2021BRFSS Att 9 BRFSS 2019 Summ Data Qual Rpt w Response Rates

2021BRFSS Att 9 BRFSS 2019 Summ Data Qual Rpt w Response Rates.pdf

2021 Field Test Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

2021BRFSS Att 9 BRFSS 2019 Summ Data Qual Rpt w Response Rates

OMB: 0920-1061

Document [pdf]
Download: pdf | pdf
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
2019 Summary Data Quality Report
July 16, 2020

Page 1 of 26

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Interpretation of BRFSS Response Rates ............................................................................................................... 3
BRFSS 2019 Call Outcome Measures and Response Rate Formulae .................................................................... 5
Tables of Outcomes and Rates by State................................................................................................................ 10
References ............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Page 2 of 26

Introduction
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a state-based, CDC-assisted health-data collection
project and partnership of state health departments, CDC’s Division of Population Health, and other CDC
programs and offices. It comprises telephone surveys conducted by the health departments of all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
This Summary Data Quality Report presents detailed descriptions of the 2019 BRFSS calling outcomes and call
summary information for each of the states and territories that participated. All BRFSS public-use data are
collected by landline telephone and cellular telephone to produce a single data set aggregated from the 2019
BRFSS territorial- and state-level data sets. The variables and outcomes provided in this document are
applicable to a combined data set of responses from participants using landline telephones and cellular
telephones within each of the states and territories.
The inclusion of data from cellular telephone interviews in the BRFSS public release data set has been standard
protocol since 2011. In many respects, 2011 was a year of change—both in BRFSS’s approach and
methodology. As the results of cellular telephone interviews were added in 2011, so were new weighting
procedures that could accommodate the inclusion of new weighting variables. Data users should note that
weighting procedures are likely to affect trend lines when comparing BRFSS data collected before and after
2011. Because of these changes, users are advised NOT to make direct comparisons with pre-2011 data, and
instead, should begin new trend lines with that year. Details of changes beginning with the 2011 BRFSS are
provided in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which highlights weighting and coverage
effects on trend lines.1 Each year of data collection since 2011 has included a larger percentage of calls from the
cell phone sample. In 2019, a majority of the BRFSS interviews were conducted by cell phone. The annual code
books provide information on the number and percentage of calls conducted by landline and cell phone by year.
The measures presented in this document are designed to summarize the quality of the 2019 BRFSS survey
data. Response rates, cooperation rates, and refusal rates for BRFSS are calculated using standards set by the
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).2 The BRFSS has calculated 2019 response rates
using AAPOR Response Rate #4, which is in keeping with rates provided by BRFSS before 2011 using rates
from the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO).3
On the basis of the AAPOR guidelines, response rate calculations include assumptions of eligibility among
potential respondents or households that are not interviewed. Changes in the geographic distribution of cellular
telephone numbers by telephone companies and the portability of landline telephone numbers are likely to make
it more difficult than in the past to ascertain which telephone numbers are out-of-sample and which telephone
numbers represent likely households. The BRFSS calculates likely households and eligible persons using the
proportions of eligible households/persons among all phone numbers where eligibility has been determined.
This eligibility factor appears in calculations of response, cooperation, resolution, and refusal rates.

Interpretation of BRFSS Response Rates
Because this report reflects the inclusion of BRFSS cellular telephone interviews, contextual information on
cellular telephone response rates is provided below. Although cellular telephone response rates are generally
Page 3 of 26

lower than landline telephone response rates across most surveys, the BRFSS has achieved a cellular telephone
response rate that compares favorably with other similar surveys (Table 1). Moreover, since the initial inclusion
of cell phone respondents, the proportion of the sample that is interviewed by cell phone has increased. In many
states, cell phone respondents are the majority of the sample. Since 2012, median BRFSS cell phone response
rates have risen slightly. Overall, BRFSS response rates have leveled off in the past few years, with landline
rates declining and cell phone rates improving. In 2019, the screening of eligible landline phone numbers has
improved—which may account for a slight improvement in the proportion of numbers identified as working
phone numbers in the landline sample. This change would not necessarily increase response rates. The levelingoff of telephone survey response rates is noted for other federal surveys as well.4
Table 1.
Examples of Survey Response Rates

Year(s)

Overall Response
Rates

California Health Interview Survey (CHIS)a

2017

7.1%

National Immunization Survey (NIS) b

2014

42.5%

2013-2014

36.1%

2019

49.4%

Survey

National Adult Tobacco Survey (NATS) c
BRFSS d
a CHIS

2017 Methodology Report Series. (2018)
https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/chis/design/Documents/CHIS_2017_MethodologyReport4_ResponseRates.pdf
b

Unlike the BRFSS, the NIS does not include household sampling in the landline portion of the study but interviews the adult
who self-identifies as the most knowledgeable about household immunization information.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_061.pdf
c https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/surveys/nats/pdfs/2014-methodology-report-tag508.pdf
d BRFSS

response rates are presented here as median rates for all states and territories.

Research by the Pew Research Center indicates that response rates for all telephone-based surveys have
declined in recent years.5 Comparisons of federal surveys indicate that all surveys including the BRFSS have
experienced declining response rates in recent years.4 Generally, response rates are lower for telephone surveys
than for surveys conducted in person.5 Industry averages for response rates by in-person, telephone, mail and
online surveys average 57%, 18%, 50% and 29%, respectively.6 Despite lower response rates over time, this
research supports previous findings7 that weighting to demographic characteristics of respondents ensures
accurate estimates for most measures.
The following tables present landline telephone and cellular telephone calling outcomes and rates. The BRFSS
cellular telephone survey was collected in a manner similar to that of the BRFSS landline telephone survey. One
important difference, however, is that interviews conducted by landline telephones include random selection
among adults within households, while cellular telephone interviews are conducted with adults who are
contacted on personal (nonbusiness) cellular telephones. The report presents data on three general types of
measure by state:
1. Call outcome measures, including response rates, which are based on landline telephone disposition codes.

Page 4 of 26

2. Call outcome measures, including response rates, which are based on cellular telephone disposition codes.
3. A weighted response rate, based on a combination of the landline telephone response rate with the cellular
telephone response rate proportional to the total sample used to collect the data for a state.

For clarity, the BRFSS recommends that authors and researchers referencing BRFSS data quality include the
following language, below. Note the places where authors should include information specific to their projects.
Response rates for BRFSS are calculated using standards set by the American Association for Public Opinion Research
(AAPOR) Response Rate Formula #4 (http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/StandardDefinitions20169theditionfinal.pdf). The response rate is the number of respondents who completed the survey as a
proportion of all eligible and likely-eligible people. The median survey response rate for all states, territories and
Washington, DC, in 2019 was 49.4 and ranged from 37.3 to 73.1.a Response rates for states and territories included in this
analysis had a median of [provide median] and ranged from [provide range],b For detailed information see the BRFSS
Summary Data Quality Report c
a

Response rates and ranges should reflect the year(s) included in the analyses.
Response rates for states selected for analysis should be included here. This sentence may be omitted if all states are used
in the analysis.
c
See the Summary Data Quality Report for the year(s) included in the analyses. The 2019 document is available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/2019/pdf/2019-sdqr-508.pdf.
b

BRFSS 2019 Call Outcome Measures and Response Rate Formulae
The calculations of calling-outcome rates are based on final disposition codes that are assigned after all calling
attempts have been exhausted. The BRFSS may make up to 15 attempts to reach a respondent before assigning
a final disposition code. In 2019, the BRFSS used a single set of disposition codes for both landline and cell
phones, adapted from standardized AAPOR disposition codes for telephone surveys. A few disposition codes
apply only to landline telephone or to cellular telephone sample numbers. For example, answering-device
messages may confirm household eligibility for landline telephone numbers but are not used to determine
eligibility of cellular telephone numbers. Disposition codes reflect whether interviewers have completed or
partially completed an interview (1000 level codes), determined that the household was eligible without
completing an interview (2000 level codes), determined that a household or respondent was ineligible (4000
level codes), or was unable to determine the eligibility of a household or respondent (3000 level codes).
Partially completed interviews are those that have collected all information needed to weight responses (about
12 minutes into the survey questionnaire, not including time for eligibility screening). The table below
illustrates the codes used by the BRFSS in 2019, and it notes the instances where codes are used only for
landline telephone or cellular telephone sample numbers.
The Disposition Code Table below uses a number of terms to define and categorize outcomes. These include the
following:
•
•

Respondent: A person who is contacted by an interviewer and who may be eligible for interview.
Private residence: Persons residing in private residences or college housing are eligible. Persons living
in group homes, military barracks or other living arrangements are not eligible. Persons living in
vacation homes for 30 days or more are eligible. Eligibility is ascertained by asking each potential
Page 5 of 26

•
•
•

•

respondent whether they live in a private residence. If the respondent is unsure whether their residence
qualifies, additional definitions of residences are provided.
Landline telephone: A telephone that is used within a specific location, including traditional household
telephones, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), and Internet phones connected to computers in a
household.
Cellular telephone: A mobile device that is not tied to a specific location for use.
Selected respondent: A person who is eligible for interview. For the cellular telephone sample, a
selected respondent is an adult associated with the phone number who lives in a private residence or
college housing within the United States or territories covered by the BRFSS. For the landline telephone
sample, a selected respondent is the person chosen for interview during the household enumeration
section of the screening questions.
Personal cellular telephone: A cellular telephone that is used for personal calls. Cellular telephones that
are used for both personal and business calls may be categorized as personal telephones and persons
contacted on these phones are eligible for interview. Persons using telephones that are exclusively for
business use are not eligible for interview.

