Question:
Sometimes we make many calls to a number, and we always reach
an answering machine. What should we do?
Answer:
If the answering machine message indicates that the selected number
is a household, we either must get through or else must count the case as
an indirect refusal.
So it is worth making many calls to complete the case, since
we already know that the phone number is for a household.
From a practical point of view, however, we should not make an
excessive number of calls if we have limited resources
(which is always the case).
Past experience with answering machines suggests the following:
1) Most people who use answering machines are willing to do
an interview if we can reach them.
And a good time to reach people who use answering machines
is Saturday morning.
Consequently, we should try two Saturday morning calls for
phone numbers with answering machines.
2) After reaching an answering machine 10 times,
the chances of completing an interview are very small.
At that point, if we have made two Saturday morning calls,
we should give up on the case and count it
as an indirect refusal.
(TP 2/22/96)
Question:
Calls to this number get the message, "Nanette Design Group; I'm either
on the other line or out of the studio." Could this be a residence?
Answer:
It is possible that this is a number for a business operated out of a
person's home and that the phone number is also for personal use.
We should try to get through, in order to determine if anyone lives
at the location where the phone rings.
Specifically, we should make at least two calls during normal business hours,
plus two calls during the evening, and a call on the weekend.
If no one ever answers and we still keep getting the same message,
we can finalize the case as Not-a-residence, provided that the content
of the message indicates that it is a business.
(TP 2/15/96)
Question:
We reached an answering machine that said to "call me at xxx-xxxx."
Should we call that other number and try to do an interview there?
Answer:
Yes, call the number given in the message and try to clarify the
situation.
If the original sampled number was a
residence,
we would attempt to enumerate all eligibles who reside in that
household.
We would not include anyone at the new number who did not reside
in the original sampled household.
If, on the other hand, the original sampled number
was NOT a residence, we would NOT
attempt an interview, even if the new number was a residence.
The reason is that the new number has its own chance of being
selected, and we do not want to change its probability of
selection because of this answering machine message.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
We reached an answering machine, and the message says we have
reached a number that is different from the sampled number
that we called. Should we continue calling this number?
Answer:
Call the number mentioned in the answering machine message,
and try to clarify the situation.
If you get the same message at the new number, it indicates that
the sampled number, and perhaps other numbers as well, are
part of a seek group used by a business or government office;
or this could be a case of crossed lines.
In either case the sampled number can be coded Not-a-residence.
If, on the other hand, you do NOT get the same message at the
new number, or the new number is not a working number,
the answering machine message may be an attempt to discourage
calls. Continue calling the sampled number as you would any
phone number with an answering machine.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
An answering machine was reached 7 times at the sampled number,
and on the 8th call the number was disconnected.
The answering machine message sounded like it was for a residence.
No enumeration was ever made.
Should we code this a refusal or a Not-in-service?
Answer:
Code this an enumeration refusal.
It was most likely an eligible household that we simply were not
able to get through to.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
At one number we reach an answering machine that says, "Thank you for
calling Marisol; please enter the extension of the party you would
like to speak with now." You can't leave a message unless you know
an extension number. This is almost certainly a business; can we
finalize it as such?
Answer:
Yes, code this as Not-a-residence.
It is not necessary to
make repeated calls to this number.
(TP 1/22/96)
Question:
We often have phone numbers that we call many times and that ring
with no answer.
But then on a subsequent call we'll reach strange noises
which the interviewer can't identify. If we call the operator, we are
often told that these are "messageless answering machines." I've seen
this enough to have reached the conclusion that operators just say this
when they don't know what else to say. It seems to me that these
aren't valid numbers.
Answer:
Some non-working numbers produce funny signals that can be confused
with answering machine beeps. Unless there is a message, however,
it is not likely to be an answering machine.
If no one has ever answered such a number,
it can be coded Not-in-service after 3 outcomes that result in those
funny signals.
Or if we have made 18 calls that have resulted in a combination of
no-answers and a few funny signals,
the phone number can
be coded as Assumed-not-a-residence.
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
We reach an answering machine which says, "Hello this line is being
answered by a facsimile machine. If you wish to fax, you can begin
your transmission now. If you do not wish to fax, please check the
number and try your call again." What do you suggest?
Answer:
Although fax machines are sometimes found in residences, this message
indicates that the phone number is not used at all for voice
transmission.
If no one has ever answered this number,
code it as Not-a-residence after getting that message 3 times.
(TP 2/16/96)
Question:
At some numbers we get messages such as, "This is the Communications
Gateway; please enter your mailbox number," or "please enter the code
for the party you are trying to reach." Are these residential numbers?
Answer:
These are message services. Code such phone numbers as
Not-a-residence.
The individuals who use them for personal calls are likely to have
their own (possibly unlisted) residential numbers as well.
(TP 1/22/96)
Question:
We reach a recording which says, "Voice mail service for
this telephone number is temporarily not available; consult
your directory for the business you would like to reach."
How should we code this?
Answer:
This may be the number of a private message service,
in which case we would code the number as Not-a-residence.
It could also be a disconnected business number, in which case
the appropriate code would be Not-in-service.
Since telephone companies do not usually provide messages for
disconnected business numbers, I would guess that the number
belongs to a private message service company.
In cases like this, choose one of these two outcome codes,
and do not waste time trying to clarify this matter.
Neither outcome code will count against the response rate.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
We completed an interview with a person who told us that he uses two
telephone lines -- one with an unlisted number that he rarely gives out,
and another that goes to a voice mail service that he uses to screen
his calls. We reached him on his unlisted personal number.
As part of the interview we ask how many separate phone lines come into
the respondent's household. Should I count his voice mail line, and
record that he has 2 lines?
Answer:
Yes, count both lines. Since we would select this household by
selecting either number, there are effectively two "pipelines" into the
household. Note, however, that this would not apply if the voice mail
line belonged to a business outside the respondent's home. Phone
numbers from someone's place of work are not counted as household
numbers.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
Someone answered and confirmed the sampled number, and it was a
cellular phone. Should we interview that person?
Answer:
Usually not.
We would only attempt to interview that person
in the unlikely case in which
the person who answered the cellular phone has no other residential phone.
Ordinarily, however, we would consider a cellular telephone number
as Not-a-residence.
That person's chance to be selected for the study is associated with
his or her residential telephone, and the use of extra cellular telephone
numbers would change our sampling fractions in ways that we could not
readily adjust for.
We can handle multiple phone numbers in a household,
because we ask all respondents
how many different lines they have at home.
It would not be so simple, however, to determine for each person how many
possible numbers that person could be reached at, if we included
cellular (and work) numbers.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
At the sampled number we reached a woman on a cellular phone.
She gave us her home number and told us we could call her there for
an interview. Should we call the home number?
Answer:
No, we should not call the home number unless that number was
actually selected in the sample. If we used referrals to a home number
from a cellular phone, a work phone, or any other source, it would
produce unequal selection probabilities that we could not adjust for.
Code the cellular phone number as Not-a-residence.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
At the sampled phone number we have reached only busy signals
and fax or modem signals. How many calls do we need to make
to this number?
Answer:
There are two limits that come into consideration here.
Fax or modem signals are sometimes encountered at a
residential number, but they usually indicate that a number
is not a residential one. After getting a modem signal
3 times, code the number Not-a-residence, provided that no one
has ever answered and no answering machine with a message was
ever encountered.
The other limit to be considered is on the total number of calls. If
18 calls have been made, including busy, modems, no-answers,
and any other outcomes, the number
can be coded Assumed-not-a-residence, provided again that no one has
ever answered and no answering machine with a message was ever
encountered.
(TP 2/16/96)
Question:
We occasionally have a phone number that we have called many times and
no one has ever answered, but interviewers have coded the outcomes of
two or three of the calls as "modem/fax". I think these are strange
phone signals and not really modems. In cases like these, I think it's
pretty clear that, whatever is going on, they are not real phone
numbers. Do you have any general guidelines on how to handle
situations like this?
Answer:
Some non-working numbers produce funny signals that can be confused
with fax or modem signals. If the phone number usually rings and no
one ever answers, we should go through our usual cycle of 18 calls. We
then finalize the case as Assumed-not-a-residence. The presence
of a few of these funny signals, mixed in with
the no-answers, is not a sufficient reason for us to
change that procedure.
If anything, they only bolster our conclusion that these are not
working residential numbers.
(TP 1/22/96)
Question:
At one number we get a computerized voice that says, "thank you," followed
by a quick series of tones. What is this?
Answer:
This is probably a pay phone that does not accept in-coming calls.
If no one has ever answered this number,
code it as Not-a-residence after getting that message 3 times.
(TP 2/16/96)
Question:
We reached a telephone that was used by teenage children in a household.
They are too young to interview, so what should we do?
Answer:
Ask to speak to an adult so that you can
enumerate the eligible persons in the household and select a respondent
to interview.
It is permissible to call the household back on a phone number usually
answered by adults, if that will make things easier.
The main point to bear in mind is that each household has one or more
"pipelines" into it -- the telephone numbers that ring in that household.
If any one of those numbers is selected, the entire household is selected.
Households with more than one phone line have more chances to be selected,
but we adjust for that difference by asking each respondent how many
phone lines come into the household, and we use that information to
create weights.
A telephone used by teenagers is just one more "pipeline" into that
household.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
The selected telephone number reached a teenager's phone. His parents
live in the same household upstairs.
The teenager told us that he had spoken with his mother about the study,
and she decided that she did not want to get involved and did not give
permission to have the upstairs number given out. Since it is a
minor refusing, how should we finalize the case?
Answer:
This is an enumeration refusal, in spite of the young age of the informant.
Notice that the teenage phone is a legitimate "pipeline" into this
household, and we would have enumerated all eligible adults and selected
a respondent if possible.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
An informant told us that we had reached a phone that was located in
a residence but was used for a business operated out of the home.
Should we consider this a residential phone and attempt to
enumerate the household?
Answer:
Yes, a telephone in a home office is considered one more "pipeline"
into the household, the same as an extra line for teenagers.
As a consequence, we should be sure to include home office lines when
we ask respondents how many different telephone lines come into
their households.
(TP 2/15/96)
Question:
As part of the interview we ask how many phone lines come into
the respondent's household. Some people have a separate line
just for their computer or fax machine. Should we include that
line in the total for the household?
Answer:
It depends if the phone on that extra line is set up to ring.
Remember that what we are trying to do is to establish the number
of different "pipelines" into the household.
If the extra line is plugged directly into a modem or fax and
never rings, then it is not another possible means of access for our
interviewers and should not be counted as an additional
household line.
On the other hand, if the extra line is connected to a regular
phone and can be answered when it is not being used by the modem
or fax, then it should be counted as an extra household line.
(TP 2/16/96)
Question:
We reached an informant who told us that the sampled phone number
belongs to his business telephone, which is forwarded to his home after he
leaves the office.
Should we proceed with enumeration of the household?
Answer:
No, we should not attempt an interview if the sampled phone number
belongs to a telephone located outside a residence, in spite of the
fact that the number sometimes rings in a household.
This should be coded Not-a-residence. Note, however, that a telephone
in a home office is treated the same as a residential line.
(TP 2/15/96)
Question:
We have been told by an informant that the sampled phone number
rings in her home, but it also rings in the home of the people
that the sampled number belongs to.
(The informant has a different line for her own household.)
This informant "always" answers the sampled phone because the owners
don't speak English and never answer the phone.
In previous calls we have been told that this number is a
business number but that people do live there.
What should we do?
Answer:
Treat this number as if you had reached a household in which no one
speaks English.
Do not attempt to interview the informant, since she has a different
residential phone number.
Households in which no one speaks English are sometimes excluded from
the survey population by design, but it depends on the study.
(TP 2/1/96)
Question:
An informant told us she was house-sitting, and the
residents won't be back for a couple of months.
Should we try to interview the house-sitter, or what
should we do?
Answer:
The answer depends on whether or not the house-sitter has another
residence that can be considered that person's permanent residence.
1) If the house-sitter has another residence,
he or she is not enumerated as part of this household;
the case can be finalized as out-of-town for the duration, if the
residents are not expected to return until after the study is over.
If there is some doubt about whether the residents will return before
the study ends, try reaching them later.
2) If the house-sitter does NOT have another residence,
enumerate that person
as part of the household, together with the absent residents,
and select one of the enumerated persons as the respondent.
If the house-sitter
is selected, attempt to interview that person.
If one of the absent residents is selected,
finalize the case as out-of-town for the
duration (or call back later, if there is
is a possibility that the absent resident will return before
the study ends).
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
On a previous call we reached a male informant who said that he
was house-sitting and that the residents would be back in a couple
of weeks. We set a callback for a date after the expected return.
But when we called, the number had been disconnected.
Should we code this Not-in-service, or a refusal, or what?
Answer:
Code this case as out-of-town for the duration of the study.
This should not be coded Not-in-service, since the number was
working when we first called.
It is not a direct refusal either, although the out-of-town
code will have the same effect on the response rate.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
After many no-answers, we happened to reach an informant who does
security checks on the house. He told us that the residents are
away for 6 months. How should we code this?
Answer:
Code this as respondent out of town for duration of the study.
Even though we had not enumerated the household and selected a
respondent, that is the appropriate code.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
An informant confirmed the sampled phone number and told us that this
wasn't her home phone.
She said that we had reached a "rental unit," that the owners lived there,
but that they had "rented it to several parties."
She said we probably wouldn't be able to reach the owners for a few
months. What should we do?
Answer:
Since the informant said this was not her home phone, we should not
attempt to interview her. However, the situation needs further
clarification. If renters are living there who do not have any other
residence, we should enumerate them and select one for interviewing.
It seems, however, that the rentals are short-term and more like a
vacation situation; in such cases we do not attempt to interview
renters. The appropriate persons to interview are probably the owners,
and they are out of town. If they are away until the study is over,
finalize the case as out-of-town for the duration. If there is any
doubt about how long they will be out of town, try the number later in
the study.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We've spoken to a woman at this number who says she works for a
nursing care agency and provides care to the 81-year-old woman
who actually lives there.
The informant is there during most days of the week, eats there,
sleeps there, and goes home for the weekends when a weekend worker
takes over.
She does not consider this to be her home, even though she spends
less time at her "usual home" than she does here.
Should this caretaker be included in the enumeration?
Answer:
No, the caretaker should not be included in the enumeration.
She has a usual residence elsewhere, and her chance to be selected
for the study is associated with her home telephone number.
The only eligible respondent at the sampled household is the
elderly woman.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We reached a family household with more than 10 adults. Can we just
exclude this as a group quarters?
Answer:
If 10 or more UNRELATED adults live in a group setting, we generally
call it a group quarters and code the case as Not-a-residence. If,
however, some of the adults are related and
there are fewer than nine adults who are unrelated to one
another, it is just a big family situation, and we should try to
enumerate the household and select a respondent.
As a practical
matter, our CATI instrumentation only provides for 10 eligibles in the
section on household enumeration, so we will have a problem if there
are more than 10 eligible persons. But just enumerate the 10 oldest
persons, select one of those 10, and write a note on the situation.
Households of this size occur so infrequently that the bias associated
with missing a few eligibles in such households is not a major problem.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
Female informant answered and confirmed phone number but said they were just
about to move out and didn't have time to participate.
She said they wouldn't be living there anymore after
tomorrow and that some new people would be moving in.
Assuming this is true (and not some kind of dodge), can we
keep calling and try to enumerate with the new residents,
or should we final this as a refusal?
Answer:
This is an enumeration refusal. Besides, if new residents move
in, they will most probably have a different phone number.
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
We enumerated a household at this number and selected a respondent,
but we did not do the interview at that time.
Now we are getting a message that the number has been disconnected.
How do we code this?
Answer:
This should be coded Respondent-never-located, and it has the same effect
on the response rate as a refusal.
We would have interviewed the selected respondent,
but we didn't get to that person in time.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We enumerated the household at the sampled number. Now we're getting
a message saying the phone number has been changed to a new number
Are we allowed to call this new number as long as a respondent
has been selected?
Answer:
No, we should not call the new number; this case should be finaled as
respondent-never-located. We would have interviewed the selected
respondent, but we missed our chance. Following respondents when they
move is problematic in a sample based on households.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
A male informant was reached at the sampled number. He said that the
house was in the process of being reconstructed and that it is
presently not lived in.
He said that he just happened to be there setting up for the next
day's work but that no one would actually be living there for at least
another couple of months.
Can we finalize this as Not-a-residence?
Answer:
Yes, code this number as Not-a-residence.
Note that we would code it this way even if
we were told that someone was going to move in on the
next day.
The status of a phone number is fixed at the time of the first contact
with anyone at that number.
And in this case, no one was living in the house at the time of our
first contact.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
When we called the sampled phone number, a man said, "This is a farm,"
and told us that no one lives there. How should this be finalized?
Answer:
If no one lives on the farm, it is like a business and should be coded
as Not-a-residence. If someone were living there, however, we would
enumerate the eligible persons and select one for an interview.
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
We called the sampled number 12 times, and no one ever answered.
Then on the 13th call we reached an elderly man who confirmed
the number and said, "You've reached a cottage."
The interviewer asked if anyone lived there, and he said, "not
year round," and then he hung up. Is this a residence?
Answer:
No, this number should be considered Not-a-Residence.
As a general rule, we do not count vacation homes as residences,
except for year-round caretakers and so on, so you should not try
to interview this person. If we are going to
include someone in a sample of households, it must be done through
the residence of that person.
Otherwise, persons with vacation homes would have an extra chance
of falling into the sample.
Furthermore, we would have no way of adjusting
for that increased probability, since it is not feasible to grill
every respondent about possible vacation-home telephones at which
they might sometimes be reached.
(TP 2/1/96)
Question:
Our sampled phone number is the home number of our informant. However, during
the summer, it gets forwarded to the "United Methodist
Camps," where he spends the entire summer. In other words,
we're reaching the household resident at his home phone
number but he doesn't happen to be there. How should we
deal with this?
Answer:
Conduct the interview if possible. In a random-digit sample, the residential
telephone number is the "pipeline" into a household. Once a telephone
number has been selected, the residents of the corresponding household
can also be selected. Note that if we had selected the phone number of
the summer camp, we would not have interviewed the people who have
other residences (although year-round caretakers would be eligible).
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
A male informant said he was renting the place for a couple of
months during the summer; during the rest of the year he
lives in New Hampshire, where he goes to school. He told
me that no one else lives at the place he is renting;
furthermore, when I asked him whether he was maintaining
a residence at school while he was away, he said,
"Technically yes -- I live in a frat house."
Should I try to interview him?
Answer:
No, do not attempt an interview.
Treat this as a regular vacation home, and code this number
as Not-a-Residence.
The only way we would select this person into a household sample
is if he had his own
phone line where he lives when he is at college.
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
We're reaching the "main switchboard" number for
a retirement home. Should we code this
number Not-a-residence, or should we attempt to enumerate
and select someone to interview?
Answer:
Institutions like this are generally excluded from household-based
samples, and this number should be coded Not-a-residence. Note,
however, that if we reach residents of a retirement home on a personal
phone, we would attempt to complete an interview, if the person is
otherwise eligible for the study. There are many retirement homes
today that are part way between regular apartments and rest homes. If
elderly persons in such homes have private phones, that is an
indication that they are not simply institutionalized, and we would not
want to exclude them unnecessarily from an RDD sample.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
An informant at a sampled phone number told us that we
reached the main number for a college dorm.
Do we try to enumerate and select a respondent?
Answer:
No, code the main number for a college dorm as Not-a-residence.
However, if we reach college students on a personal
phone, we would attempt to complete an interview, if the person is
otherwise eligible for the study.
(See next question.)
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We reached someone at her personal phone in her room
at a college dormitory. Is this a group quarters, or should
we attempt to do an interview?
Answer:
In a telephone sample, personal phones in college dorms are considered
the same as phones in off-campus apartments. This is basically our
only chance to include this segment of the population in a telephone
sample, and we should attempt to complete an interview. Students in
dorms are excluded from face-to-face household samples largely for
practical reasons. An advantage of telephone sampling is that we can
more easily reach this part of the population.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
What do we do when we reach a phone number that is not the sampled
number? In these cases an informant tells us that the number we have
reached is different from the number we called. Can we code these
Not-in-service?
Answer:
Yes, a selected telephone number that rings at some other residential
number should be considered Not-in-service. One dialing is not enough
to confirm this problem, but if the same thing happens twice, the case
can be finaled as Not-in-service.
If the sampled number rings at some other number that is a business,
the most likely explanation is that the selected number is part of a
seek group at that business; the appropriate final outcome in such
cases is Not-a-residence.
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
Our sampled phone number is (YYY) 123-2320. We're reaching 123-2322.
A person who answered told us that there are no other phone numbers
that begin with 123-232x but theirs, and that even if we dial 123-2329
we'd still reach their phone number. It sounds like our phone number
is a non-existent number and, if so, the proper code is Not-in-service.
Can I go ahead and finalize this case as Not-in-service?
Answer:
If this problem is confirmed with a second call, and the number reached
is a residence, the sampled phone number should be coded
Not-in-service. Otherwise, phone numbers that are not specifically
selected would have extra probability of being selected -- their own,
plus that of the other numbers that ring at that number. We should
only interview persons who were reached through the originally sampled
telephone number.
If the number at which the sampled number rings is a business,
the most likely explanation is that the sampled number is part of a
seek group at that business; the appropriate final outcome in such
cases is Not-a-residence.
(TP 2/6/96)
Question:
This case was coded
"busy" 18 times. An interviewer called it with operator
assistance and the operator said that there is no conversation
on the line and that it is "probably" out of order. Do
we code this Not-in-service or
Assumed-not-a-residence (18+ calls never answered)?
Answer:
With operator assistance, we can code this number Not-in-service.
This is the cleanest situation, since otherwise we cannot be
absolutely sure that it is not just a very busy line
(teenager, computer, or whatnot).
Even without operator assistance, however, we can still conclude that
that this phone number is Assumed-not-a-residence,
since it is not likely
that there would be so many busy signals on a true residential line.
Any number that is called 18 or more times
(spaced over various days and times)
and is never
answered by a person or an answering machine (with a message),
can be coded Assumed-not-a-residence.
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
This number has been called 18 times, and it is always busy.
The operator checked and said it was off the hook.
What do we do with this?
Answer:
Code this number Assumed-not-a-residence,
as we usually do after 18 well-spaced calls that are never answered
either by a person or by an answering machine (with a message).
It is not likely that there would be so many busy signals on a true
residential line.
The operator's statement that the phone was off the hook is not to
be taken as definitive, since operators often guess about these matters.
This is probably just a non-working number.
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
On some cases we get messages like, "the number you have reached has been
temporarily disconnected," or "this number is being
checked for trouble so please try your call later,"
or "all circuits are busy now."
How should they be finalized?
Answer:
These numbers should be left in the scheduling
queue so that they will be tried
at different times. Sometimes it really is a temporary problem.
Frequently, however, a non-working phone number will generate
these apparently temporary messages.
If, however, no one has ever answered this number AND
if no answering machine (with a
message) was encountered, we can code such a number as
Not-in-service after 3 calls that result in these messages
or in a combination of these messages and funny signals such
as fast-busy or beeps.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We have a number that interviewers have coded variously as "bad ring/fast
busy," "busy," or "answering machine."
What we're getting is a series of beeps followed by a fast busy signal.
Operators have told us that it "sounds like a call forwarded to a
non-working answering machine, then routed through a switchboard to
a fast busy signal -- probably a business."
I think that we really shouldn't rely on what these operators tell us in
these situations.
This does not seem to be a good number.
How many times do we have to try it?
Answer:
Unless we get a message saying that a sampled number is out of service,
there is a chance that the problems with a line are only temporary.
However, we do not need to call such numbers indefinitely.
The key consideration is whether or not anyone has ever answered this
phone number OR whether or not an answering machine (with a message)
has been encountered.
In either of those cases, we will continue to call the number until
the situation is resolved.
If, however, no one has ever answered and no answering machine (with a
message) was encountered, we can code such a number as
Not-in-service after 3 calls that result in funny signals.
(TP 2/5/96)
Question:
We called the sampled number several times. Sometimes we get a beep
like an answering machine, but there is no message. Other times the
phone just rings. How many times should we keep calling this number?
Answer:
The decision on a phone number like this depends both on the number of
times we encounter beeps or other funny signals, and the total
number of calls.
If no one has ever answered this number and if
no answering machine (with a message) was ever encountered,
we can code this number as
Not-in-service after 3 calls that result in beeps or other funny signals.
Or if we make 18 calls, resulting in a combination of no-answers,
busy, and funny signals, the number can be coded Assumed-not-a-residence.
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
At the sampled number we sometimes we get a message
indicating circuit problems like,
"It is not necessary to dial 1 for this number."
Most of the time, however, the line is busy.
How many times should we keep calling this number?
Answer:
What to do with
a phone number like this depends both on the number of
times we get the message indicating circuit problems, and the
total number of calls.
If no one has ever answered this number and if
no answering machine (with a message) was ever encountered,
we can code this number as
Not-in-service after 3 calls that result in
circuit problems, beeps, or other funny signals.
Or if we make 18 calls that result in a combination of
busy, no-answers,
and funny signals, the phone number can be coded Assumed-not-a-residence.
(TP 2/13/96)
Question:
After we had completed an interview, the "respondent"
revealed that he was only 16 years old and had been playing
a little joke (he'd said he was 19.) Should we
re-enumerate and attempt to get a "real" interview?
If so, do I need to do anything special with the collected data?
Answer:
This case should be redone; otherwise, it will have to be counted as
non-response. For CATI studies, however, it can be a big job to
re-interview. If you use the same unmodified case, every answer will
be a 'change answer'. It will probably be better to have the CATI
technical person restore the case to the original setup condition before
attempting the new interview.
(TP 8/8/94)
Question:
Two calls were made to the same number a few hours apart. The first
call was coded as an answering-machine. However, since no record was
made of the content of the message, as interviewers are
instructed to do, it was probably not really an
answering machine. The second call was coded
Not-in-service/disconnected. It seems unlikely that the number was
disconnected in that span of a few hours; more likely, the
interviewer on the first call mistakenly coded a funny signal as an
answering-machine. How can I finalize this case?
Answer:
Since there seems to be evidence that the original outcome
(Answering-machine) was a miscode, it can be ignored for purposes of
assigning a final outcome code. If the Not-in-service outcome has been
confirmed by a second dialing, this case should be finalized as a phone
number Not-in-service.
(TP 2/6/96)