The Great Recession and Drinking Outcomes: Protective Effects of Politically Oriented Coping
Figure 1
A summary of sample Ns and response rates at each decision point. 1There were 2416 cases for which a screening questionnaire could not be administered (contact to screener minus cooperation to screener plus answering machines). We assumed that 90.9% of these cases would have been eligible. In another 616 cases, the phone rang continuously at each contact attempt and was never answered. We assumed that 65.5% of those were working numbers, 90.3% were household numbers, and 90.9% were eligible. Consequently, the total number of cases with assumed eligibility is estimated as 90.9% of 2416 (2196) plus 53.8% of 616 (331 cases) or 2527. 2Screener refusals include actual refusals of eligible respondents plus a proportion of refusals of households whose eligibility is unknown. The total number of phone screener refusals is those who refused after screening, 367 (including 353 who refused the interview; 11 who cited the “Do not call” registry as a reason for refusal after being screened; and 3 who cited privacy manager as a reason for refusal after being screened), plus 90.9% of the 1,606 who refused prior to screening (including 1483 who refused before completing the screener; 37 who cited the “Do not call” registry as reason refusal; and 86 who cited privacy manager as a reason for refusal), for a total of 1827 phone screener refusals.
