A Comparison of CAPI and PAPI through a Randomized Field Experiment
This paper reports on a randomized survey experiment among one thousand eight hundred and forty households, designed to compare pen-and-paper interviewing (PAPI) to computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). The authors find that PAPI data con...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467401588063959793/A-Comparison-of-CAPI-and-PAPI-through-a-Randomized-Field-Experiment http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33699 |
| Summary: | This paper reports on a randomized
survey experiment among one thousand eight hundred and forty
households, designed to compare pen-and-paper interviewing
(PAPI) to computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI).
The authors find that PAPI data contain a large number of
errors, which can be avoided in CAPI. The authors show that
error counts are not randomly distributed across the sample,
but are correlated with household characteristics,
potentially introducing sample bias in analysis if dubious
observations need to be dropped. The authors demonstrate a
tendency for the mean and spread of total measured
consumption to be higher on paper compared to CAPI,
translating into significantly lower measured poverty,
higher measured inequality and higher income elasticity
estimates. Investigating further the nature of PAPI’s
measurement error for consumption, the authors fail to
reject the hypothesis that it is classical: it attenuates
the coefficient on consumption when used as explanatory
variable and the authors find no evidence of bias when
consumption is used as dependent variable. Finally, CAPI and
PAPI are compared in terms of interview length, costs and
respondents’ perceptions. |
|---|