Mind the mode:
Malawi mVAM respondent
It’s time for another installment of our Mind the Mode series. For those of you who follow this blog regularly, you know that the mVAM team is continually evaluating the quality of the data we collect. Past Mind the Mode blogs have discussed our work in Mali looking at face-to-face versus voice calls, our comparison of SMS and IVR in Zimbabwe and the differences in the Food Consumption Score (FCS) for face-to-face versus Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) interviews in South Sudan.
This month, we turn our attention to Malawi, where we recently completed a study analyzing the differences in the reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) when it’s collected via CATI and SMS. This indicator helps measure a household’s food security by telling us what actions they might be taking to cope with any stresses such as reducing the number of meals a day or borrowing food or money from friends or family. From February to April 2017, around 2,000 respondents were randomly-selected for an SMS survey and 1,300 respondents were contacted on their mobile phones by an external call centre to complete a CATI survey.
People Profiling: who’s Texting and who’s Talking?
Across all three rounds, a greater proportion of respondents in both modalities were men who lived in the South and Central Regions of the country and came from male-headed households. However, the respondents taking the SMS survey were much younger (average age 29) than those who took the CATI survey (average age 40). This probably isn’t surprising when you consider that young people across the world tend to be much more interested in new technologies and in Malawi are more likely to be literate.
The results from our mode experiment in Zimbabwe showed that IVR and SMS surveys reached different demographic groups so we figured we might see the same results in Malawi. However, this was surprisingly not the case: both CATI and SMS participants seemed to come from better-off households. In our surveys we determine this by asking them what material the walls of their home are made from (cement, baked bricks, mud, or unbaked bricks).
More respondents (60%) said they have cement or baked brick walls as opposed to mud or unbaked brick walls, an indicator of being richer.
Digging into the rCSI
So what about the results observed for the rCSI between the two modes? The CATI rCSI distribution shows a peak at zero (meaning that respondents are not employing any negative coping strategies) and is similar to the typical pattern expected of the rCSI in face-to-face surveys (as you can see in the two graphs below).
The SMS results, on the other hand, tend to have a slightly higher rCSI score than in CATI, meaning that respondents to the SMS survey are employing more negative coping strategies than households surveyed via CATI. This is counter-intuitive to what we might expect, especially since the data illustrates that these households are not more vulnerable than CATI respondents. Presumably, they would actually be better educated (read: literate!) to be able to respond to SMS surveys. We’re therefore looking forward to doing some more research in to why this is the case.
It’s All in the Numbers
Some interesting patterns in terms of responses were also observed via both modalities. SMS respondents were more likely to respond to all five rCSI questions by entering the same value for each question (think: 00000, 22222…you get the idea!). At the beginning of the survey, SMS respondents were told that they would earn a small airtime credit upon completion of the questionnaire. We conjecture that some respondents may have just entered numbers randomly to complete the questionnaire as quickly as possible and receive their credit. Keep in mind that entering the same value for all five rCSI questions via CATI is a lot more difficult, as the operator is able to ask additional questions to ensure that the respondent clearly understands the question prior to entering the response. For SMS, there’s no check prohibiting the respondent from dashing through the questionnaire and entering the same response each time.
We also saw that the percentage of respondents stating that they were employing between zero and four strategies was much lower among SMS respondents than CATI respondents across all three months of data collection. Conversely, more respondents (three out of five) in the SMS survey reported that they were using all five negative coping strategies than in the CATI survey. Again, this is counter-intuitive to what we would expect. It might mean that SMS respondents didn’t always correctly understand the questionnaire or that they didn’t take the time to reflect on each question, completing questions as rapidly as possible to get their credit; or simply entered random numbers in the absence of an operator to validate their responses. The graphs below illustrate the differences in rCSI responses between CATI and SMS.
Figure 3: Distribution of the number of coping strategies reported by SMS and CATI respondents by months
From these results, you can see that we still have a lot to learn on how survey modality affects the results. This is just the start of our research; so expect more to come as the team digs deeper to better understand these important differences.
Originally published at MVAM: THE BLOG.