Table 2.
2019 Disposition Codes for Landline Telephones and Cellular Telephones
Category

Interviewed
(1000-level codes)

Eligible, Non-Interview
(2000 level codes)

Unknown Eligibility

Code

Description

1100

Completed interview

1200

Partially completed interview

2111

Household level refusal (used for landline only)

2112

Selected respondent refusal

2120

Break off/termination within questionnaire

2210

Selected respondent never available

2320

Selected respondent physically or mentally unable to
complete interview

2330

Language barrier of selected respondent

3100

Unknown if housing unit

3130

No answer

3140

Answering device, unknown whether eligible

3150

Telecommunication barrier (i.e. call blocking)

3200

Household, not known if respondent eligible

3322

Physical or mental impairment (household level)

3330

Language barrier (household level)

3700

On never-call list

Page 6 of 26

Table 2.
2019 Disposition Codes for Landline Telephones and Cellular Telephones
Category

Not Eligible

Code

Description

4100

Out of sample

4200

Fax/data/modem

4300

Nonworking/disconnected number

4400

Technological barrier
(i.e., fast busy, phone circuit barriers)

4430

Call forwarding/pager

4460

Landline telephone number
(used for cellular telephone only)

4500

Non-residence/business

4900

Miscellaneous, non-eligible

Factors affecting the distribution of disposition codes by state include differences in telephone systems, sample
designs, surveyed populations, and data collection processes. Table 3 defines the categories of disposition codes
used to calculate outcome and response rates illustrated in Tables 4A through 6.
Table 3.
Categories of 2019 Landline and Cellular Telephone Disposition Codes

Category

Disposition Code
Definitions

Formulae
Abbreviation

Completed
Interviews

1100+1200

COIN

Eligible

1100+1200+2111+2112+2120+2210+2320+2330

ELIG

Contacted Eligible

1100+1200+2111+2112+2120+2210+2320+2330

CONELIG

Terminations and
Refusals

2111+2112+2120

TERE

Ineligible Phone
Numbers

All 4000 level disposition codes

INELIG

Unknown Whether
Eligible

All 3000 level disposition codes

UNKELIG

Eligibility Factor

ELIG/(ELIG + INELIG)

E

The disposition codes are categorized according to the groups illustrated in Table 3 to produce rates of
resolution, cooperation, completion, refusal and response. In accordance with population surveillance standards,
Page 7 of 26

the proportions of people who may have been eligible for interview, but who were not able to be interviewed,
are accounted for in the formulae.
Eligibility Factor
E = ELIG/ (ELIG + INELIG)
The Eligibility Factor is the proportion of eligible phone numbers from among all sample numbers for which
eligibility has been determined. The eligibility factor, therefore, provides a measure of eligibility that can be
applied to sample numbers with unknown eligibility. The purpose of the eligibility factor is to estimate the
proportion of the sample that is likely to be eligible. The eligibility factor is used in the calculations of refusal
and response rates. Separate eligibility factors are calculated for landline telephones and cellular telephone
samples for each state and territory.
Resolution Rate
((ELIG + INELIG) / (ELIG+INELIG+UNKELIG))*100
The Resolution Rate is the percentage of numbers in the total sample for which eligibility has been determined.
The total number of eligible and ineligible sample phone numbers is divided by the total number of phone
numbers in the entire sample. The result is multiplied by 100 to calculate the percentage of the sample for which
eligibility is determined. Separate resolution rates are calculated for landline telephone and cellular telephone
samples for each state and territory.

Page 8 of 26

Interview Completion Rate
(COIN / (COIN + TERE)) * 100
The Interview Completion Rate is the rate of completed interviews among all respondents who have been
determined to be eligible and selected for interviewing. The numerator is the number of complete and partially
completed interviews. This number is divided by the number of completed interviews, partially completed
interviews, and all break offs, refusals, and terminations. The result is multiplied by 100 to provide the
percentage of completed interviews among eligible respondents who are contacted by interviewers. Separate
interview completion rates are calculated for landline telephone and cellular telephone samples for each state
and territory.
Cooperation Rate
(COIN / CONELIG) *100
The AAPOR Cooperation Rate is the number of complete and partial complete interviews divided by the
number of contacted and eligible respondents. The BRFSS Cooperation Rate follows the guidelines of AAPOR
Cooperation Rate #2. Separate cooperation rates are calculated for landline telephone and cellular telephone
samples for each state and territory.
Refusal Rate
(TERE / (ELIG + (E * UNKELIG))) * 100
The BRFSS Refusal Rate is the proportion of all eligible respondents who refused to complete an interview or
terminated an interview prior to the threshold required to be considered a partial interview. Refusals and
terminations (TERE) are in the numerator, and the denominator includes all eligible numbers and a proportion
of the numbers with unknown eligibility. The proportion of numbers with unknown eligibility is determined by
the eligibility factor (E as described above). The result is then multiplied by 100 to provide a percentage of
refusals among all eligible and likely to be eligible numbers in the sample. Separate refusal rates are calculated
for landline telephone and cellular telephone samples for each state and territory.
Response Rate
(COIN / ((ELIG + (E * UNKELIG))) * 100
A Response Rate is an outcome rate with the number of complete and partial interviews in the numerator and an
estimate of the number of eligible units in the sam
ple in the denominator. The BRFSS Response Rate calculation assumes that the unresolved numbers contain the
same percentage of eligible households or eligible personal cell phones as the records whose eligibility or
ineligibility are determined. The BRFSS Response Rate follows the guidelines for AAPOR Response Rate #4.
It also is similar to the BRFSS CASRO Rates reported prior to 2011. Separate eligibility factors are calculated
for landline telephone and cellular telephone samples for each state and territory and a combined Response Rate
for landline telephone and cellular telephone also is calculated. The combined landline telephone and cellular
telephone response rate is generated by weighting to the respective size of the two samples. The total sample
equals the landline telephone sample plus cellular telephone sample. The proportion of each sample is
calculated using the total sample as the denominator. The formulae for the proportions of the sample are found
below:
P1 = TOTAL LANDLINE SAMPLE /
Page 9 of 26

(TOTAL LANDLINE SAMPLE + TOTAL CELL PHONE SAMPLE);
P2 = TOTAL CELL PHONE SAMPLE /
(TOTAL LANDLINE SAMPLE + TOTAL CELL PHONE SAMPLE);
The formula for the Combined Landline Telephone and Cellular Telephone Weighted Response Rate, therefore,
is described below:
COMBINED RESPONSE RATE=
(P1 * LANDLINE RESPONSE RATE) + (P2 * CELL PHONE RESPONSE RATE).

Tables of Outcomes and Rates by State
The tables on the following pages illustrate calling outcomes in categories of eligibility, rates of cooperation,
refusal, resolution, and response by landline telephone and cellular telephone samples.
➢ Tables 4A and 4B provide information on the size of the sample and the numbers and percentages of
completed interviews, cooperation rates, terminations and refusals, and contacts with eligible households
by state and territory.
➢ Tables 5A and 5B provide information on the number and percentage of landline telephone and cellular
telephone sample numbers that are eligible, ineligible, and of unknown eligibility.
➢ Table 6 provides response rates for landline telephone samples, cellular telephone samples, and
combined samples.

Page 10 of 26

Table 4A. Landline Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN
State

N

TERE
%

N

CONELIG

COOP

%

N

%

%

Total
Sample

AL

2,223

2.2

1,348

1.3

3,815

3.8

58.3

100,947

AK

1,387

1.4

729

0.8

2,391

2.5

58.0

96,840

AZ

2,993

2.1

1,089

0.8

4,512

3.2

66.3

142,410

AR

2,657

2.7

816

0.8

3,740

3.7

71.0

99,749

CA

2,268

1.0

1,384

0.6

4,023

1.8

56.4

226,170

CO

3,126

2.3

640

0.5

4,681

3.4

66.8

138,630

CT

4,284

4.3

1,555

1.6

6,509

6.5

65.8

99,810

DE

1,035

1.0

281

0.3

1,870

1.7

55.3

108,090

DC

1,021

1.1

517

0.5

1,658

1.7

61.6

96,000

FL

5,739

1.0

1,843

0.3

10,485

1.8

54.7

574,560

GA

2,282

0.6

771

0.2

4,240

1.1

53.8

374,460

HI

1,831

2.0

676

0.7

3,171

3.5

57.7

91,830

ID

1,410

1.0

1,722

1.2

3,193

2.3

44.2

140,281

IL

1,064

1.7

381

0.6

1,713

2.8

62.1

62,280

IN

3,558

1.7

1,923

0.9

6,122

2.9

58.1

214,140

IA

2,505

3.7

896

1.3

3,752

5.5

66.8

67,890

KS

3,587

3.0

1,345

1.1

5,315

4.5

67.5

118,980

KY

2,637

1.7

376

0.2

3,079

2.0

85.6

152,550

LA

949

1.5

661

1.0

1,750

2.7

54.2

65,430

ME

6,957

2.3

1,283

0.4

8,561

2.8

81.3

308,289

MD

9,003

2.1

4,467

1.0

15,493

3.6

58.1

425,940

MA

2,677

1.5

544

0.3

3,409

1.9

78.5

181,422

MI

3,541

1.7

958

0.5

5,375

2.5

65.9

212,880

MN

2,958

1.8

628

0.4

4,770

2.9

62.0

165,870

MS

1,438

2.4

621

1.0

2,178

3.6

66.0

60,089

MO

2,920

3.0

865

0.9

4,406

4.5

66.3

97,443

11 of 26

Table 4A. Landline Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN
State

N

TERE
%

N

CONELIG

COOP

%

N

%

%

Total
Sample

MT

2,712

2.9

862

0.9

3,869

4.1

70.1

94,469

NE

5,875

3.2

2,079

1.1

9,250

5.0

63.5

184,499

NV

664

1.7

186

0.5

933

2.4

71.2

39,180

NH

3,051

3.3

1,183

1.3

4,666

5.0

65.4

92,850

*

*

NJ

*

*

*

*

*

*

NM

2,009

2.2

896

1.0

3,329

3.7

60.3

89,460

NY

6,436

1.6

4,381

1.1

12,365

3.1

52.1

398,310

NC

824

2.8

692

2.3

1,636

5.5

50.4

29,700

ND

3,094

2.9

888

0.8

4,356

4.1

71.0

105,267

OH

6,708

1.1

1,722

0.3

11,405

1.9

58.8

598,050

OK

1,986

2.6

853

1.1

3,290

4.3

60.4

75,716

OR

1,069

3.3

135

0.4

1,235

3.9

86.6

32,011

PA

1,518

2.2

592

0.9

2,372

3.5

64.0

68,580

RI

2,522

2.0

1,576

1.3

4,460

3.6

56.5

125,220

SC

2,667

2.5

723

0.7

3,541

3.3

75.3

107,262

SD

3,021

2.5

280

0.2

3,409

2.8

88.6

121,944

TN

1,749

1.8

984

1.0

2,924

3.0

59.8

97,079

TX

4,432

1.3

2,089

0.6

7,393

2.2

59.9

340,260

UT

2,635

3.2

707

0.8

3,976

4.8

66.3

83,520

VT

3,200

2.6

1,538

1.3

5,153

4.2

62.1

122,040

VA

3,891

1.7

875

0.4

6,599

2.9

59.0

224,460

WA

4,021

1.8

2,010

0.9

6,661

2.9

60.4

226,901

WV

2,830

6.7

901

2.1

4,087

9.7

69.2

41,940

WI

2,096

3.7

740

1.3

3,197

5.6

65.6

56,669

WY

2,770

2.7

481

0.5

4,066

3.9

68.1

103,620

GU

1,141

2.3

620

1.3

2,405

4.9

47.4

48,794

12 of 26

Table 4A. Landline Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN
State

N

TERE
%

N

CONELIG

COOP

%

N

%

%

Total
Sample

PR

971

2.3

220

0.5

1,510

3.5

64.3

43,019

Minimum

664

0.6

135

0.2

933

1.1

44.2

29,700

Maximum

9,003

6.7

4,467

2.3

15,493

9.7

88.6

598,050

Mean

2,884

2.3

1,087

0.8

4,583

3.5

63.8

153,342

Median

2,662

2.2

864

0.8

3,923

3.4

62.8

104,444

*New Jersey was unable to collect enough BRFSS data in 2019 to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion
in the 2019 BRFSS public-use data set.

