FIND IT FAST
Registration | Hotel & Travel | Interactive Program | Short Course | Sponsors & Exhibitors | Top Ten Spotlight
Joint abstracts are at the heart of this year’s conference theme, ‘Working Together’.
This year, all submitted joint abstracts were automatically included in a competition for the designation of spotlight collaborative presentations – an honor given to only 10.
During these sessions, the substantive lead will talk about the research problem and the importance of collaborating with the research lead in solving that problem. The substantive leads can also provide a continuing picture of the important role that our work plays in advancing science in a variety of areas, while the research leads can continue to describe innovative methods and results that provide value to the substantive lead.
Below are the winners, you don’t want to miss these special presentations!
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
9:30 am – 11:00 am
Room: Franklin 8
Panel: Elections and Parties
Program: Panels
Track: Elections, Polling and Politics
- Lydia Saad, Gallup
- Gina Chua, Semafor
- Megan Thee-Brenan, Gallup
- Jeffrey Jones, Gallup
Abstract:
Since 2001, Americans have grown more likely to identify as politically independent and concomitantly less likely to identify as Republican or Democrat. At the same time, Republicans and Democrats have become more politically polarized with Republicans increasingly conservative in their self-identified political ideology and Democrats increasingly liberal. This paper details these changes using large sample sizes from aggregated Gallup data. It then reviews the changing demographic composition of the ideological subgroups within each party (e.g., liberal Democrats; moderate independents; conservative Republicans) to determine what demographic groups are driving the observed ideological changes. Lastly, this paper examines the trends in each partisan/ideological subgroups’ views on numerous substantive issues, such as abortion, gun laws, taxes, marijuana legalization, Middle East sympathies and gay marriage. Taken together, this longitudinal analysis of ideology, party and the interplay with political issues helps to quantify the extent of intra-party factional disputes as well as the growing ideological gap between the parties.
The authors are collaborating on this research with political reporters and editors from a new digital media company launched in 2022 that is committed to rebuilding trust with news audiences across the ideological spectrum. These journalists are helping the public opinion research leads shape the questions addressed in the paper, with an emphasis on shedding new light on the essential ideological underpinnings of the United States’ major political parties heading into the 2024 elections. What ideological foundation or issues binds people to their party, what jeopardizes that relationship and what is pulling the two major parties apart? The journalists bring decades of experience working in U.S. newsrooms as well as spending time in diners and people’s living rooms across the country and bring that hands-on experience to the research design of this paper as well as to the analysis.
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Room: 404
Panel: Current Perspectives on COVID-19
Program: Panels
Track: Attitudes and Opinions
- Evan Gumas, The Commonwealth Fund
- Robyn Rapoport, SSRS
- Munira Gunja, The Commonwealth Fund
- Reginald Williams, The Commonwealth Fund
- Michelle Doty, The Commonwealth Fund
- Arnav Shah, The Commonwealth Fund
- Katharine Fields, The Commonwealth Fund
- Rob Manley, SSRS
- Christian Kline, SSRS
Abstract:
Physician burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the physician shortage the U.S. and other countries have long been bracing for. This analysis aims to understand the experiences faced by primary care physicians (PCPs) in high-income countries during the pandemic in order to provide lessons for U.S. policymakers on 1) how to improve the primary care experience among physicians, and 2) ways to retain and increase the workforce supply. Working with SSRS, we collected data across 10 high-income countries for the 2022 CMWF International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians (N ranged from 321-2,092). Countries included were Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S. The results explored the experiences faced by PCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that, across all surveyed countries, most PCPs reported increases in their workload since the beginning of the pandemic. When we looked at PCPs by age, we found that younger PCPs were more likely to experience stress, emotional distress, or burnout, yet few sought help for their mental health needs. Physicians who experienced stress, emotional distress, or burnout were also more likely to report declining quality of care compared to pre-pandemic. Half or more of older PCPs in most countries reported they would stop seeing patients within the next three years. Breaking down PCPs by age provided an interesting analytical opportunity but achieving reportable sample sizes in many countries was a major challenge throughout the duration of data collection, a problem SSRS worked to ameliorate as much as possible. Our target population is one that is overworked and stretched thin, meaning our sample sizes were lower than they had been in previous PCP surveys.
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Room: 406
Panel: Good Communication is Good for Surveys: Exploring Ways to Enhance Survey Recruitment and Completion
Program: Panels
Track: Data Collection Methods, Modes, Field Operations, and Costs
Presenting Author
- Ashley Griggs, RTI International
- Robert A. Hummer, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
-
Rebecca J. Powell, RTI International -
Jesse Lopez, RTI International -
Jerry Timbrook, RTI International -
Melissa Hobbs, RTI International -
Brian J. Burke, RTI International -
Sarah Dean, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -
Allison Aiello, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Abstract:
Prenotifications are a common method for engaging potential respondents and increasing response rates (e.g., Fox et al, 1988) and are often used to inform longitudinal study sample members of upcoming waves. Griggs and colleagues (2019) found that optimizing prenotification visual design elements can further promote longitudinal study sample members’ engagement. Specifically, a message thanking longitudinal sample members for their continued participation printed as a colorful greeting card increased response rates and reduced number of days to survey completion at rates equivalent to a more costly $10 pre-incentive. However, in that study, it is unclear whether the “Thank You” message itself, the greeting card format, or the combination of both motivated these changes.
Using data from the web component of Add Health Wave VI (a longitudinal survey contacting respondents via mail; n=14,500), we experimentally investigate the unique effects of these visual design elements using a 3×2 factorial design. Specifically, we test the format of the prenotification mailing (standard letter, greeting card, and postcard) and the language of the mailing (standard prenotification language and longitudinal “Thank You” language). We explore whether these factors affect response rates, time to survey completion, and respondent representativeness after three months of data collection.
This paper will be co-presented by the Director of Add Health, who will highlight how this study uniquely informs uninvestigated health outcomes throughout the life course. Further, this substantive presenter will highlight the importance of ensuring that these data are representative of the study’s target population through experiments such as this one.
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Room: 410
Panel: Survey Improvement through Qualitative Methods
Program: Panels
Track: Qualitative Research
- Caitlyn Keeve, U.S. Census Bureau
- Suzanne Roosen, FDA
- Daniel Perez-Lopez, USDA
-
Aleia Clark Fobia, U.S. Census Bureau -
Carol Stiller, FDA - David Oryang, FDA
Abstract:
Launching a federal survey typically involves months of preparation, however, there are instances where data is needed quickly in response to a time-sensitive issue. For example, the United States experienced an infant formula shortage beginning in March 2022. This emerging issue was an ideal use case for a rapid response survey program. Working collaboratively, the Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Agriculture, and the Census Bureau crafted a question series designed to measure the impact of the infant formula shortage. Questions include measures of difficulty for obtaining infant formula, behaviors used to deal with the shortage, and types of formula typically used. The questions were fielded on the Household Pulse Survey (HPS), the Bureau’s high-frequency rapid response survey program, beginning in June 2022 with plans to continue data collection into 2023. In the first part of this joint presentation, staff from the Food and Drug Administration will discuss the need for rapid response data and the request for infant formula shortage questions to be included in the HPS.
Rapid response survey vehicles can increase the relevance and timeliness of data collection. However, it requires trade-offs with procedures that ensure data quality such as cognitive testing. In the case of the infant formula shortage questions, cognitive testing was not possible in the timeframe before production data collection began. Instead, we conducted a small (n=5) cognitive test of the infant formula shortage question series concurrently with data collection. In this presentation, we discuss the results from this cognitive testing as well as the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent quick turnaround small-n cognitive testing as a method for ensuring data quality in rapid response survey contexts. We will also present analysis of HPS data on the infant formula shortage before and after implementing changes based on the cognitive testing.
Thursday, May 11, 2023
10:15 am – 11:45 am
Room: 410
Panel: It’s a Brave New World: Alternative News Sources and Their Impact
Program: Panels
Track: Media, News, and Information Sources
- Sarah Fioroni, Gallup
- John Sands, Knight Foundation
-
Jonathan Schreiner, Gallup, Inc - Jesse Holcomb, Calvin University
Abstract:
Over the past few years, Gallup and Knight Foundation have partnered to study the ways people consume news and information. Results from qualitative work indicated that a portion of the American public are increasingly getting news and information from individual people, such as podcasters, online influencers, community activists, or show hosts, that may, or may not, be attached to traditional news organizations. In our effort to better understand the scope and impact of this phenomenon, we quickly learned there were very few standard survey research methods for defining and measuring the concept. This presentation will discuss Gallup/Knight’s process for classifying “public individuals” as sources of news. We developed survey instructions and a unique cadence of questions that both informed the respondent of and measured the prevalence of this phenomenon. The results of the study show what kind of individuals are most followed and what characteristics may lend them to greater trust among their followers.
Thursday, May 11, 2023
8:00 am – 9:30 am
Room: Franklin 9
Panel: Cognitive Interviews and Exploring How Respondents Think
Program: Panels
Track: Questionnaire Design and Interviewing
- Kelly Bell, Ipsos Public Affairs
- Alicia Lloro, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
-
Kelly Bell, Ipsos -
Jeff Larrimore, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED), conducted annually by the Federal Reserve Board, analyzes the economic health of American households and highlights potential financial hazards. The survey is essential for providing the Board with current, accurate information on market trends, financial product innovation, and consumer decision-making as it tracks and responds to current economic changes.
The Board has recently added new questions to the SHED survey that need to be tested to assess respondent comprehension and construct validity. Ipsos is currently conducting cognitive testing on the new questions, and findings from this testing will be used to revise question-wording in order to improve the SHED survey and produce more precise and reliable estimates.
Although cognitive interviews are frequently used by researchers to modify and improve instruments, researchers rarely have an opportunity to conduct side-by-side studies to compare data gathered by the original and updated instruments. Our team plans to conduct simultaneous fielding of both the original and revised survey questions via a probability-based online panel to identify and analyze differences in responses to the two question versions. This approach will provide insight into how question wording changes do or do not impact collected data and will provide important context to users of SHED data.
This will be a joint presentation, with a representative from the Federal Reserve Board introducing the SHED survey and explaining how the Board uses the data and an Ipsos researcher sharing findings from the cognitive testing and question comparison experiment.
Thursday, May 11, 2023
8:00 am – 9:30 am
Room: 408
Panel: Closing the Gap on Harder to Survey and Harder to Reach Populations
Program: Panels
Track: Data Collection Methods, Modes, Field Operations, and Costs
- Ashley Koning, Rutgers University
Presenting Collaborators
- Jaymie Santiago, New Brunswick Tomorrow
-
Debbie Borie-Holtz, Rutgers University -
Jessica L. Roman, Rutgers University -
Kyle Morgan, Francis Marion University
Abstract:
The New Brunswick Community Survey is a five-decade collaboration between the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP) at Rutgers University and New Brunswick Tomorrow (NBT), a non-profit organization located in New Brunswick, New Jersey – where Rutgers’ flagship campus is also located – focused on community revitalization and quality of life. The study is believed to be the longest-running community survey in the nation. The survey serves to capture perceptions of quality of life among the city’s predominantly Hispanic/Latino residential population, as well as reactions to the changes and developments that have occurred as a result of revitalization. First done in 1976, the survey was previously conducted biennially, then quadrennially. Nineteen iterations of the survey have been conducted; the twentieth will be conducted this spring.
Since 2016, substantial questionnaire revisions have been made to better adapt to the needs of New Brunswick and match NBT’s long-term strategic plan for the city’s future. The study has also evolved methodologically into a multi-mode design utilizing an address-based sample frame in order to tackle declining response rates and the particularly difficult circumstances of surveying a predominantly Hispanic/Latino population in a small geographic area with large Spanish-speaking and immigrant segments.
In addition to an overview of substantive trends in the city through the past five decades, ECPIP will review lessons learned in more recent iterations in terms of sample frame building within a unique and small geographic area, bilingual recruitment and survey design, multi-mode data collection, and defining Hispanic identity. All of these lessons moreover will be discussed through the lens of improving coverage and response rates in this type of hard-to-reach population. New Brunswick Tomorrow will discuss the survey’s impact on the community thus far and how the latest iteration will serve as a crucial next step toward the city’s future.
Thursday, May 11, 2023
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Room: 413
Panel: What Do You Use Surveys For? A First Collaborative Session
Program: Panels
Track: Research in Practice
- Michelle L. Rogers, Brown University
- Carolyn Belisle, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island
- Melissa A. Clark, Brown University School of Public Health
Abstract:
Background: The “RI Life Index” is a partnership between Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island (BCBSRI) and the Brown University School of Public Health (BUSPH) to measure Rhode Islanders’ (RI) perceptions of social determinants of health and well-being. We have conducted an annual survey since 2019 with representative samples of RI adults to collect information on perceptions (e.g., affordable housing, healthcare access) and actual experiences (e.g., food security, racial equity).
Methods: Participants are randomly selected by landline telephone, cell phone, or online. Surveys are conducted in English and Spanish. All respondents are screened for residence in the state. Results are combined to produce an overall RI Life Index, as well as scores on specific components of the index and related topics. Scores are computed as percent of all possible values endorsed (range=0-100). Higher scores reflect more positive perceptions/experiences. All analyses are weighted to be representative of the Rhode Island population. Scores are computed for the state overall, and then by geography, race/ethnicity, and age.
Results: Over 2000 individuals have completed the survey annually. Response rates have ranged from 6.4-13.6%. The overall RI Life Index score has remained relatively stable since 2019, with a small decrease in 2022 (2019 & 2020: 62; 2021: 63: 2022: 59). Perceptions about programs and services for children, access to nutritious food, and healthcare access; and experiences of racial equity and food security have been more positive (scores of 71-88). Alternatively, perceptions about cost of living and affordable housing have been extremely low (scores of 26-44), with significant declines seen since 2021.
Conclusions: The partnership between BCBSRI and BUSPH has resulted in a tool being used statewide by organizations working in public health to identify and address perceived barriers to health and to measure progress toward improvement over time.
Thursday, May 11, 2023
1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Room: 413
Panel: What Do You Use Surveys For? A First Collaborative Session
Program: Panels
Track: Research in Practice
- Laura Ullrich, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
- Jacob Walker, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Abstract:
Community colleges and researchers have long struggled with the lack of available data showing student outcomes and success rates at two-year institutions. The traditional higher education outcome measures, published by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), use cohorts of students that are not representative of the breadth of students served at community colleges. This results in lower reported outcome measures, including graduation and retention rates. In fact, IPEDS is simply better suited for reporting outcomes at four-year institutions than it is community colleges. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond has partnered with community college leaders and experts in the Fifth Federal Reserve District to create a survey that collects data specifically relevant to community colleges. In addition, the survey is utilized to calculate a new success metric. If a student received a degree/certificate/licensure, transferred to a 4-year institution, or continued their enrollment beyond four years, they are considered to be a successful outcome. Contrary to the traditional IPEDS metrics, the cohort for this new measure includes students regardless of whether they are first-time or full-time students. The cohort also includes high school students taking courses for credit. For many schools, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond success metric is higher than graduation and transfer rates typically reported by IPEDS. The paper focuses on the second iteration of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond’s Survey of Community College Outcomes, which has vastly expanded from the first 10 pilot schools that participated in 2021. The paper and presentation, co-authored with a community college institutional research practitioner, will include both the methodological considerations, survey findings and the challenges from the practitioner point of view as they work to provide quality data and serve local students.
Friday, May 12, 2023
2:00 pm – 3:30 pm
Room: 401
Panel: Race, Ethnicity, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Program: Panels
Track: Attitudes and Opinions
- Peter Woolley, Fairleigh Dickinson University
- Rick Thigpen, PSEG
- Dan Cassino, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Abstract:
Broad-based problems, particularly those of social equity, that go unrecognized cannot be addressed by political or administrative organs. While many Americans believe school segregation and residential segregation are things of the past, recent studies have shown that this is not the case: residential and school segregation persists in many states, and has grown in others. Moreover, some of the states with the most segregated school systems are those thought to be progressive and liberal, especially in the Northeastern US. However, part of the nature of segregation is that it is not necessarily visible to many of the people being segregated, so perceptions of segregation may be at odds with reality.
A high profile community leader presents the facts of the matter—decades of residential and schools segregation which defys several landmark court decisions, major changes in law, and billions in funding.
The primary investigators use original survey data from a series of probability studies of public perceptions of both residential and school integration and segregation. These include national and state-level studies as well as a local study in a predominantly black city. This allows an examination of the disconnect between the reality of segregation in respondents’ locale, and their perception of it. Such work is important in that it helps to explain why it has been so difficult to build consensus around remedies.