Victimization Survey ModuleVSM CZ
Translating and Testing a Victimization Survey Module
A Quality Report
General information
1. / Country / CZECH REPUBLIC2. / Organisation responsible for the survey / CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE
3. / Contact person / beneficiary / Mgr. Vratislava Drozenová
Society Development Statistics
Phone +420 274 052 091
4. /
Name of the collection
/ Victimization Survey Module5. / Last update of this report / 12/11/2009
6. / Survey participation
Voluntary
7. / Survey period
The beginning and end date of the project
1st October 2008
30th September 2009
The agreement 11002.2008001-2008.390
Crime prevention and combating crime
Table of contentsI. Experience of the CZSO interviewers with modules A-F
1. Introduction and the aim of the survey / 3
2. Method and respondent sample size / 3
3. Data obtained from the interview survey among interviewers / 4
3.1. Reasons for non-performance of interviews / 4
3.2. Amenability of respondents to give an interview / 5
3.3.Interview methods - assessment by interviewers / 6
3.3.1. Face-to-face interview with paper questionnaire / 6
3.3.2. Face-to-face interview assisted with computer / 7
3.3.3. Phone interview with paper and pencil / 8
3.3.4. Phone interview assisted with computer / 9
3.3.5. Summary / 9
3.4. Work with modules A-E – interviewers´ assessment / 10
3.4.1. Clarity of questions / 10
3.4.2. Necessity to explain and be more specific about questions / 10
3.4.3. Ad alternatives of answers / 11
3.4.4. Difficulties with recording answers / 12
3.4.5. Other question-related problems / 13
3.4.6. Redundant questions (according to interviewers) / 16
3.4.7. Missing questions (respondents´ opinion) / 18
3.4.8. Experience and remarks of interviewers to modules A-E in general / 18
3.4.8.1. Total assessment of A-E modules / 18
3.4.8.2. Remarks to the manner of interviewing / 21
3.5. Experience of interviewers related to module F / 22
4. Conclusion of interviewers assessment
/ 23Annex – List of questions in modules A-F mentioned by interviewers
II. Results of the survey – tablesIII. Comparison of the results with data from any other crime survey and with national administrative sources
IV. Conclusions and recommendation for future actions (period, costs) / 24
30
32
33
I. Experience of the CZSO interviewers with modules A-F
1. Introduction and the aim of survey
In the period from May to August 2009 pilot victimisation survey Crime Prevention and Combating Crime was conducted in the CzechRepublic in compliance with the Eurostat requirements. Field work linked with the survey was arranged for by the Czech Statistical Office.
In order to test the effectiveness and feasibility of victimization questionnaire developed by the CZSO staff according to the source material supplied by Eurostat in the conditions of the Czech Republic, an interview survey among interviewers carrying out victimization survey was conducted in addition to the interview survey among the population (using A-F modules).
The aim the interview survey among interviewers was primarily to identify any potential problems which, according to the interviewers´ experience, the respondents had to cope with in the process of responding to positive questions used in victimization questionnaire (A-F modules) and also to point out potential defects in the questionnaire which the interviewers themselves had to face.
The interviewers were asked to designate to which extent the questions in the victimization questionnaire (A-E modules) were a/ clear, b) whether the interviewer had to further explain the question to the respondent, c) whether some response options to some questions were missing, d/ whether the interviewer missed some questions in the questionnaire or f) whether the interviewer considered some question redundant and useless. Attention was paid to the amenability of respondents to give their opinion on the subject under survey, reasons whey respondents did not want to answer the questions, total evaluation of the questionnaire by interviewers and experience of interviewers with the approach of respondents to module F and also to a very sensitive part of victimization survey. It was also observed to which extent various methods of the field survey[1] accommodated the interviewers. Data obtained from interviewers are presented thereinafter.
2. Method and respondent sample
The questionnaire designed for interviewers was developed specifically for the purpose of the survey. The interviewer completed the questionnaire after termination of interviewing based on models A-F and summarized his/her experience with all victimization related interviews he/she conducted.
In total, data from 151 interviewers were obtained.Interviewers were the CZSO employees performing various fieldworks for the Office.
The above mentioned interviewers were to conduct the total of 1 000 victimization interviews with respondents. They completed 691 interviews (69.1%), the remaining 309 interviews were not carried out (30.9%).
3. Data obtained from the interview survey among interviewers
3.1. Reasons of non-performance of an interview
- 85 interviews (27.5 % of309 interviews) were not realized due to failure to reach the respondent even after a repeated visit at his/her residence or by phone.
17 interviewers were more specific about failure to make an interview. Their answers (total of 20 answers) included the following:
-Long-term stay of a respondent outside the CzechRepublic or his/her residence, respondent moved from his/her residence address – this reason was given by 7 interviewers
-Cancelled phone line – stated by 4 interviewers
-Respondent died or is in hospital, made other persons to hide him, does not answer the phone – each of the alternative was mentioned by 3 interviewers
- The remaining 224 interviews (72.5%) of the total of309, which were not realized, failed to be performed because of refusals. 58 interviewers explained why it happened.
Interviewers (75 answers) stated that the reasons why respondents refused an interview or refused to finish it included the following:
-Interviewing was too long and respondents said that they did not have time (this reason gave 21 interviewers - 1/5 of which stated expressly that the reason was that the victimization survey followed shortly another interview survey conducted by the CZSO)
-Personal, private character of questions (including the income of a household, details about family members – more specific explanation see below) – this reason stated 18 interviewers
-Respondents did not want to talk about the subject of the questionnaire /crime, damage caused by criminal activity) – this reason was given by 6 interviewers – some of them stated that the respondents did not wish to talk about the subject on the phone)
-Respondent cast doubts on personal data protection (this referred also to questions related to personal and home security) – this reason was mentioned by 6 interviewers
-Respondents did not want to say anything beyond the framework of standard surveys conducted by the CZSO – this reason stated 5 interviewers
-Respondent did not want to answer because he/she feel to be continuously bothered by some opinion surveys – this reason was stated by 4 interviewers
-Other reasons (death in the family, language barrier) – the reason was stated by 3 interviewers
-Interview was refused without giving a reason – this reason was given by 12 interviewers
3.2. Amenability of respondents to give an interview
As it is clear from Table 1, according to interviewers almost 2/3 of 691 interviews were realized with respondents willing to answer A-F modules; approximately 1/5 were amenable to answer at the beginning and unwilling later. Approximately one tenth of respondents were unwilling for the whole time of the interview and approximately 5% of respondents were unwilling at the beginning and later they showed more amenability to answer.
Table 1
Assessment of amenability of respondents to answer the questions in the questionnaire related to victimization survey – interviewers´ statements
Amenability of respondents / Abs. / %Amenable for the whole time of interview / 444 / 64.3
Amenable, later not amenable / 141 / 20.4
Not amenable, later amenable / 32 / 4.6
Not amenable for the whole interview / 74 / 10.7
Respondents, total / 691 / 100.0
3.3. Interview methods – assessment by interviewers
Interviewers were asked to assess which method of interview with the questionnaire was suitable /modules A-F/ for the field survey. As stated above almost every interviewer conducted the victimization interview survey combining several methods. They may mix the following: a) phone interview with paper questionnaire, b) phone interview assisted with computer, c) face-to-face interview with paper questionnaire, d) face-to-face interview assisted with computer.
Interviewers using particular methods, assessed how appropriate they are, i.e. if they were easy and friendly to use. They assigned marks 1-5 to individual methods, like at school, where 1 is excellent (the most suitable), and five the worst (the least suitable).
3.3.1. Interview with paper questionnaire (method assessed by 52 interviewers[2])
Assessment by marks 1 and 2 (positive part of the scale) was assigned by 86.5% of interviewers (45 persons of which 21 persons, i.e. almost one half, chose mark 1). The assessment with marks 3 to 5 used 13.5% of respondents (7 persons) of which approximately 1/10 of interviewers (9.6% , 5 persons) chose mark 3, four and five both by one interviewer – see graph 1.
Graph 1
Method of personal interview based on printed questionnaire – assessment provided by 52 interviewers using the scale 1-5 (1 - the most suitable, 5 - the least suitable)
3.3.2. Face to face interviews assisted with computer (method assessed by 48 interviewers)
This method of interviewing was the most frequently used; one third of interviewers (33.3 %, 16 persons) assigned this method mark by 2 and almost one third of interviewers assigned mark 1 (29.2%, 14 persons). Almost one fifth of interviewers marked it with 3 (22.9%, 11 persons). Mark 4 was assigned to this method by 6.3% of interviewers (3 persons) and 5, i.e. entirely unsuitable, by 8.3% of interviewers (4 persons).
Positive assessment of the method (using mark 1 and 2) came almost from 60% of evaluating interviewers (62.5%, i.e. 30 persons) and only 14.6% (7 persons) marked it as unsuitable (using marks 4 and 5) see graph 2.
Graph 2
Assessment of the method of personal interview assisted with computer provided by 52 interviewers using the scale 1-5 (1-the most suitable, 5- the least suitable)
3.3.3. Phone interview with paper and pencil (method assessed by 54 interviewers)
The range of opinions on phone interviews with paper and pencil shows rather controversial assessment of this method by interviewers (see graph 3). Approximately the same number of persons gave more or less positive assessment (marks 1 and 2 from 31.5% i.e. 17 persons) and, on the other hand, negative assessment (marks 4 and 5) came from 37.0%, 20 persons. Evaluation from approximately the same number of interviewers (31.7%, 17 persons) was ambivalent (mark 3). Comment made by interviewers on this method of interviewing complied with the above evaluation -see below.
Graph 3
Phone interview based on printed questionnaire was assessed by 54 interviewers using the scale 1 - 5 (1 – the most suitable…5 – the least suitable).
3.3.4. Phone interview assisted with computer (method assessed by 58 interviewers)
This method was assigned marks 2 to 5 always by almost ¼ of interviewers (2, 3 and 4 marks were given always 24.1% of interviewers (each mark by 14 persons), mark 5 was assigned to this method by 25.9% of interviewers /15 persons. Only one interviewer marked this method with 1, i.e. suitable – see graph 4. This means that half of interviewers considered this type of interviewing on victimization unsuitable.
Graph 4
Method of phone interview assisted with computer was assessed by 58 interviewers using the scale 1-5 (1 – the most suitable…5 the least suitable)
3.3.5. Summary
The data suggest that the phone interview method was not given clearly positive assessment (marks 1 and2) from the interviewers like in face-to-face interviews. Unsatisfactory evaluation (4 and 5) occurred more often for phone interviews than for face-to-face interviews.
From the data obtained it was clear that the face to face interview with a respondent (based either on printed questionnaire or assisted with computer) on victimization was identified by the interviewers generally as more comfortable than phone interviewing.
3.4. Work with A-E modules – interviewers´ assessment
Explanation: Numbers by particular modules are numbers of questions. If the number of question is missing it means that the interviewer commented on the whole module. Unless the number of interviewers who mentioned the question is missing, it means that the question was mentioned only by one interviewer. If no reason is given for the question, the interviewer did not provide it.
3.4.1. Clarity of questions
(Were any questions confusing for some respondents?)
According to answers of interviewers it can be stated that the questions were developed clearly. No question was confusing, however, some required certain explanation – see below.
3.4.2. Necessity to explain and be more specific about the question
(Did you have to provide more explanation and details on questions asked?)
Module A:
13 – question raised negative feeling among the respondents, the interviewers had to explain why such sensitive data in connection with crime are surveyed – stated 3 times
Module B:
One interviewer commented on the whole module as follows: for the population of small villages these questions are meaningless, they all know each other and they are unable to imagine options of answers suggested in the questionnaire.
15 – sub-question 4: Surprise raised the question related to carrying of mobile phone – interviewers stated that respondents said that they carry their mobile phones permanently and not specifically for calling for help – 3 times
16 – once, it was necessary to explain whether it refers to a gun with firearm licence or to an air gun
Module C:
8 and 9 – unreasonable sequence of questions related to a bicycle theft
9 – question is too long, respondent “got lost”
9 and 12 – one interviewer stated that questions are similar (he stole nothing but attempted to steel and thereby caused property damage)
Module D:
3 – respondents hardly remember an event which happened more than a year ago, data are not precise
8 and 9 - (insurance related questions): respondents did not understand why this sensitive data are surveyed in this respect)
10c - unreasonable sequence of questions
17 – question requiring too many details, how could the injured know whether the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol – stated 3 times
38 – too many alternatives, respondents cannot make decision easily
Module E:
40 - interviewer had to explain in more details what phishing is
50 – interviewer had to explain the meaning of “identity”
3.4.3. Ad alternatives of answers
(Were some alternatives of questions missing?)
Module A:
11- too narrow differentiation between the main job classification classes
Module B:
2 – answer (“fifty-fifty” is missing in the menu)
9c – answer “occasionally“ is missing
10d – answer “occasionally” is missing“
11 – answer: “I do not know, I have not thought of it“
11c – answer “occasionally“ is missing
12 – answer: “I do not know I have not thought of it“
9, 10, 11 – In respect of these questions one interviewer stated that “respondent could not decide between the alternative “little and very little“ and between “often and very often“ and stated that it sometimes came to her mind.
11b a 12b – “respondent could not distinguish between “many and few“
14 – alternative: “protected only by current lock” or “the house is not protected“ – stated twice
Module C:
1 – the alternative of question referring to “at car purchase the contract priced was not paid in full“ is missing
16 – in the text of the answer the alternative “doctor“ is missing
21 – the classifying question whether the respondent owns PC is missing – stated twice
Module D:
5 – alternative “none of the list“ is missing
5 - alternative “damaged lock and security equipment“
5 - alternative “data theft in electronic form“ is missing
5 - alternative of an answer “theft of a purse at the station“ is missing
5 – one interviewer said that the question contains “entirely misleading alternatives“
5c – to add “mowing machines, electric drill“
5b and 5c – alternative “none“ is missing
14 – answer alternative “I do not know“ is missing – stated twice
3.4.4. Difficulties in recording answers
(Did you have problems where to record the answer in the questionnaire?)
Module B:
10, 11, 12 – questions are “strange” because we either “are worried or not” but we certainly do not think of it in this way – stated 3 times
14 – the question should follow the question “why do not you feel safe at home at night, what are you worried of?“ (B8) or it should be at least on the same page (home security)
Module C:
3, 4 – at car theft damage is usual
8, 9 – theft of two bicycles from the basement
Module D:
7 – respondent could not assess the damage, there is no space in the questionnaire to note this- stated twice
9 – respondent could not recall – there is no space in the questionnaire to note this
14 – owner spotted the offender but could not determine either sex or age – there is not space in the questionnaire to note this
Module E:
31 – respondents did not want to specifically state cases of corruption – there is no space in the questionnaire to note this
3.4.5. Other problems related to questions
(Did you have any serious problem with questions?)
Module A:
2 – indiscreet question
13 – very troublesome question, it is seen as indiscreet, very personal, inappropriate, respondents do not comprehend the meaning (are going to burgle our house? why it is important for you to know the income or the household? Will not be the data used for other purposes?) Respondents have problem to give the sum and some respondents refused to answer.
Module B:
2 – too many details, time-consuming
3 - too many details, time-consuming, reluctance and hesitation to answer
4 – reluctance and hesitation to answer
7 - too many details, time-consuming, reluctance and hesitation to answer – stated twice
8 – too many details, time-consuming
9 – too many details, time-consuming, reluctance and hesitation
11 – too many details, time consuming
12 – too many details, time-consuming, fear from the data misuse,
14 – probably one of the most troublesome questions of the whole questionnaire (18 interviewers had reservations). The interviewers stated that the question was too embarrassing even intrusive, entirely unsuitable. Some respondents threatened by calling the police and Nova TV and some refused to give an answer or their answers were deliberately untrue, they were afraid of the data misuse and other possible things.
15 – too many details, time-consuming, reluctance and hesitation to answer, threatening by calling Nova TV and the police
16 – reluctance to answer, threatening by the police and Nova TV“
17 – too many details, time-consuming
Module C:
10 – respondents are surprised by the purpose of the information (does anybody map out the situation to commit a crime?)
13 and 14 – opinion stating that these questions could make one because they are further discussed in module D