13 of 26

Table 4B. Cell Phone Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN

TERE

State

N

%

AL

4,747

4.2

N

CONELIG

COOP
Total
Sample

%

N

%

%

1,115

1.0

5,901

5.2

80.4

114,301

AK

1,639

3.0

246

0.5

1,917

3.6

85.5

53,760

AZ

5,530

3.8

1,011

0.7

6,772

4.6

81.7

146,160

AR

2,674

5.0

390

0.7

3,193

5.9

83.7

53,850

CA

9,021

4.4

2,649

1.3

12,025

5.9

75.0

203,360

CO

6,236

7.1

648

0.7

6,972

8.0

89.4

87,342

CT

5,228

3.5

1,359

0.9

6,808

4.6

76.8

149,250

DE

3,005

2.3

516

0.4

3,763

2.9

79.9

128,160

DC

1,435

1.0

531

0.4

2,005

1.4

71.6

139,169

FL

10,362

2.9

2,240

0.6

13,607

3.8

76.2

360,600

GA

4,770

1.8

1,242

0.5

6,497

2.5

73.4

259,650

HI

5,755

5.1

1,019

0.9

6,958

6.1

82.7

113,189

ID

3,945

3.6

395

0.4

4,360

4.0

90.5

108,304

IL

4,430

3.8

656

0.6

5,217

4.5

84.9

116,310

IN

5,323

4.8

906

0.8

6,532

5.8

81.5

111,780

IA

7,511

7.1

782

0.7

8,380

8.0

89.6

105,357

KS

8,373

3.7

1,085

0.5

9,554

4.2

87.6

229,284

KY

5,411

3.1

593

0.3

6,041

3.5

89.6

172,050

LA

3,789

2.9

1,120

0.9

4,976

3.8

76.1

129,390

ME

4,477

2.8

448

0.3

4,948

3.1

90.5

161,208

MD

9,004

3.6

1,987

0.8

11,386

4.5

79.1

252,599

MA

4,928

2.0

481

0.2

5,476

2.2

90.0

248,418

MI

7,258

3.8

1,021

0.5

9,081

4.7

79.9

193,531

MN

12,166

3.7

1,382

0.4

14,458

4.4

84.1

326,190

MS

3,742

5.6

543

0.8

4,315

6.4

86.7

66,956

MO

4,177

6.5

329

0.5

4,603

7.2

90.7

63,827

14 of 26

Table 4B. Cell Phone Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN

TERE

CONELIG

COOP

State

N

%

N

%

N

%

%

Total
Sample

MT

4,053

5.7

328

0.5

4,405

6.2

92.0

71,599

NE

10,515

5.9

1,284

0.7

12,016

6.8

87.5

176,910

NV

2,078

5.5

216

0.6

2,312

6.2

89.9

37,483

NH

3,012

4.9

542

0.9

3,630

5.9

83.0

61,304

NJ

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

NM

4,216

6.7

839

1.3

5,127

8.2

82.2

62,850

NY

7,985

3.5

2,154

0.9

10,954

4.8

72.9

227,460

NC

3,010

5.0

421

0.7

3,490

5.8

86.2

59,760

ND

2,757

3.3

273

0.3

3,086

3.7

89.3

83,215

OH

6,831

3.0

998

0.4

8,431

3.8

81.0

224,070

OK

4,348

4.9

871

1.0

5,319

6.0

81.7

88,292

OR

4,878

3.7

319

0.2

5,221

3.9

93.4

132,866

PA

4,998

4.0

752

0.6

5,848

4.7

85.5

125,580

RI

3,816

3.5

910

0.8

4,894

4.5

78.0

108,300

SC

4,427

4.4

671

0.7

5,162

5.1

85.8

100,846

SD

3,671

2.5

179

0.1

3,897

2.7

94.2

146,560

TN

4,389

2.9

1,360

0.9

5,823

3.8

75.4

153,540

TX

6,913

4.1

1,519

0.9

9,103

5.4

75.9

168,450

UT

9,494

8.2

738

0.6

10,571

9.1

89.8

115,890

VT

3,208

4.1

474

0.6

3,760

4.8

85.3

78,480

VA

5,898

3.3

791

0.4

7,246

4.0

81.4

179,910

WA

9,101

5.7

1,650

1.0

11,003

6.9

82.7

158,760

WV

2,550

5.5

384

0.8

2,965

6.4

86.0

46,500

WI

2,888

5.8

419

0.8

3,366

6.8

85.8

49,530

WY

1,958

3.6

174

0.3

2,199

4.0

89.0

54,810

GU

1,286

2.8

276

0.6

1,629

3.5

78.9

46,650

15 of 26

Table 4B. Cell Phone Sample.
Completions, Terminations and Refusals, Contacted Eligible Households and Total Sample by State
COIN
State

N

TERE
%

N

CONELIG
%

N

COOP

%

%

Total
Sample

PR

5,303

14.3

273

0.7

5,737

15.4

92.4

37,170

Minimum

1,286

1.0

174

0.1

1,629

1.4

71.6

37,170

Maximum

12,166

14.3

2,649

1.3

14,458

15.4

94.2

360,600

Mean

5,164

4.4

837

0.7

6,210

5.2

83.9

132,515

Median

4,612

3.8

705

0.7

5,398

4.7

84.5

116,100

*New Jersey was unable to collect enough BRFSS data in 2019 to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion
in the 2019 BRFSS public-use data set.

16 of 26

Table 5A. Landline Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Landline Only).
ELIG
State

N

INELIG
%

N

UNKELIG
%

N

%

AL

3,815

3.8

81,841

81.1

15,291

15.1

AK

2,391

2.5

87,515

90.4

6,934

7.2

AZ

4,512

3.2

119,037

83.6

18,861

13.2

AR

3,740

3.7

84,480

84.7

11,529

11.6

CA

4,023

1.8

180,695

79.9

41,452

18.3

CO

4,681

3.4

112,815

81.4

21,134

15.2

CT

6,509

6.5

74,059

74.2

19,242

19.3

DE

1,870

1.7

75,191

69.6

31,029

28.7

DC

1,658

1.7

76,201

79.4

18,141

18.9

FL

10,485

1.8

462,577

80.5

101,498

17.7

GA

4,240

1.1

303,745

81.1

66,475

17.8

HI

3,171

3.5

74,501

81.1

14,158

15.4

ID

3,193

2.3

118,735

84.6

18,353

13.1

IL

1,713

2.8

49,398

79.3

11,169

17.9

IN

6,122

2.9

173,729

81.1

34,289

16.0

IA

3,752

5.5

54,387

80.1

9,751

14.4

KS

5,315

4.5

98,647

82.9

15,018

12.6

KY

3,079

2.0

127,356

83.5

22,115

14.5

LA

1,750

2.7

53,667

82.0

10,013

15.3

ME

8,561

2.8

238,467

77.4

61,261

19.9

MD

15,493

3.6

319,543

75.0

90,904

21.3

MA

3,409

1.9

128,083

70.6

49,930

27.5

MI

5,375

2.5

174,175

81.8

33,330

15.7

MN

4,770

2.9

132,310

79.8

28,790

17.4

MS

2,178

3.6

51,494

85.7

6,417

10.7

MO

4,406

4.5

79,478

81.6

13,559

13.9

MT

3,869

4.1

74,781

79.2

15,819

16.7
17 of 26

Table 5A. Landline Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Landline Only).
ELIG
State

N

INELIG
%

N

UNKELIG
%

N

%

NE

9,250

5.0

150,532

81.6

24,717

13.4

NV

933

2.4

31,775

81.1

6,472

16.5

NH

4,666

5.0

68,731

74.0

19,453

21.0

NJ

*

NM

3,329

3.7

75,984

84.9

10,147

11.3

NY

12,365

3.1

289,976

72.8

95,969

24.1

NC

1,636

5.5

22,620

76.2

5,444

18.3

ND

4,356

4.1

87,660

83.3

13,251

12.6

OH

11,405

1.9

476,487

79.7

110,158

18.4

OK

3,290

4.3

64,125

84.7

8,301

11.0

OR

1,235

3.9

26,577

83.0

4,199

13.1

PA

2,372

3.5

51,140

74.6

15,068

22.0

RI

4,460

3.6

97,423

77.8

23,337

18.6

SC

3,541

3.3

88,653

82.7

15,067

14.0

SD

3,409

2.8

103,899

85.2

14,636

12.0

TN

2,924

3.0

78,304

80.7

15,851

16.3

TX

7,393

2.2

279,946

82.3

52,921

15.6

UT

3,976

4.8

69,036

82.7

10,508

12.6

VT

5,153

4.2

93,581

76.7

23,306

19.1

VA

6,599

2.9

168,660

75.1

49,201

21.9

WA

6,661

2.9

183,472

80.9

36,768

16.2

WV

4,087

9.7

29,737

70.9

8,116

19.4

WI

3,197

5.6

44,062

77.8

9,410

16.6

WY

4,066

3.9

83,493

80.6

16,061

15.5

GU

2,405

4.9

39,842

81.7

6,547

13.4

PR

1,510

3.5

35,889

83.4

5,620

13.1

933

1.1

22,620

69.6

4,199

7.2

Minimum

*

*

*

*

*

18 of 26

Table 5A. Landline Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Landline Only).
ELIG
State

INELIG

UNKELIG

N

%

N

%

N

%

Maximum

15,493

9.7

476,487

90.4

110,158

28.7

Mean

4,583

3.5

122,087

80.1

26,673

16.4

Median

3,923

3.4

85,998

81.1

15,956

15.8

*New Jersey was unable to collect enough BRFSS data in 2019 to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion
in the 2019 BRFSS public-use data set.

19 of 26

Table 5B. Cell Phone Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Cell Phone Only).
ELIG
State

N

INELIG
%

N

UNKELIG
%

N

%

AL

5,901

5.2

54,758

47.9

53,642

46.9

AK

1,917

3.6

45,301

84.3

6,542

12.2

AZ

6,772

4.6

86,310

59.1

53,078

36.3

AR

3,193

5.9

30,541

56.7

20,116

37.4

CA

12,025

5.9

79,232

39.0

112,103

55.1

CO

6,972

8.0

39,040

44.7

41,330

47.3

CT

6,808

4.6

68,478

45.9

73,964

49.6

DE

3,763

2.9

55,797

43.5

68,600

53.5

DC

2,005

1.4

64,394

46.3

72,770

52.3

FL

13,607

3.8

189,774

52.6

157,219

43.6

GA

6,497

2.5

132,499

51.0

120,654

46.5

HI

6,958

6.1

44,939

39.7

61,292

54.2

ID

4,360

4.0

51,566

47.6

52,378

48.4

IL

5,217

4.5

38,477

33.1

72,616

62.4

IN

6,532

5.8

50,043

44.8

55,205

49.4

IA

8,380

8.0

61,769

58.6

35,208

33.4

KS

9,554

4.2

139,825

61.0

79,905

34.8

KY

6,041

3.5

87,936

51.1

78,073

45.4

LA

4,976

3.8

63,758

49.3

60,656

46.9

ME

4,948

3.1

84,811

52.6

71,449

44.3

MD

11,386

4.5

128,252

50.8

112,961

44.7

MA

5,476

2.2

121,247

48.8

121,695

49.0

MI

9,081

4.7

104,616

54.1

79,834

41.3

MN

14,458

4.4

163,107

50.0

148,625

45.6

MS

4,315

6.4

38,873

58.1

23,768

35.5

MO

4,603

7.2

33,997

53.3

25,227

39.5

MT

4,405

6.2

37,428

52.3

29,766

41.6
20 of 26

Table 5B. Cell Phone Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Cell Phone Only).
ELIG

INELIG

UNKELIG

State

N

%

N

%

N

%

NE

12,016

6.8

108,526

61.3

56,368

31.9

NV

2,312

6.2

15,994

42.7

19,177

51.2

NH

3,630

5.9

30,363

49.5

27,311

44.6

NJ

*

*

*

*

*

*

NM

5,127

8.2

33,363

53.1

24,360

38.8

NY

10,954

4.8

93,703

41.2

122,803

54.0

NC

3,490

5.8

24,652

41.3

31,618

52.9

ND

3,086

3.7

52,051

62.6

28,078

33.7

OH

8,431

3.8

108,116

48.3

107,523

48.0

OK

5,319

6.0

55,207

62.5

27,766

31.4

OR

5,221

3.9

51,012

38.4

76,633

57.7

PA

5,848

4.7

60,043

47.8

59,689

47.5

RI

4,894

4.5

51,905

47.9

51,501

47.6

SC

5,162

5.1

46,331

45.9

49,353

48.9

SD

3,897

2.7

103,408

70.6

39,255

26.8

TN

5,823

3.8

69,342

45.2

78,375

51.0

TX

9,103

5.4

74,203

44.1

85,144

50.5

UT

10,571

9.1

57,254

49.4

48,065

41.5

VT

3,760

4.8

40,343

51.4

34,377

43.8

VA

7,246

4.0

81,629

45.4

91,035

50.6

WA

11,003

6.9

69,834

44.0

77,923

49.1

WV

2,965

6.4

20,792

44.7

22,743

48.9

WI

3,366

6.8

26,549

53.6

19,615

39.6

WY

2,199

4.0

38,997

71.1

13,614

24.8

GU

1,629

3.5

31,993

68.6

13,028

27.9

PR

5,737

15.4

12,901

34.7

18,532

49.9

Minimum

1,629

1.4

12,901

33.1

6,542

12.2
21 of 26

Table 5B. Cell Phone Sample.
Categories of Eligibility by State (Cell Phone Only).
ELIG
State

N

INELIG
%

N

UNKELIG
%

N

%

Maximum

14,458

15.4

189,774

84.3

157,219

62.4

Mean

6,210

5.2

66,448

50.8

59,857

44.0

Median

5,398

4.7

55,502

49.3

54,424

46.7

*New Jersey was unable to collect enough BRFSS data in 2019 to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion
in the 2019 BRFSS public-use data set.

22 of 26

Table 6. Response Rates for Landline and Cell Phone Samples

State

Landline Response
Rate

Cell Phone
Response Rate

Combined Response
Rate

AL

49.4

42.7

45.9

AK

53.9

75.1

61.4

AZ

57.5

52.0

54.7

AR

62.8

52.5

59.2

CA

46.0

33.7

40.2

CO

56.6

47.1

52.9

CT

53.1

38.7

44.5

DE

39.5

37.1

38.2

DC

49.9

34.1

40.6

FL

45.1

43.0

44.3

GA

44.3

39.3

42.2

HI

48.8

37.9

42.8

ID

38.4

46.7

42.0

IL

51.0

31.9

38.6

IN

48.8

41.2

46.2

IA

57.2

59.7

58.7

KS

59.0

57.1

57.7

KY

73.2

48.9

60.3

LA

45.9

40.4

42.3

ME

65.1

50.4

60.1

MD

45.7

43.7

45.0

MA

56.9

45.9

50.6

MI

55.6

47.0

51.5

MN

51.2

45.8

47.6

MS

59.0

55.9

57.4

MO

57.1

54.9

56.2

MT

58.4

53.8

56.4

NE

55.0

59.6

57.3

23 of 26

Table 6. Response Rates for Landline and Cell Phone Samples

State

Landline Response
Rate

Cell Phone
Response Rate

Combined Response
Rate

NV

59.4

43.9

51.8

NH

51.7

46.0

49.4

NJ

*

*

*

NM

53.5

50.4

52.2

NY

39.5

33.5

37.3

NC

41.1

40.6

40.8

ND

62.1

59.2

60.8

OH

48.0

42.1

46.4

OK

53.7

56.0

55.0

OR

75.2

39.5

46.5

PA

49.9

44.8

46.6

RI

46.0

40.9

43.6

SC

64.7

43.8

54.6

SD

78.0

69.0

73.1

TN

50.0

36.9

42.0

TX

50.6

37.6

46.3

UT

57.9

52.6

54.8

VT

50.2

47.9

49.3

VA

46.0

40.2

43.4

WA

50.6

42.1

47.1

WV

55.8

43.9

49.6

WI

54.7

51.8

53.3

WY

57.6

66.9

60.8

GU

41.1

56.9

48.8

PR

55.9

46.3

51.5

Minimum

38.4

31.9

37.3

Maximum

78.0

75.1

73.1

24 of 26

Table 6. Response Rates for Landline and Cell Phone Samples

State

Landline Response
Rate

Cell Phone
Response Rate

Combined Response
Rate

Mean

53.4

47.1

50.0

Median

53.3

45.9

49.4

*New Jersey was unable to collect enough BRFSS data in 2019 to meet the minimum requirements for inclusion
in the 2019 BRFSS public-use data set.

25 of 26

References
1. Pierannunzi C, Town M, Garvin W, Shaw F, Balluz L. Methodologic changes in the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System in 2011 and potential effects on prevalence estimates. MMWR.2012;
61(22):410-413. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6122a3.htm. Accessed August 4,
2020.
2. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of
Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys website
http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf.
Accessed August 4, 2020.
3. The Council of American Survey Research Organizations. 2013. Code of Standards and Ethics for
Market, Opinion, and Social Research website. https://www.insightsassociation.org/issuespolicies/casro-code-standards-and-ethics. Accessed August 4, 2020.
4. Czajka JL, Beyler A. Declining Response Rates in Federal Surveys: Trends and Implications (2016).
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/255531/Decliningresponserates.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2020.
5. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press. 2012. Assessing the Representativeness of Public
Opinion Surveys website. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/05/15/assessing-therepresentativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/ . Accessed August 4, 2020.
6. Lindemann, N. What’s the Average Survey Response Rate [2019 Benchmark].
https://surveyanyplace.com/average-survey-response-rate/ Accessed August 4, 2020.
7. Groves, RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 2006; 70 (5) :646-675. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/70/5/646/4084443.
Accessed August 4, 2020.

26 of 26


File Typeapplication/pdf
File TitleBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2019 Summary Data Quality Report
SubjectBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2019 Summary Data Quality Report
AuthorCDC
File Modified2020-08-13
File Created2020-08-12

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy