cooperation rate per dollar when compared to no incentive) was higher for the $2 condition.
Furthermore, incentives provided at the refusal conversion stage (a letter was mailed before
calling) were more effective than incentives provided at the recruitment stage of the survey.
It is yet unknown whether respondents really construe a small incentive as a token of
appreciation as opposed to a small amount of compensation, but in addition to the cognitive
mechanism at play, a small token of appreciation can have a very different impact on
survey costs compared to a larger compensation.

4.2

Impact on Response Rate and Nonresponse Bias

Offering respondent incentives is a demonstrated method to increase cooperation and
response rates, but more importantly, it is also a method to decrease nonresponse bias.
Sample members participate in surveys for various reasons. The leverage-salience theory
(Groves, Singer, and Corning, 2000) posits that different people place different levels of
importance on features of the survey request, such as the survey topic, survey sponsor,
interview length, and so forth. Depending on what is made salient when the sample person
is approached, the outcome of the survey request can be a refusal or an acceptance. For
example, those less interested or involved in the survey topic can cooperate at a lower rate,
leading to nonresponse bias in estimates based on the respondents. Incentives have been
shown to increase cooperation particularly among sample persons with lower topic
involvement. In a study that tests the theoretical framework based on the leverage-salience
hypothesis, Groves, Singer, and Corning (2000) compared incentive and no-incentive
treatments in a survey about political and community involvement. As expected, incentives
significantly increased response rates. More interestingly, however, the effect of incentives
was diminished for sample persons with high community involvement. Similar results were
reported earlier by Baumgartner and Rathbun (1996), who found that monetary incentives
increased cooperation more among those less interested in the survey topic. Such findings
suggest that by attracting respondents who normally would not take part in the survey,
incentives also changed the mix of sample persons who are measured, thus presenting a
potential for reducing nonresponse error. However, in another test of the leverage-salience
theory, Groves, Presser, and Dipko (2004) failed to find significant effects of monetary
incentives in reducing the effect of topic interest on survey participation.
The link between response rates and nonresponse bias arises when there is a clear
connection between response propensity and a survey variable of interest. The use of
incentives may influence both the participation decision and survey variables. In a series of
experiments launched to test whether those interested in the survey topic participate at
higher rates and whether nonresponse bias on estimates of variables reflecting the survey
topic was affected by this, Groves et al. (2006) also examined whether the use of incentives
affected the link between topic interest and nonresponse bias. Incentives did not reliably

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-23

dampen the effect of topic interest, even though the results were in the hypothesized
direction.

4.3

Prepaid Versus Postpaid Incentives

Another important factor when considering incentives is whether to offer them in advance,
regardless of the sample person‘s decision to participate in the survey (prepaid), or after
the respondent has agreed and completed the survey (promised). Some studies have found
only prepaid incentives to be effective in reducing nonresponse in interviewer-administered
surveys (Berk et al., 1987; Cantor et al., 1998; Singer, Van Hoewyk, and Maher, 2000),
while Bosnjak and Tuten (2003) have found no difference between prepaid and promised
incentives in web surveys.
Various studies have demonstrated the stronger effect of prepaid versus promised monetary
incentives in mail surveys (for an overview, see Linsky, 1975; Armstrong, 1975). A metaanalysis of the experimental work on incentives in mail surveys by Church (1993) concluded
that prepaid incentives yielded higher response rates than promised incentives or gifts sent
with the initial mailing (65% average increase). Furthermore, it was concluded that an
increase in the amount of money sent translated to an increase in response rates (but as
Armstrong [1975] and Fox, Crask, and Kim [1998] suggest, at a decreasing rate).
Certain designs do not allow for prepaid incentives (e.g., most RDD surveys, or surveys of
the whole household when the number of household members is unknown). In such cases,
the amount offered may determine to a large degree the effectiveness of the incentive. For
example, Cantor, Wang, and Abi-Habibm (2003) found an almost 10% increase in the
response rate when promising $20 (vs. no incentive) in an RDD survey of caregivers to
children aged newborn to 17. Strouse and Hall (1997) recommend that for a survey to be
successful, promised incentives have to be quite large (in the $15 to $35 range).
Promised incentives are fairly common at the refusal conversion stage. A number of studies
have reported gains in response rates through offering relatively large amounts of money
($25 or greater) at the end of the data collection period (e.g., Olson et al., 2004; Curtin,
Presser, and Singer, 2005).

4.4

Incentives and Survey Mode

Comparison of the respondent conditions in self-administered versus intervieweradministered surveys suggests that the need for incentives will be greater in selfadministered modes, where the persuasive presence of an interviewer is missing. In a
meta-analysis that included face-to-face, telephone, and mixed-mode surveys, Singer et al.
(1999) found that the effect of incentives was largely the same across modes. The results
suggested that prepaid incentives yielded significant improvement in response rates, and

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-24

gifts were found to be significantly less effective than monetary incentives, even controlling
for the value of the incentive.
It remains unknown whether nonmonetary incentives that appeal only to some respondents
produce the same expected reduction in bias that is usually associated with monetary
incentives. To an extreme, it is unclear whether such incentives may even induce bias in
survey estimates—similarly to the bias induced through topic interest.

4.5

Summary

Despite these arguments and empirical findings, incentives may not be included in a study
design due to their cost. Yet incentives can reduce the cost per case through the need for
fewer interviewer call attempts to sample members and for the more costly refusal
conversion attempts, as evidenced by the incentive experiments conducted for the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health. The cost per interview in the $20 group was 5% lower than
the control; in the $40 group, costs were 4% lower than the control. The cost savings were
gained by interviewers spending less time trying to obtain cooperation from respondents
(Kennet et al., 2005).

4.6

References

Armstrong, J. Scott. 1975. ―Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly
39:111-16.
Baumgartner, Robert, and Pamela Rathbun. 1996. ―Prepaid Monetary Incentives and Mail
Survey Response Rates.‖ Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Chicago,
IL, Aug 4-8.
Berk, M.L., N.A. Mathiowetz, E.P. Ward, and A.A. White. 1987. ―The Effect of Prepaid and
Promised Incentives: Results of a Controlled Experiment.‖ Journal of Official
Statistics 3(4):449-57.
Bosnjak, Michael, and Tracy Tuten. 2003. ―Prepaid and Promised Incentives in Web
Surveys: An Experiment.‖ Social Science Computer Review 21(2):208-17.
Brick, Michael, Jill Montaquila, Mary Collins Hagedorn, Shelley Brock Roth, and Christopher
Chapman. 2005. ―Implications for RDD Design From an Incentive Experiment.‖
Journal of Official Statistics 21(4):571-89.
Cantor, D., Allen B., P. Cunningham, J.M. Brick, R. Slobasky, P. Giambo, and G. Kenny.
1998. ―Promised Incentives on a Random Digit Dial Survey, Appearing in NonResponse in Survey Research.‖ In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop
on Household Survey Non-Response, A. Koch and R. Porst, eds., pp. 219-28.
Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.
Cantor, D., K. Wang, and N. Abi-Habibm. 2003. ―Comparing Promised and Prepaid
Incentives for an Extended Interview on a Random Digit Dial Survey.‖ Paper
presented at the Annual Conference at the American Association for Public Opinion,
Nashville, TN, May 15-18.
Church, Allan H. 1993. ―Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates:
A Meta-Analysis.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 57:62-79.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-25

Curtin, R., S. Presser, and E. Singer. 2005. ―Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse
Over the Past Quarter Century.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 69:87-98.
Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: Wiley.
Fox, R.J., M.R. Crask, and J. Kim. 1988. ―Mail Survey Response Rate: A Meta-Analysis of
Selected Techniques for Inducing Response.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 52:467-91.
Groves, Robert M., Mick P. Couper, Stanley Presser, Eleanor Singer, Roger Tourangeau,
Giorgina Piani Acosta, and Lindsay Nelson. 2006. ―Experiments in Producing
Nonresponse Bias.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 70(5):720-36.
Groves, Robert M., Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko. 2004. ―The Role of Topic Interest in
Survey Participation Decisions.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1):2-31.
Groves, Robert M., Eleanor Singer, and Amy Corning. 2000. ―Leverage-Saliency Theory of
Survey Participation—Description and an Illustration.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly
64(3):299-308.
Kennet, Joel, Joseph Gfroerer, Katherine R. Bowman, Peilan C. Martin, and David
Cunningham. 2005. ―Introduction of an Incentive and Its Effects on Response Rates
and Costs in NSDUH.‖ In Evaluating And Improving Methods Used in the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health, J. Kennet and J, Gfroerer, eds., pp. 7-17. DHHS
Publication No. SMA 05-4044, Methodology Series M-5. Rockville, MD: Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Kulka, Richard. 1994. ―The Use of Incentives to Survey ‗Hard-to-Reach‘ Respondents: A
Brief Review of Empirical Research and Current Research Practices.‖ Paper presented
at the Seminar on New Directions in Statistical Methodology, Council of Professional
Agencies on Federal Statistics, Washington, DC, May 25-26.
Linsky, Arnold. 1975. ―Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review.‖ Public
Opinion Quarterly 39:82-101.
Olson, L., M. Frankel, K.S. O‘Connor, S.J. Blumberg, M. Kogan, and S. Rodkin. 2004. ―A
Promise or a Partial Payment: The Successful Use of Incentives in an RDD Survey.‖
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public
Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ, May 13-16.
Singer, Eleanor, John Van Hoewyk, Nancy Gebler, Trivellore Raghunathan, and Katherine
McGonagle. 1999. ―The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates in InterviewerMediated Surveys.‖ Journal of Official Statistics 15:217-30.
Singer, E., J. Van Hoewyk, and M.P. Maher. 2000. ―Experiments With Incentives in
Telephone Surveys.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 64(2):171-88.
Strouse, R.C., and J.W. Hall. 1997. ―Incentives in Population Based Health Surveys.‖ In
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Section,
pp.952-57.
Trussel, Norm, and Paul Lavrakas. 2004. ―The Influence of Incremental Increase in Token
Cash Incentives on Mail Survey Response: Is There an Optimal Amount?‖ Public
Opinion Quarterly 68(3):349-67.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-26

5. ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN MEASURING CRIME VICTIMIZATION IN
SURVEYS
Several methodological issues are of particular relevance to surveys collecting data on crime
victimization, including problems with respondents‘ recalling and dating victimization
incidents correctly, the use of proxy respondents, perceptions of crime severity, survey
context, stigma, and terminology used in survey questions. The purpose of this document is
to provide the Bureau of Justice Statistics with an overview of additional issues in measuring
crime victimization surveys. This information will be used to inform the data collection
methods project being conducted as part of the overall redesign of the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS).

5.1

Event Recall

Survey designers rely on respondents‘ recall when collecting reports of past behaviors and
events. Accuracy of self-reports of past behaviors and autobiographical events is challenged
by the failure to encode the event initially, telescoping (reporting of events outside the
reference frame), or other sources of recall loss (Tourangeau, Rips, and Rasinski, 2000).
Not all encoded events are easily retrieved. Various studies have demonstrated that
accuracy of responses to autobiographical questions depends on passage of time (Cannell,
Miller, and Oksenberg, 1981; Loftus et al., 1992; Means et al., 1989; Smith and Jobe,
1994), length of reference period (for a meta-analysis, see Sudman and Bradburn, 1973),
event salience characteristics (e.g., Thompson et al., 1996; Wagenaar, 1986), and question
aids used to improve recall (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Wagenaar, 1986). Commonly used
question aids are situational cues (e.g., physical context, date) and retrieval cues (e.g.,
examples of similar events). To improve crime report accuracy, the NCVS 1992 redesign
introduced the short-cue screener strategy. The short-cue screener model attributed the
failure to report crime incidents to a lack of conceptual question understanding, memory
failure, or intentional misreporting; the redesign attempted to address the first two sources
by using person and location reference frames and by increasing the number and variety of
cues presented to the respondent. Preliminary tests of the short-cue screener yielded crime
report rates 19% greater than the rates produced when the original screening questions
were used (Martin et al., 1986). Several field tests conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau
reported similar findings—significantly higher rates of violence and crime reporting for the
short-cue screener group relative to the original screener group (Hubble, 1990). As
expected, the introduction of the short-cue screener in 1992 yielded more reports of
victimizations and captured types of crimes that were previously undetected (Rand, Lynch,
and Cantor, 1997). It improved the measurement of traditionally underreported crimes
(e.g., rape and aggravated assault) and crimes committed by family members and
acquaintances (Kindermann, Lynch, and Cantor, 1997). The differences were largely
attributed to explicit cueing of certain crime types (e.g., rape and sexual assaults) and the

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-27

addition of two reference frames to aid recall: the first, related to crimes committed by
someone the respondent knew; the second, related to the location of the crime (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1994).
In the search for strategies that improve recall, a number of studies have examined the
issues of forward telescoping, the reporting of events that occurred prior to the reference
period (e.g., Neter and Waksberg, 1964; Loftus and Marburger, 1983; Brown, Rips, and
Shevell, 1985; Loftus et al., 1990), and backward telescoping, the reporting of events that
occurred after the reference period (e.g., Sudman and Bradburn, 1973; Means et al., 1989).
One of the design strategies used to reduce telescoping in panel surveys and employed by
NCVS is bounded recall (Neter and Waksberg, 1964), a technique where the responses from
the first interview are used to anchor responses from following interviews.
Another approach to assist event recall is known as anchoring, which uses events such as
holidays, major public events, personal landmarks, and so forth (Linton, 1975; Loftus and
Marburger, 1983; Brown, Shevell and Rips, 1986; Means et al., 1989). Yet another
approach is to vary the length of the reference period depending on how salient and rare
the event is judged by the researcher, the premise being that longer reference periods can
be used for rare and salient events (Sudman and Bradburn, 1974; Mathiowetz, 1988;
Warner et al., 2005). An examination of recall biases in NCVS revealed that rates of
victimization decreased significantly as the length of the reference period increased
(Bushery, 1981). In a reverse record-check study of victims of robbery, burglary, and
assault, Czaja et al. (1994) found that the length of reference period and anchoring did not
affect victimization rates; however, both factors influenced reports of victimization dates.
Furthermore, Event History Calendars (EHCs) have been employed to facilitate recall. EHCs
facilitate the use of all memory retrieval mechanisms (top-down, sequential, and parallel).
Such calendars rely on inherent cueing mechanisms: noteworthy events can be dated
precisely and used as landmarks for other events; events remembered in one life domain
can cue events that happened in another; and inconsistencies can be spotted easily and
addressed. Freedman et al. (1988) found almost 90% agreement between monthly reports
in EHC for events that occurred 5 years prior and validation data. Similar rates were
reported by Caspi et al. (1996) when retrospective reports were matched to concurrent
reports 3 years prior. Further, Belli, Shay, and Stafford (2001) found that EHC led to betterquality retrospective reports on key social and economic events measured by the Panel
Survey of Income Dynamics.

5.2

Proxy Respondents

Many surveys use proxy respondents when the sample member is not available for an
interview. Proxy reports offer time and cost savings, but they often do so at the price of
data quality. The validity of a proxy report depends largely on the relationship of the proxy

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-28

to the respondent, the saliency of the event being reported, and the proxy‘s knowledge of
the event. Cantor and Lynch (2000) discussed the results of a pilot test of NCVS that found
far greater reporting of victimization with self-reports compared with proxy reports. Such
findings are consistent with other studies comparing self-reports and proxy reports in other
surveys (e.g., Hyland et al., 1997; Perruccio and Badley, 2004; Rajmil et al.,1999).

5.3

Crime Severity, Survey Context, Stigma, and Terminology

Respondents may not report smaller, less severe crimes, such as simple assault (attack
without a weapon resulting in minor or no injury), because they may not believe the
incident was serious enough to be considered a crime. Respondents may fail to recall the
incident or may choose not to report it due to the perceived ambiguity of the crime. Crimes
committed by nonstrangers (e.g., family members, intimates, acquaintances) may also be
underreported for this reason (Kinderman, Lynch, and Cantor, 1997).
Surveys that measure victimization outside the context of criminal behavior, such as the
National Violence Against Women Survey, have produced higher estimates of rape,
domestic violence, and assault than the crime-focused NCVS. The contextual differences in
the surveys may contribute to the different estimates of victimization because respondents
are less likely to report incidents to NCVS that they do not consider to be criminal (Rand
and Rennison, 2004). Additionally, the social and cultural stigmas attached to rape and
domestic violence may result in underreporting.
Much attention has been given to the measurement of rape, including wording in survey
questions (Fisher and Cullen, 2000). Research has demonstrated that the terms used and
the specificity of questions can influence victimization reports. Different terms used to ask
about sexual victimization may have different meanings to different respondents and, as a
result, may influence respondents‘ understanding of the question and, ultimately, their
reporting (Hamby and Koss, 2003). The use of legal terms may also impede comprehension.
Behaviorally specific questions and specific descriptions of sexual acts produce higher rates
of sexual victimization than the use of legalistic terms such as ―rape‖ and ―sexual assault‖
(Fisher, 2004; Hamby and Koss, 2003).
In addition, the way a crime is enumerated affects the accuracy of the survey estimates. For
example, repeated victimizations are common in cases of domestic violence. Concerns have
been raised on how to accurately count repeated victimizations or series of victimizations.
NCVS counts six or more similar victimizations that happened within a 6-month reference
period as one incident (based on the most recent incident). Other surveys that calculate
each incident separately produce higher estimates (e.g., Rand and Rennison, 2005).

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-29

5.4

Summary

A wide body of research addresses issues relevant to collecting valid survey data on crime
victimization. The length of the reference period, questionnaire design aids used to improve
recall, proxy respondents, perceptions of crime, stigma associated with the crime, and the
choice of words in survey questions are among the factors that can affect the accuracy of
crime reports. Careful consideration of such features at the survey design stage and the
selection of the most appropriate mode of data collection may drastically improve report
accuracy.

5.5

References

Belli, Robert F., William L. Shay, and Frank P. Stafford. 2001. ―Event History Calendars and
Question List Surveys: A Direct Comparison of Interviewing Methods.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 65:45-74.
Brewer, W.F. 1988. ―Memory for Randomly Sampled Autobiographical Events.‖ In
Remembering Reconsidered: Ecological and Traditional Approaches to the Study of
Memory, U. Neisser and E. Winograd, eds., pp. 21-90. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, N.R., L.J. Rips, and S.M. Shevell.1985. ―Subjective Dates of Natural Events in VeryLong-Term Memory.‖ Cognitive Psychology 17:139-77.
Brown, N.R., S.K. Shevell, and L.J. Rips. 1986. Public Memories and Their Personal Context,
In Autobiographical Memory, D.G. Rubin (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bushery, J.M. 1981. ―Recall Biases for Different Reference Periods in the National Crime
Survey.‖ In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American
Statistical Association, pp. 238-43.
Cannell, C., P. Miller, and L. Oksenberg. 1981. ―Research on Interviewing Techniques.‖ In
Sociological Methodology 1981, S. Leinhardt, ed., pp. 389-437. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cantor, David, and James P. Lynch. 2000. ―Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and
Criminal Victimization.‖ Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice 4:85-138.
Caspi, A., T.E. Moffitt, A. Thornton, D. Freedman, J.W. Amel, H. Harrington, J. Smeiijers,
and P.A. Silva. 1996. ―The Life History Calendar: A Research and Clinical Assessment
Method for Collecting Retrospective Event-History Data.‖ International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research 6:101-14.
Czaja, Ronald, Johnny Blair, Barbara Bickart, and Elizabeth Eastman. 1994. ―Respondent
Strategies for Recall of Crime Victimization Incidents.‖ Journal of Official Statistics
10(3):257-76.
Fisher, B.S. 2004. Measuring Rape Against Women: The Significance of Survey Questions.
NCJ 199705. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-30

Fisher, B.S., and F.T. Cullen. 2000. ―Measuring the Sexual Victimization of Women:
Evolution, Current Controversies and Future Research.‖ In Criminal Justice 2000, Vol.
4: Measurement and Analysis of Crime, D. Duffee, ed., pp. 317-90. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Freedman, D., A. Thornton, D. Camburn, D. Alwin, and L. Young-DeMarco. 1988. ―The Life
History Calendar: A Technique for Collecting Retrospective Data.‖ In Sociological
Methodology, C. Clogg, ed., pp. 37-68. New York: Academic Press.
Hamby, S.L., and M.P. Koss. 2003. ―Shades of Gray: A Qualitative Study of Terms Used in
the Measurement of Sexual Victimization.‖ Psychology of Women Quarterly
27(3):243-55.
Hubble, D.L. 1990. ―National Crime Survey New Questionnaire Phase-in Research:
Preliminary Results.‖ Paper presented at the International Conference on
Measurement Errors in Surveys, Tucson, AZ, November 11-14.
Hyland A., K.M. Cummings, W.R. Lynn, D. Corle, and C.A. Giffen. 1997. ―Effect of ProxyReported Smoking Status on Population Estimates of Smoking Prevalence.‖ American
Journal of Epidemiology 145(8):746-51.
Kinderman, J.L., J. Lynch, and D. Cantor. 1997. Effects of the Redesign on Victimization
Estimates. NCJ 164381. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Linton, M. 1975. ―Memory for Real World Events.‖ In Explorations in Cognition, D.A. Norman
and D.E. Rumelhart, eds., pp. 376-404. San Francisco: Freeman.
Loftus, E.F., M.R. Klinger, K.D. Smith, and J. Fiedler. 1990. ―Tale of Two Questions.‖ Public
Opinion Quarterly 54:330-35.
Loftus, E.F., and W. Marburger. 1983. ―Since the Eruption of Mt. St. Helens, Has Anyone
Beaten You Up? Improving the Accuracy of Retrospective Reports With Landmark
Events.‖ Memory and Cognition 11:114-20.
Loftus, E.F., K.D. Smith, M.R. Klinger, and J. Fiedler. 1992. ―Memory and Mismemory for
Health Events.‖ In Questions About Questions: Inquiries Into the Cognitive Basis of
Surveys, J.M. Tanur, ed., pp. 102-37. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Martin, E., R.M. Groves, V.J. Matlin, and C. Miller. 1986. Report on the Development of
Alternative Screening Procedures for the National Crime Survey. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Social Science Research.
Mathiowetz, N.A. 1988. ―Forgetting Events in Autobiographical Memory: Findings From a
Health Care Survey.‖ In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods,
American Statistical Association, pp. 167-72.
Means, B., A. Nigam, M. Zarrow, E.F. Loftus, and M. Donaldson. 1989. Autobiographical
Memory for Health-Related Events Series 6, No. 2. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) Publication No. (PHS) 89-1077. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-31

Neter, J., and J. Waksberg. 1964. ―A Study of Response Errors in Expenditures Data From
Household Interview.‖ Journal of the American Statistical Association 59:18-55.
Perruccio, A.V., and E.M. Badley. 2004. ―Proxy Reporting and the Increasing Prevalence of
Arthritis in Canada.‖ Canadian Journal of Public Health 95(3):169-73.
Rajmil, L., E. Fernandez, R. Gispert, M. Rue, J.P. Glutting, A. Plasencia, and A. Segura.
1999. ―Influence of Proxy Respondents in Children‘s Health Interview Surveys.‖
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53(1):38-42.
Rand, M., J. Lynch, and D. Cantor. 1997. Criminal Victimization, 1973-95. NCJ-163069.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rand, M.R., and C.M. Rennison. 2004. How Much Violence Against Women Is There? NCJ
199702. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Rand, M.R., and C.M. Rennison. 2005. ―Bigger Is Not Necessarily Better: An Analysis of
Violence Against Women Estimates From the National Crime Victimization Survey
and the National Violence Against Women Survey.‖ Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 21(3):267-91.
Smith, A.F., and J.B. Jobe. 1994. ―Validity of Reports of Long-Term Dietary Memories: Data
and a Model.‖ In Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports,
N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, eds., pp. 121-40. Berlin: Springer.
Sudman, S., and N. Bradburn. 1973. ―Effects of Time and Memory Factors on Response in
Surveys.‖ Journal of the American Statistical Association 68:805-15.
Sudman, S., and N.M. Bradburn. 1974. Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and
Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
Thompson, C.P., J.J. Skowronski, S.F. Larsen, and A.L. Betz. 1996. Autobiographical
Memory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey
Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Redesign: Technical Background. NCJ 151172, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Wagenaar, W.A. 1986. ―My Memory: A Study of Autobiographical Memory Over Six Years.‖
Cognitive Psychology 18:225-52.
Warner, M., N. Schenker, M.A. Heinen, and L.A. Fingerhut. 2005. ―The Effects of Recall on
Reporting Injury and Poisoning Episodes in the National Health Interview Survey.‖
Injury Prevention 11:282-87.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

E-32

Appendix F:

Description of Phase 2 Activities
for the NCVS

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-1

DESCRIPTION OF PHASE 2 ACTIVITIES FOR THE EXAMINATION OF
DATA COLLECTION METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL CRIME
VICTIMIZATION SURVEY
1.

Overview of Phase 2 Research Activities

Phase 2 research activities, which will be covered by a separate OMB clearance memo, consist
of three tasks. These include: 1) developing the address-based sampling approach and
sampling frame for the field test; 2) conducting a multi-site, multi-wave, mixed-mode field test to
evaluate the effectiveness of less-costly data collection modes and incentives; and 3) preparing
reports to document the results of the planned analyses and field test. Phase 2 also includes an
evaluation and assessment of differences in interview cost, response rates, and data quality
when incentives are or are not offered to respondents. This appendix is intended to provide
reviewers with a full understanding of the scope of the SCV research.
2.

Development of the Field Test Sampling Methodology

This section describes the development of the sampling methodology and sampling frame for
the Phase 2 field test, and creation of weights, estimates, and standard errors following data
collection.
Methodology and Sample Selection. One of the primary goals of this research is to provide an
evaluation of address-based sampling frames to enable interviews to be conducted in modes
other than CAPI. This is one potential means of reducing field data collection costs for the
national NCVS. One objective is to determine whether names and telephone numbers can be
obtained for a high percentage of the NCVS survey population, making contact by telephone a
viable option. A related objective is to determine the implications of an address-based sampling
frame on the coverage of the NCVS survey population.
RTI has conducted a significant body of research on the use of address-based frames for
household surveys, particularly regarding issues of coverage compared with traditional
―counting and listing‖ approaches. (Iannacchione, Staab, and Redden, 2003; Iannacchione et al,
2007; McMichael, Ridenhour, and Shook-Sa, 2008; Iannacchione et al, 2010; Shook-Sa et al,
2010; Staab and Iannacchione, 2003). Our research has shown that the coverage of the
household population in North Carolina using mailing addresses is comparable to the coverage
of counting and listing in urban areas, but is somewhat lower in rural areas (Iannacchione et al,
2007).
Currently, the sampling frame for the NCVS is maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. As such,
it is subject to Title XIII restrictions which do not allow it to be shared with research contractors.
In contrast, mailing addresses are offered to the public by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
through a nonexclusive license agreement with qualified private companies. One such company
is Valassis Direct Mail, Inc. In July 2010, the Valassis Lists product accounted for all but 35,000
of the more than 137 million residential mailing addresses on the U.S. Postal Service
Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS) File. The CDS File contains all postal delivery points
serviced by the USPS. We will purchase from Valassis all mailing addresses for the four-state

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-2

study region (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina8). The mailing addresses will
serve as the sampling frame for the field test.
To answer the question about the feasibility of obtaining telephone numbers and names to an
address-based sampling frame, we will match the addresses selected for this research to
telephone number databases maintained by commercial vendors. We will use a two-tiered
approach to provide the highest rate of correct telephone number matches. Initially, we will
batch the sample through a telephone number and name appending process. By appending
name as well as telephone number, we will develop an additional identifier to ensure that the
end results are active telephone lines. This batch process will match the sampled address with
the occupants currently believed to be associated with that address.
The second tier of the matching process will use the names, telephone numbers, and addresses
to conduct a comprehensive telephone search. We will obtain up to three verified telephone
numbers for the provided address (including cell phone numbers) as well as the date of the
most recent association of that number and person with the sampled address. Using these data,
we can determine the most likely current occupants.
For the field test, we will select a sample of 4,164 mailing addresses equally allocated to each of
the four mode/incentive groups (i.e., 1,041 per group). Our power calculations indicate that an
initial sample of 1,041 residential mailing addresses is needed to achieve the target number of
completed interviews for each of the four groups. Given that not all addresses will yield eligible
households (e.g., vacancies, small businesses, and non-English speaking household
members), we need to slightly increase the sample size in each cell to account for ineligible
addresses. We assume that 92% of addresses selected for the sample will be occupied dwelling
units9. Because the target population for the field test is English-speaking adults 18 years of age
and over, we must also adjust the sample size to account for households with no Englishspeaking adults. Using the average national rate of 9.5% non-English speaking adults in the
U.S.10, we can expect an overall eligibility rate of about 83% (92%*90.5%). This implies that an
initial sample size of 1,041 will yield approximately 864 eligible households for each
mode/incentive combination.
The overall sample of 4,164 addresses will be proportionally allocated on the basis of population
to the 4 states selected for field test data collection. Primary sampling units (PSUs) will
comprise one or more five-digit ZIP codes. A total of 64 PSUs will be selected with probabilities
proportional to the number of addresses. Sampled PSUs will be randomly assigned so that each
mode/incentive combination receives 16 PSUs. Within each sampled PSU, we will select a
sample of 65 addresses to achieve an EPSEM (equal-probability-of-selection-method) sample
of addresses. Based on prior experience, we expect to associate a name and telephone number
with between 50 and 60 percent of the sampled addresses. As part of our experiment, we will
monitor and report match rates, as well as the proportion of numbers that turn out to be
incorrect or nonworking.

Selection of states for the Phase 2 field test was based on a mix of criteria designed to maximize the
number of interviews while containing costs. The four states (VA, NC, PA, and OH) were selected because of their 1)
proximity to RTI’s central office in North Carolina, which will minimize travel costs for field staff training and
production, 2) mix of urban and rural households; and 3) lower concentrations of Hispanic households (the SCV will
not involve bilingual interviews).
9
In 2002, we selected a nationally representative sample of 12,000 city-style addresses and found 10,999
(91.7 percent) to be associated with HHs (Staab and Iannacchione, 2003).
10
2008 ACS One-Year Estimates, Tables S1601 and S0101.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-3

Statistical Power. We will compare response rates in the treatment group with those in the
control group (Condition 1). By control group, we mean the comparison group that most closely
matches the design of the national panel study. If statistically significant differences are
observed, we will have evidence that time-series estimates may be perturbed by a change in
the mode mix and/or incentive use.
With its sole reliance on CAPI, we estimate that the control group will attain the highest Wave 1
household and individual response rates. (The current NCVS response rate among new
households is 89.7 percent.) The expected Wave 1 household response rate for the control
group is 90% without the incentive and 92% with the incentive. These rates should yield
approximately 778 and 795 Wave 1 household interviews respectively. Given the average
number of adults in a household is 1.6, we can expect 1,245 eligible Wave 1 sample members
from participating households with the incentive, and 1,272 eligible sample members from
households with no incentive. Assuming a conditional individual response rate of 93.3%, we
would expect 1,162 and 1,187 individual Wave 1 interviews respectively.
Because bounded interviews require data from Wave 1 to be collected, we can assume that the
number of completed household interviews in Wave 1 will be the starting sample size for Wave
2. For the control group, we have assumed conservative conditional Wave 2 household and
individual response rates of 60% and 56% respectively. Because the definition of a completed
interview includes a completed household interview and completed individual interviews with all
additional household members, without a household interview in Wave 2 we cannot pursue
individual respondents from Wave 1. As a result, we can expect 746 eligible Wave 2 sample
members for the control group without incentive and 763 eligible Wave 2 sample members for
the control group with incentive. Given a conditional individual response rate of 93.3%, we
would expect 351 and 366 Wave 2 individual interviews for the control group with and without
the incentive.
The overall Wave 2 household response rate for the control condition is expected to be 54%
(90%*60%) without the incentive, and 55% with the incentive. The overall Wave 2 individual
response rate is 47% (84%*54%) without the incentive and 48% with the incentive.
Because we expect the control group to yield the highest household and individual interview
response rates, the minimum detectable differences shown in Exhibit 1 assume a one-tailed test
for comparisons between the control and the treatment with 80 percent power at the 0.05 level
of significance.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-4

Exhibit 1. Minimum Detectable Response Rate Differences between the Control and
the Treatment Groups
Wave 1 Response Rate
Household

Without Incentive
2
Sample Size

864

Individual

1,244

Conditional
Wave 2 Response Rate
Household

778

Individual

Overall
Wave 2 Response Rate1
Household

746

778

Individual

746

90%

84%

60%

56%

54%

47%

Detectable Difference4

3.9%

3.8%

6.2%

6.4%

6.3%

6.4%

With Incentive
Sample Size2

864

1,272

795

763

795

763

92%
3.5%

86%
3.6%

60%
6.2%

56%
6.3%

55%
6.2%

48%
6.3%

Response Rate

Response Rate
Detectable Difference4
1

The overall Wave 2 response rate accounts for nonresponse in Wave 1.

Eligible sample size for the control group.

Response rate for the control group.
Differences in response rates between the control and treatment groups will be detected with 80% power
at the 0.05 (one-tail) level of significance.

Power calculations for detecting differences in the item response rate between two
mode/incentive combinations are based on 1,045 Wave 1 and 697 Wave 2 individual interviews
per cell. At 80% power and at the 0.05 two-tailed level of significance (as we have no reason to
assume one condition will produce higher or lower item response rates than another),
detectable differences between Wave 1 item response rate comparisons will range from
approximately 5.1% for item response rates between 75% and 85%, to approximately 6.1% for
item response rates between 55% and 65%. Similarly, Wave 2 item response rate comparisons
will range from approximately 6.3% for item response rates between 75% and 85%, to
approximately 7.4% for item response rates between 55% and 65%.
Weighting, estimation, and standard errors. At the conclusion of field test data collection, RTI
will calculate base weights for each respondent reflecting each respondent’s probability of
inclusion in the study. To account for nonresponse, the calculated weights for nonrespondents
will be shifted to respondents whose demographics most closely match those of the
nonrespondent. Demographic variables used for the nonresponse adjustment may also include
age, race, sex, and education. Post-stratification adjustments may also be generated to adjust
for coverage bias, because nonresponse and ineligibility of respondents may alter the sampling
distribution so it is no longer representative of the target population distribution. Once all
adjustments have been made, RTI will carefully check the weights to ensure proper calculation.
All nonrespondents and ineligible sample members should have a weight of 0, while the weights
for all respondents should be greater than zero. Also, adjusted sample weights should sum to
the eligible population totals, and no weight adjustment factor should be less than 1. Unequal
weighting effects (UWEs) will also be calculated to ensure that all adjusted weights are of
reasonable size, and that extreme weight values are minimized. The adjusted weights and
documentation detailing their calculation will be delivered with the dataset.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-5

Accurate estimates of standard errors are necessary to assess the reliability of parameter
estimates or statistics. The standard errors associated with the research design must take into
account the complex sampling design which is a stratified two-stage probability sample of
households. An estimate of a standard error for a complex survey based on a simple random
sample assumption will generally underestimate the actual standard error. Therefore, software
must utilize complex formulae to compute design-based standard errors.
We will use the method of Taylor-series linearization for nonlinear statistics and design-based
equations to calculate standard errors. Specifically, we will use the Taylor-series option in
SUDAAN, the survey analysis system developed by RTI, which interfaces with SAS but can also
operate on ASCII data sets (RTI, 2008). SUDAAN properly accounts for complex features such
as clustering, stratification, and sample weighting, and is widely used to estimate standard
errors for means, proportions, regression coefficients, logistic regression coefficients, and other
statistics in complex surveys.
3.

Field Test Data Collection

The field test task will involve the following activities: 1) development of supplemental systems
to support field test data collection; 2) implementation of data security protocols; 3) preparation
of data collection materials; 4) recruitment and training of data collection staff; and 5) data
collection. This section describes our plans for each of these activities.
3.1 Development of Supplemental Systems for Field Test Data Collection
In support of the field test activities, a survey control system will be implemented to track the
status of all sampled cases and produce reports to allow data collection managers to monitor
the progress of all survey activities by condition/mode. The control system will use event codes
to capture the status of each case as it progresses through a series of pre-defined steps,
including mailings to study participants, survey contact attempts, interview outcomes, follow-up
contacts, case receipt and entry (mail questionnaires), and so on. Control system data will then
be used to generate routine reports showing the status of data collection production, response
rates by condition and mode, and other important outcomes.
3.2 Development of Field Test Data Collection Materials
At the start of data collection, we will send an advance letter and SCV study brochure to all
households in the sample. Because we will not know the names associated with the addresses,
the letter will be addressed to ―Resident‖ at each address, a practice we have employed using
other address-based samples. The purpose of the advance mailing will be to inform the
household members about the purpose and sponsorship of the SCV, explain the survey
procedures (customized by experimental design), provide information about how the household
can participate, and, in the $10 treatment groups, offer an incentive. In addition to conditiontailored lead letters and a study brochure, we will also use these respondent materials: (1)
informed consents; (2) reminder letters; (3) thank you letters; and (4) nonresponse follow-up
letters for households who do not respond to the initial survey request. Copies of these data
collection materials will be provided in the Phase 2 OMB memo.
One of RTI’s three Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will review the field test data collection
protocol and the procedures used to ensure confidentiality. Data collectors will have
responsibility for obtaining informed consent prior to interviews. The informed consent form will
explain the goals of the methods research and state how confidentiality is assured.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-6

3.3 Recruitment and Training of Field and Telephone Staff
RTI will hire 4 field supervisors (FSs), 72 field interviewers (FIs), 2 telephone supervisors, and
48 telephone interviewers to collect the field test data. In preparation for training, RTI will
develop and prepare training materials and manuals detailing the background of the experiment
and the procedures. The field and telephone interviewer manual will include information on the
following topics: study objectives, respondent confidentiality, data security, quality control,
gaining cooperation, refusal aversion, questionnaire content, comprehensive instructions for
collection of data within the two experimental conditions, payment of incentives, and
administrative procedures. Each interviewer also will be required to complete RTI’s Protection of
Human Subjects tutorial prior to training. A draft of the interviewer manual, which documents the
data collection and administrative procedures, will be provided with the Phase 2 OMB memo.
Field interviewer training will involve one in-person, 3-day training session. The telephone
interviewer training sessions will be conducted at RTI’s Raleigh, N.C. Call Center over a 3-day
period as well. The training sessions will provide the interviewing staff with the opportunity to
work with the CATI/CAPI Address Verification and Household Enumeration questionnaire,
Screener, and CIR, and to learn and work with specific project procedures and requirements.
Particular attention will be paid to adherence to the data collection and incentive protocols for
conditions 1 and 2 and general quality control measures for all interviews.
3.4 Conduct of the Field Test
An overview of the data collection flow for Waves 1 and 2 is depicted in Exhibits 3 and 4.
Field interviewers will be equipped with a laptop computer and a high-speed or broadband
connection for use in collecting and transmitting data. For CAPI interviews, field interviewers will
work offline and transmit the survey data to RTI upon returning home. For inbound and
outbound CATI interviews, telephone interviewers will access the instrument via RTI’s Call
Center Case Management System, and survey data will be saved in real time.
Both telephone and field interviewers will document their progress with each household and
individual respondent by entering case disposition codes into the survey control system. Each
contact, whether in-person or by telephone, will be logged. For outbound CATI calls, a
maximum of 3-6 calls will be made to a household per day (depending on prior call outcomes,
e.g. busy signals, ring no answers), at different times of day, to increase our chances of
reaching someone at home. The status of each case will be tracked through the project control
system and used to produce daily production and monitoring reports, as well as status reports
(including response rates) by experimental group.
It will be important to achieve a high response rate in each experimental condition so that
differences observed are not attributable to differential nonresponse. To maximize our response
rates for the two groups, we will:




Design all materials, mailings, training programs, and interview processes to heighten
professionalism and legitimacy of both the study and the interviewer.
For Wave 2, provide Web survey respondents with on-line responses to frequently
asked questions about the SCV.
Emphasize during telephone and field interviewer training the importance of high
response rates, and focus on the procedures that will lead to their attainment.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-7




Train all interviewers on appropriate refusal avoidance and conversion techniques,
including leaving the door open for recontact by other staff.
Train supervisors to make effective decisions about handling cases, including
reassigning the case to another interviewer for conversion or working the case
themselves.
Send a Thank You letter to all respondents following Wave 1.
Establish weekly and monthly interviewer production goals that will be closely monitored
and provided to BJS.

In those groups receiving the $10 incentive, this token of appreciation is also expected to
enhance participation. For incentive cases worked in-person, the field interviewer will pay the
respondents at the end of their interviews and get a signed receipt for the cash payment. For
incentive cases completed by telephone (in-bound or outbound CATI) or via self-administration
(Web or mail) in Wave 2, the project control system will track receipt of completed interviews by
condition on a daily basis and alert project staff when incentive mailings are needed. Incentive
mailings, accompanied by a Thank You letter, will be made from RTI once a week to any
respondents who completed the survey and are eligible for the incentive. The control system will
also track the mailing of the incentive payments to ensure they are made in a timely manner.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-8

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

Exhibit 3. Wave 1 Data Collection Flow for Conditions 1 and 2

HH CIR
CAPI

Condition 1

Condition 2

Household BSQ
CAPI

Household BSQ
Inbound/Outbound
CATI Initial;
CAPI Follow-up

CIR Eligible?

Yes

Other Eligible
Member?

Yes

Yes
Individual BSQ
Outbound CATI
Initial;
CAPI Follow-up

Individual BSQ
CAPI Initial;
CATI Follow-up

Individual
CIR Eligible?

Other Eligible
Member?

Yes

Individual
CIR Eligible?

Yes

Individual CIR
Individual BSQ
Mode

Thank R

HH CIR
BSQ Mode

F-9

Exhibit 4. Wave 2 Data Collection Flow Conditions 1 and 2

Conditions 1 and 2

Household BSQ
Mail/Web/Inbound CATI;
Outbound CATI Follow-up

CIR Eligible?

Yes

HH CIR
BSQ Mode

Other Eligible Member?

Yes
Individual BSQ
Mail/Web Initial;
Outbound CATI Follow-up

Individual

CIR Eligible?

Yes

Individual CIR
Individual BSQ Mode

Thank R

*BSQ = Basic Screening Questionnaire (or Screener)

3.5 Handling Distressed Respondents
The questions included in the SCV instruments have the potential to make some respondents
upset or distressed as they recall crime events experienced personally or by family members.
While we expect this to be a rare event, all interviewers will be trained to handle respondents
who become upset during the interview, or whose life or health is in imminent danger. The
protocol, which provides interviewers with sample responses to use in the interview setting and
contact information for crisis assistance organizations, is identical to the one provided in
Appendix D for the cognitive and usability tests.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-10

3.6 Monitoring of Field Test Data Collection
In addition to production monitoring, field and telephone interviewer performance will be
monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure all data collection procedures are followed and
interviews are collected in a quality manner. For field interviews, quality monitoring will be done
using computer audio recorded interviewing (CARI) techniques. Developed by RTI (Biemer et
al, 2000), CARI allows for the unobtrusive recording of the interviewer-respondent dialogue on
the laptop computer for pre-designated portions of the interview. The recordings are then
transmitted to RTI, along with survey and case management data, where they are reviewed by
project staff to evaluate interviewer performance. In RTI’s Call Center, interviewer performance
will be evaluated through the use of live monitoring and/or recorded interview monitoring. Both
telephone and field interviewers will receive timely feedback on their performance, which will
allow for remediation of poor performance as well as maintenance of interviewing and project
standards.
Selection of items for recording and quality review will be informed through discussions with
BJS about key variables of interest and the testing of the survey instruments. This may include
items of particular value to the analyses planned as part of this research, or question series that
may be considered particularly challenging to administer. All interview recordings will be
securely stored as described earlier in Section 3.7 below.
3.7 Data Security
Implementation of data security systems and processes will also occur as part of the data
collection task. Data security provisions for the field test will involve the following:









All data collection activities will be conducted in full compliance with BJS regulations to
maintain the confidentiality of data obtained on private persons and to protect the rights
and welfare of human research subjects as contained in their regulations. Respondents
will receive information about confidentiality protections as part of the informed consent
process.
All data collectors will be trained on confidentiality procedures and be prepared to
describe them in full detail, if necessary, or to answer any related questions raised by
respondents. Training will include procedures for safeguarding sample member
information in the field, including securing hardcopy case materials and laptops in the
field, while traveling, and in respondent homes, and protecting the identity of sample
members.
All project employees will sign a confidentiality pledge that emphasizes the importance
of confidentiality and describes their obligations.
Access to the file linking respondents’ sample identification numbers and item data with
their contact information will be limited to project staff who have signed confidentiality
agreements.
Hardcopy documents containing personally identifying information (PII) will be stored in
locked files and cabinets. Discarded material containing PII will be securely shredded.
All field staff laptops will be equipped with encryption software so that only the laptop
user or RTI administrators can access any data on the hard drive even if the hard drive
is removed and linked to another computer.
Laptops will use the Microsoft Windows operating system and require a valid login ID
and password in order to access any applications or data.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-11






All data transferred to RTI servers from field staff laptops will be encrypted and
transferred via a secure (SSL) broadband connection or optionally a secure telephone
(land) line. Similarly, all data entered via the web-based survey system will be encrypted
as the responses will be on a web site with an SSL certificate applied. Data will be
passed through a firewall at RTI, then collected and stored on a protected network share
on the RTI Network. Only authorized RTI project staff members will have access to the
data on the secure network share.
Following receipt from the field, PII will be stored only on RTI password protected,
secured servers. Only authorized project members will have access to PII for research
sample members.
CARI files recorded on the field laptops will be encrypted using the GPG encryption
technology as soon as the interview is completed. The GPG technology uses a pair of
public and private keys. The files will be encrypted using a public key installed on the
laptop. The encrypted audio files will be zipped up along with the survey response data
and transferred to the project share on the internal network at RTI. They will then be
decrypted using the private key for review by RTI quality monitors. Only authorized
project staff will be able to access the CARI files.
Audio files recorded during telephone interviews will be stored on a dedicated internal
share. Only authorized project staff will be able to access and review the files.
Data collected through telephone interviews (CATI), the World Wide Web, and through
the mail and data entry keyed will be stored on secure RTI servers. Only authorized
project staff will have access to the data, which will require passwords and the enabling
of user access by RTI IT security personnel. The data will be stored in SQL Server
databases which require an additional layer of security to access.

Analysis and Reporting

Following completion of the field test, RTI will prepare a final report that describes in detail the
results of the field test and recommendations regarding lower-cost, alternative survey methods
for the NCVS. The final report will provide a thorough analysis and documentation of the
alternative survey designs, including the three key features—use of self-administration modes to
reduce survey costs, use of incentives, and use of address-based sample frames. The analysis
and conclusions of the report will allow BJS to assess directly the feasibility and implication of
using any of the three key features to modify the NCVS data collection design in order to reduce
data collection costs or enhance data quality. In addition, the report will provide a summary of
recommendations based on the efficacy and cost of different design options.
Analysis will be directed at evaluation of six study components: (1) use of incentives, (2) use of
multiple modes for the household screening and the household interview, (3) use of multiple
modes for the individual household member screening and interviews, (4) implementation of
address-based sampling, (5) matching of additional contact information using commercially
available databases, and (6) effect of selecting a single respondent from households.
First, the effect of introducing incentives to facilitate the use of different modes will be estimated
through comparison of the two experimental groups within each condition. Direct comparisons
can be made between the response rates to the household interview when no incentives are
provided, or when $10 are promised upon completion of the interview, as well as an evaluation
of the ability to obtain more complete household rosters as a result of the possible incentive to
all family members. The latter is particularly important if gatekeepers, the individuals who
provide the interviewer with an enumeration of the household, are less likely to omit members of

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-12

the household when an incentive will be provided for each completed interview. Another direct
comparison will be made to evaluate the level of cooperation with the individual-level incident
reports that is obtained in the incentive vs. no incentive groups in each condition. It is possible,
that if the $10 incentive is far more effective in gaining cooperation or leads to larger household
listings in the first stage (enumeration and household-level questionnaire), this effectiveness can
create differences in the subject pools in the two incentive groups. To protect against findings
that may be affected by the effect of incentives through the household informant, analyses will
be repeated as logistic regressions controlling for respondent characteristics. Additional
outcomes related to cost will inform the relative efficiency of the incentive protocol, by
comparing the extent to which the incentive decreases the number of calls required to obtain
interviews in the follow-up attempts, as well as the overall cost per case in each condition.
The use of incentives, described in detail in Section 5, is necessitated by the implementation of
three modes of data collection that require respondent action (mail, Web, and inbound CATI).
Another evaluation of the effectiveness of incentives compares the distribution of completed
interviews by mode, to determine whether an incentive achieves a greater proportion of
interviews to be completed by these less-costly modes.
Conducting part of the household enumeration by an alternative mode can also lead to greater
cost efficiency by minimizing the number of in-person contact attempts, especially because the
majority of the individual interviews are conducted in the first interview together with the initial
enumeration. However, another potential drawback is the possibility that fewer household
members will be enumerated in CATI (inbound or outbound) at Wave 1 because household
informants are more concerned with providing information about household members via these
alternative modes. This design will allow us to evaluate whether screening households via
alternative modes (CATI – Wave 1, and Web, mail, CATI – Wave 2) will present any limitations
that are typically not observed with in-person screenings.
When considering less-costly modes of data collection for subsequent waves, it is important to
know what mode of initial contact that will yield high participation rates in a longitudinal design.
The proposed research design would allow us to evaluate which combination of modes will
produce high response rates not only in Wave 1, but would help build a rapport with the
respondent to ensure participation in Wave 2, when respondent action is required.
Using telephone interviewing for the first contact with a sample household requires that the
sampling frame be augmented to include telephone numbers, raising additional issues: Can
telephone numbers be matched for a substantial proportion of the sample addresses, and how
correct are these matches? We will evaluate the overall ability to append telephone numbers to
the address sample, overall and by subgroups of the sample (i.e., urban versus rural).
5.

Incentives

5.1 Background
Historically, the NCVS has relied on a combination of face to face interviews and telephone
interviews during data collection. Once rapport has been established by an interviewer with a
household during an initial face to face interview, subsequent NCVS interviews are conducted
by telephone unless the respondent requests an in-person interview. Declining response rates
in the U.S coupled with rising costs of data collection, however, are posing challenges to
probability surveys administered in various modes of data collection. These challenges have led
BJS to explore less expensive modes of data collection to reduce survey costs for the NCVS;

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-13

primary among these are the self-administered modes of mail, web, and inbound CATI being
evaluated as part of this research.
Self-administered modes of data collection have historically achieved lower response rates than
classic interviewer-administered modes. This is believed to be due to the lack of an interviewer
to gain initial cooperation from a sample member who may be reluctant to participate. The use
of incentives is one of the common remedies used to counteract low response rates. An
additional benefit of using incentives is the potential to decrease nonresponse bias by including
sample persons with low topic involvement (e.g., Baumgartner and Rathbun, 1997; Groves,
Singer and Corning, 2000). Incentives have never been utilized in NCVS data collection;
however, their utility and the need to explore their use as part of this research arise from
characteristics associated with survey self-administration approaches. This section provides
rationales for the introduction of promised incentives into this experimental study design.
This research evaluates the different self-administration modes of data collection for the NCVS
and the impact of the incentive design on response rates. There are three modes of data
collection that require respondent action – mail, web, and inbound CATI. Self-administered
modes are less expensive, but also yield lower response rates than interviewer-administered
modes. This is also likely to be the case for interviewer-administered surveys where the
interviewer does not play an active role in gaining cooperation, as in inbound CATI. An
additional consideration for this mode is that respondents may incur expenses, as would be the
case with the cell-phone only population.11 The desire to achieve response rates and standard
errors comparable to the current design necessitates the use of incentives in experimental
conditions that require respondent action. This is not only true for the initial contact in the first
wave, but also in following waves when the mode of data collection changes to selfadministration and the rapport with the interviewer from the previous wave is no longer a design
feature that can boost cooperation.
5.2 Use of Incentives
The mechanisms that evoke higher participation when incentives are used are unclear. Two
competing theories suggest that incentives may be construed as either a token of appreciation
(social exchange theory) or compensation for one’s time and effort (economic exchange theory).
Which mechanism is dominant may not make a difference in cross-sectional surveys, but would
likely affect cooperation in panel surveys, when the decision to participate in the first wave of the
survey is, to a certain extent, a commitment to take part in following waves and the experience
in the first wave is likely to be the most influential factor on future decisions to participate (Singer
1998).
Longitudinal surveys often use incentives to build initial rapport with the panel respondents as
participation in the baseline wave usually sets the retention rate for the life of the panel (Singer
et al., 1998). That is why sizable incentives in the first wave of data collection are often
recommended (Singer et al., 1998). For example, in an incentive experiment on Wave 1 of the
1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), James (1997) found that the $20
prepaid incentive significantly lowered nonresponse rates in Waves 1-3 compared to both the
$10 prepaid and the $0 conditions. Mack et al. (1998), examining cumulative response through
Wave 6, found that an incentive of $20 reduced household, person, and item (gross wages)
nonresponse rates in the initial interview and that cumulative household nonresponse rates
11

Currently, 20% of the adult U.S. population is cell-phone only (Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless
substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2008. National
Center for Health Statistics. May 2009. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm.)

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-14

remained significantly lower at Wave 6 (24.8 percent in the $20 group vs. 27.6 percent in the $0
incentive group, and 26.7 percent in the $10 group), even though no further incentive payments
were made.
In addition, there seems to be no evidence of incentive expectation in subsequent waves of data
collection. For example, research on the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS) suggests that
respondents who are paid a refusal conversion incentive during one wave do not refuse at a
higher rate than other converted refusers when reinterviewed during the next wave (Lengacher
et al., 1995). Similarly, Singer et al (1998) found that respondents in the Survey of Consumer
Attitudes who received a monetary incentive in the past were more likely to participate in a
subsequent survey, despite receiving no further payments.
This research seeks to test two experimental conditions that represent different combinations of
interviewer- and self-administered modes. The most efficient design would offer incentives only
to respondents who receive mail, web or inbound CATI – modes that lack the interviewer
motivation. However, mixed-mode designs employ combinations of modes and often
respondents in the same household are interviewed in different modes. In order to treat
respondents in the same household equally, and provide comparisons across modes that are
not confounded by the offer of an incentive, we need to offer incentives to everyone in the
household, regardless of mode.
A common argument against the use of incentives is the cost associated with them. Yet,
incentives can reduce the cost per case through the need for fewer interviewers to do follow-up
with sample members who do not respond. Such evidence is provided by the incentive
experiments conducted for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Cost per interview in the $20 group was 5
percent lower than the control (no incentive), and in the $40 group costs were 4 percent lower
than the control. The cost savings were gained by interviewers spending less time trying to
obtain cooperation from respondents (Kennet et al., 2005). These savings were realized through
reduced interviewer labor as well as reduced travel costs (mileage, tolls, parking, etc.) Similar
results were experienced in an incentive experiment conducted for the National Survey of
Family Growth (NSFG, National Center for Health Statistics) Cycle 5 Pretest which examined
$0, $20, and $40 incentive amounts. As in the NSDUH experiments, the additional incentive
costs were more than offset by savings in interviewer labor and travel costs (Duffer et al, 1994).
In addition to NSDUH and NSFG, many other federally-sponsored surveys offer incentives to
gain cooperation. For example, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES, National Center for Health Statistics) offers respondents up to $125, depending on
the number of survey sections and exams that are completed. The National Survey of Adoptive
Parents of Children with Special Health Care Needs (Department of Health and Human
Services) offers parents $25 for participation in a 35-minute telephone survey. In order to
improve response rates, reduce the number of contacts required to gain cooperation, and
address respondent concerns about interview burden, the National Survey of Child and
Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW, Administration for Children and Families) in 2002 doubled the
incentive offered to respondents from $25 to $50. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth
Cohort (ECLS-B, U.S. Department of Education) offered parent participants $50 and a children’s
book for the first wave and $30 and a children’s book for subsequent waves of data collection.
Over rounds 1 through 10 of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97, Bureau
of Labor Statistics) cohort, incentives offered to respondents ranged from $10 to $50 in an
attempt to minimize attrition across waves of data collection.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-15

5.3 Prepaid vs. Promised Incentives
Studies in the survey literature predominantly find prepaid incentives to be more effective than
promised (e.g., Linsky, 1975 and Armstrong, 1975 for an overview; Church, 1993). However, in
this research we will not have prior information on the composition of any sampled household.
Since we need to interview every eligible person in the household and offer the same incentive
to all sample persons without prior knowledge of the number of household members, it would be
challenging, if at all possible, to offer prepaid incentives in some conditions. Various studies
have demonstrated significant effect of promised incentives compared to a no incentive
condition. For example, Cantor et al. (2003) found an almost 10 percent increase in response
rate when promising $20 (vs. no incentive) in an RDD survey of caregivers to children 0-17. In a
meta-analysis of 39 controlled experiments, Singer et al. (1999) found that the effect of prepaid
incentives on response rates did not differ significantly from the effect of promised incentives.
Consistent with other studies (e.g., Yu and Cooper, 1983) also found promised incentives
significantly improved response rates. Promised incentives are fairly common at the refusal
conversion stage. A number of studies have reported gains in response rates with offering
relatively large amounts of money ($25 or greater) at the end of the data collection period (e.g.,
Olson et al. 2004; Curtin et al. 2005).
The decision to use prepaid or promised incentives is often determined by the mode of data
collection – for example, usually prepayments are difficult to accomplish in telephone interviews.
Some research indicates that the difference between prepaid and promised incentives is not
that prevalent in certain modes – for example, Bosnjak and Tuten (2003) report this is not a
relevant issue in web surveys.
5.4 Incentive Amount
The choice of an incentive amount largely depends on the survey length and whether the
incentive is promised or prepaid. Promised incentives tend to be larger than prepaid incentives;
Strouse and Hall, 1997, recommend that in order to be successful, promised incentives have to
be $15-$35. As noted above, a number of federally funded surveys, including the NSDUH and
the NSFG, currently provide incentives. For example, interviewers in the NSDUH currently offer
$30 (for an interview that averages 60 minutes); interviewers in the NSFG offer $40 (for
interviews that are about 60 minutes for males and 80 minutes for females). Incentives on the
NHANES range from $20 to $100 depending on the survey and physical exam components
respondents choose to participate in.
Given the length of the instrument for this mixed-mode experiment (approximately 7-8 minutes
for the Screener and an additional 8-9 minutes if a CIR is filled out), we propose using an
incentive amount of $10. Employing a smaller amount (e.g., $5) in the mixed-mode research
design may yield low response rates, and thus challenge mode comparisons. Additionally, use
of a smaller incentive amount would require a larger sample size (thus, increased cost per
interview) to achieve the same number of interviews. On the other hand, a larger incentive
amount (e.g., $20), even though within the range of the recommended prepaid incentive
amount, may raise suspicion regarding the nature of the survey questions given the announced
respondent burden (9 minutes or less). For example, the recommended amount of $10 is
consistent with what other large-scale field surveys (like NSDUH, NSFG, and NHANES)
currently offer while being commensurate with the shortened length of the NCVS instruments.
An important design feature to consider when comparing this mixed-mode experiment to other
large-scale national surveys that offer incentives is the mode of data collection – the above
examples are face-to-face surveys where respondent cooperation is further facilitated by an

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-16

interviewer. The mixed-mode design of this research features different survey conditions, where
incentives are offered to gain cooperation mainly in self-administered modes, thus, they would
play an even more essential role in gaining respondent cooperation. When considering an
incentive amount, an important factor may not be the dollar amount per time unit, but rather the
threshold amount that would gain survey participation. Based on our experience and knowledge
of the research literature, and the shortened length of the interview, we believe the optimal
experimental amount to be $10 for this research. We anticipate this amount will yield
comparable, if not lower, costs per case relative to the existing design. While it is possible that a
lower amount (say $5) may suffice, without previous tests with the NCVS instruments or
population the entire experiment could be jeopardized by null findings due to an insufficient
incentive amount and low response rates. It is also possible that $10 incentives are not
sufficient to motivate respondents to self-administer the survey. Additional embedded
experiments may be conducted to identify the optimum incentive amount – whether it is higher
or lower. However, if embedded in the current design, such experiments would require
increases in sample size to be able to detect differences between mode conditions and
incentive conditions with certain power. The current budget does not allow this and as a result
the design is limited to a test of a single incentive amount across each of the two experimental
conditions. However, if the use of incentives in the tested modes manages to yield comparable
response rates and standard errors of key estimates across conditions, the next step for
research will be to find experimentally the optimal incentive amount.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-17

References
Armstrong, J. Scott. 1975. Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly
39:111-116.
Baumgartner, Robert, and Pamela Rathbun. 1997. Prepaid monetary incentives and mail
survey response rates. Paper presented at American Association for Public Opinion,
Norfolk, VA.
Biemer, P.B., Herget, D., Morton, J., & Willis, W.G. (2000). The feasibility of monitoring field
interview performance using computer audio recorded interviewing (CARI). In
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association’s Section on Survey Research
Methods, 1068-1073
Bosnjak, Michael, and Tracy Tuten. 2003. Prepaid and Promised Incentives in Web Surveys:
An Experiment. Social Science Computer Review 21(2):208-217.
Cantor, D., Wang, K., and N. Abi-Habibm. 2003. Comparing Promised and Prepaid
Incentives for an Extended Interview on a Random Digit Dial Survey. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference at the American Association for Public Opinion,
Nashville, TN.
Church, Allan H. 1993. Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A
Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 57:62-79.
Curtin, R., Presser, S. and E. Signer. 2005. Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over
the Past Quarter Century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:87-98.
Duffer, A.P., et al, 1994. Effects of Incentive Payments on Response Rates and Field Costs
in a Pretest of a National CAPI Survey. 1994 Proceedings of the Section of Survey
Research Methods, Volume 2, pages 1386-1391. Alexandria, VA. American Statistical
Association.
Groves, Robert M., Eleanor Singer, and Amy Corning. 2000. Leverage-Saliency Theory of
Survey Participation - Description and an Illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly 64
(3):299-308.
Iannacchione, Vincent, Katherine Morton, Joseph McMichael, David Cunningham, James
Cajka, and James Chromy. 2007. Comparing the coverage of a household sampling
frame based on mailing addresses to a frame based on field enumeration.
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research
Methods, 3324-3332.
Iannacchione, Vincent, Katherine Morton, Joseph McMichael Bonnie Shook-Sa, Jamie
Ridenhour, Stephanie Stolzenberg, David Bergeron, James Chromy, and Arthur
Hughes. 2010. The Best of Both Worlds: A Sampling Frame Based on Address-Based
Sampling and Field Enumeration. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association,
Section on Survey Research Methods.
Iannacchione, Vincent, Jennifer Staab, and David Redden. 2003. ―Evaluating the Use of
Residential Mailing Lists in a Metropolitan Household Survey.‖ Public Opinion
Quarterly 67(2):202-210.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-19

James, Tracy. 1997. ―Results of the Wave 1 Incentive Experiment in the 1996 Survey of
Income and Program Participation.‖ Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods
Section of the American Statistical Association.
Kennet, Joel, Joseph Gfroerer, Katherine R. Bowman, Peilan C. Martin, and David
Cunningham, 2005. Introduction of an Incentive and Its Effects on Response Rates
and Costs in NSDUH. In Kennet, J, and J, Gfroerer (Eds.) Evaluating and improving
methods used in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (DHHS Publication No.
SMA 05-4044, Methodology Series M-5). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies (available at
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/methods.pdf).
Lengacher, Jennie E., Colleen M. Sullivan, Mick P. Couper, and Robert M. Groves. 1995.
―Once Reluctant, Always Reluctant? Effects of Differential Incentives on Later Survey
Participation in a Longitudinal Study.‖ Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Linsky, Arnold. 1975. Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 39, pp. 82-101.
Mack, Stephen, Vicki Huggins, Donald Keathley, and Mahdi Sundukchi. 1998. ―Do Monetary
Incentives Improve Response Rates in the Survey of Income and Program
Participation?‖ Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American
Statistical Association, pp. 529-34.
McMichael, Joseph, Jamie Ridenhour, and Bonnie Shook-Sa. 2008. A Robust Procedure to
Supplement the Coverage of Address-Based Sampling Frames for Household
Surveys. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey
Research Methods.
Olson, L. Frankel, M., O‘Connor, K.S., Blumberg, S. J., Kogan, M. and S. Rodkin. 2004. A
Promise or a Partial Payment: The Successful Use of Incentives in an RDD Survey.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public
Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ.
Shook-Sa, Bonnie, Joseph McMichael, Jamie Ridenhour, and Vincent Iannacchione. 2010.
―The Implications of Geocoding Error on Address-Based Sampling.‖ Proceedings of
the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.
Singer, Eleanor, John Van Hoywek, and Mary Maher. 1998. Does the Payment of Incentives
Create Expectation Effects? Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 152-164.
Staab, Jennifer, and Vincent Iannacchione. 2003. Evaluating the Use of Residential Mailing
Addresses in a National Household Survey. Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.
Strouse, R. C. and J. W. Hall. 1997. ―Incentives in Population Based Health Surveys.‖
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods
Section, pp. 952-957.
Yu, J. and Cooper, H. (1983). A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on
Response Rates to Questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36-4.

Use or disclosure of data on this page is subject to the restrictions on the inside cover sheet.

F-20

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	2011-04-19
File Created	2011-04-06