Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Travel Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crompton, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Tian-Cole, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Analysis of 13 Tourism Surveys: Are Three Waves of Data Collection Necessary?

John L. Crompton

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University

Shu Tian-Cole

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism at the University of Missouri in Columbia

Variables were analyzed from 13 mail surveys addressing tourism issues, each of which collected data from three waves of respondents. A conceptual model was developed based on previous literature suggesting that differences in wave responses may be attributable to type of population (special interest groups or general populations) and/or to type of variable (demographic/profile or interest/behavioral), but the data did not support this contention. On 82% of the variables tested across the data sets, the additions of Waves 2 and 3 led to no change in the results, but a second wave typically reduced the variance on responses to the first wave by between 28% and 49%. It was recommended that instead of using resources to send Waves 2 and 3, those resources be allocated to intensive follow-up sampling of nonrespondents in a more representative way.

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, 356-368 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/004728750103900402


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Travel ResearchHome page
K. R. Bartkus, R. D. Howell, S. Barlow Hills, and J. Blackham
The Quality of Guest Comment Cards: An Empirical Study of U.S. Lodging Chains
Journal of Travel Research, November 1, 2009; 48(2): 162 - 176.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Travel ResearchHome page
J. G. Beaman, T.-C. Huan, and J. P. Beaman
Tourism Surveys: Sample Size, Accuracy, Reliability, and Acceptable Error
Journal of Travel Research, August 1, 2004; 43(1): 67 - 74.
[Abstract] [PDF]