Techniques for communication repair in the standardized telephone interview

Cover Page


It is hardly possible to conduct a standardized interview in ideal conditions for it is a part of everyday interactions. Therefore, deviations from standardization, bias and mistakes in communication are the realities of public opinion polls. Key biases in information transfer are mainly determined by the characteristics of the respondent (age, sex, education, social status, etc.) and his behavior. However, the interviewer behavior is also important which explains the attention of methodological works to the interviewer effect, his actions and attitudes that lead to serious mistakes in measurement or recruiting. In verbal interaction, the interviewer can explain survey questions in his own way, comment or clarify responses. Standardization can also be violated by other circumstances such as interruptions in telephone network, intervention of third parties, technical problems (software malfunction), structure of the questionnaire and so on. Thus, there are three main sources of measurement error in the standardized interview: respondent, interviewer, and context. The qualified and experienced interviewer more successfully identify problems and find ways to solve them and repair communication. The article presents examples of such ways from the database of transcripts of three RDD ACATI surveys conducted by the Laboratory for Social Research Methodology of the Russian Presidential Academy for National Economy and Public Administration in 2017 to identify key types of successful interviewer decisions. They are considered in three dimensions: adequate responses, communication and standardization. Thus, successful interview is not just a completed questionnaire but also relevant answers, informed consent and positive emotional attitude.

About the authors

A A Ipatova

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author for correspondence.
Prechistenskaya Nab., 11-1, Moscow, Russia, 119034

D M Rogozin

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Prechistenskaya Nab., 11-1, Moscow, Russia, 119034


  1. Ipatova A.A., Rogozin D.M. Effektivnoe standartizirovannoe intervyu [Communicative success in the structured telephone interview]. Sotsiologichesky Zhurnal. 2014; 1 (In Russ.).
  2. Ipatova A.A. Kak pravilno zavershit telefonnoe intervyu [How to end a telephone interview]. Sotsiologichesky Zhurnal. 2012; 4 (In Russ.).
  3. Noelle E. Massovye oprosy: vvedenie v metodiku demoskopii [Mass Survey: Introduction to the Methods of Demoscopy]. Per. s nem. M.I. Zaitseva, L.N. Kryuchkova; obsch. red., vstupit. i zakl. st. N.S. Mansurova. Мoscow: “Аva-Extra”; 1993 (In Russ.).
  4. Panina N.V. Tekhnologiya sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya [Technology of Sociological Research]. Kiev: Institut sotsiologii NAN Ukrainy; 2001 (In Russ.).
  5. Rogozin D. V teni oprosov, ili budni polevogo intervyuera [In the Shadow of Surveys, or Weekdays of the Field Interviewer]. Moscow: “Strana OZ”; 2017 (In Russ.).
  6. Romanova N.N., Filippov A.A. Kultura rechevogo obshcheniya: etika, pragmatika, psikhologiya [Culture of Verbal Communication: Ethics, Pragmatics, Psychology]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka; 2009 (In Russ.).
  7. Sudman S., Bradburn N. Kak pravilno zadavat voprosy: vvedenie v proektirovanie oprosnogo instrumenta [Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design]. Per. s angl. А.V. Vinitskoy; pod red. D.M. Rogozina. Мoscow: Institut Fonda “Obshchestvennoe mnenie”; 2002 (In Russ.).
  8. Turchik A.V. Konversatsionny analiz smekha v rechevom vzaimodeistvii: sluchai konstruirovaniya otsenok vlasti [Conversational analysis of laughter in verbal interaction: A case of assessing the authorities]. Sotsiologichesky Zhurnal. 2010; 1 (In Russ.).
  9. AAPOR Report: Current knowledge and considerations regarding survey refusals.
  10. Bakken D. Saying goodbye: An observational study of parting rituals. Man-Environment Systems. 1977; 7.
  11. Bell K., Fahmy E., Gordon D. Quantitative conversations: The importance of developing rapport in standardized interviewing. Quality and Quantity. 1997; 50.
  12. Beullens K., Loosveldt G. Interviewer effects in the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods. 2016; 10 (2).
  13. Cheron E., Hayashi H. The effect of respondents’ nationality and familiarity with a product category on the importance of product attributes in consumer choice: Globalization and the evaluation of domestic and foreign products. Japanese Psychological Research. 2001; 43 (4).
  14. Chico V., Taylor M.J. Using and disclosing confidential patient information and the English common law: What are the information requirements of valid consent? Medical Law Review. 2018; 26 (1).
  15. Chrimes N., Marshall S.D. The illusion of informed consent. Anaesthesia. 2018; 73 (1).
  16. Conrad F.G., Schober M.F. Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2000; 64.
  17. Davis R.E., Couper M.P., Janz N.K. et al. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Education Research. 2010; 25 (1).
  18. Dumitrescu D., Martinsson J. Surveys as a social experience: The lingering effects of survey design choices on respondents’ survey experience and subsequent optimizing behavior. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2016; 28 (4).
  19. Fowler F.J. Reducing interviewer-related error through interviewer training, supervision, and other means. Measurement Error in Surveys. Ed. by P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, S. Sudman. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.
  20. Fowler F.J., Manione T.W. Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer Related Error. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.
  21. Frey H.J., Mertens Oishi S. How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone. London: Sage; 1995.
  22. Frunza A., Sandu A. Values grounding the informed consent in medical practice: Theory and practice. Sage Open. 2017; 7 (4).
  23. Garbarski D., Schaeffer N.C., Dykema J. Interviewing practices, conversational practices, and rapport: Responsiveness and engagement in the survey interview. Sociological Methodology. 2016; 46 (1).
  24. Glenn P. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
  25. Hargie O., Saunders C., Dickson D. Social Skills in Interpersonal Communication. New York: Routledge; 1994.
  26. Jaeckle A., Lynn P., Sinibaldi J., Tipping S. The effect of interviewer experience, attitudes, personality and skills on respondent co-operation with face-to-face surveys. Survey Research Methods. 2013; 7 (1).
  27. Kadan-Lottick N.S., Friedman D.L., Mertens A.C., Whitton J.A., Yasui Y., Strong L.C., Robison L.L. Self-reported family history of cancer: The utility of probing questions. Epidemiology. 2003; 14 (6).
  28. Manson N.C., O’Neill O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  29. Marzano M. Informed consent. SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. Ed. by J.F. Gubrium, J.A. Holstein, A.B. Marvasti, K.D. McKinney. London: Sage; 2012.
  30. McCollum D.W., Boyle K.J. The effect of respondent experience/knowledge in the elicitation of contingent values: An investigation of convergent validity, procedural invariance and reliability. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2005; 30 (1).
  31. Miller P.V., Cannel C.F. A study of experimental techniques for telephone interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1982; 46 (2).
  32. Mittereder F., Durow J., West B.T., Kreuter F., Conrad F.G. Interviewer-respondent interactions in conversational and standardized interviewing. Field Methods. 2018; 30 (1).
  33. Moore R.J., Maynard D.W. Achieving understanding in the standardized survey interview: Repair sequences. Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. Ed. by D.W. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer, J. van der Zouwen. New York: John Wiley; 2002.
  34. Nedelec J.L. A multi-level analysis of the effect of interviewer characteristics on survey respondents reports of sensitive topics. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017; 107.
  35. Nemeth R., Luksander A. Strong impact of interviewer on respondents’ political choice: Evidence from Hungary. Field Methods. 2018; 30 (2).
  36. Payne S. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1951.
  37. Presser S. Informed consent and confidentiality in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1994; 58 (3).
  38. Sauer C., Auspurg K., Hinz T., Liebig S. The application of factorial surveys in general population samples: The effects of respondent age and education on response times and response consistency. Survey Research Methods. 2011; 5 (3).
  39. Schaeffer N.C., Maynard D.W. From paradigm to prototype and back again: Interactive aspects of cognitive processing in survey interviews. Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research. Ed. by N.E. Schwarz, S. Sudman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996.
  40. Schaeffer N.C., Maynard D.W. The contemporary standardized survey interview for social research. Envisioning the Survey Interview of the Future. Ed. by F.G. Conrad, M.F. Schober. Hoboken: John Wiley; 2008.
  41. Schaeffer N.C., Presser S. The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology. 2003; 29.
  42. Schober M.F., Conrad F.G., Fircker S.S. Misunderstanding standardized language in research interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2004; 18.
  43. Sin C.H. Seeking informed consent: Reflections on research practice. Sociology — Journal of British Sociological Association. 2005; 39 (2).
  44. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1982.



Abstract - 982

PDF (Russian) - 548




Copyright (c) 2019 Ipatova A.A., Rogozin D.M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies