The Identification of Effective Interviewers
有效访员的识别AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要属于调查质量与验证研究,金融机构记录仅作验证来源,不构成金融计量或因果推断依据。
有效访员的识别AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In studies where validation data is not available, effective interviewers are identified on the basis of various measures of interviewing performance. Yet little is known about the validity of these measures. In the study reported, sample addresses were selected on a probability basis from the records of financial institutions and the holdings reported to the interviewer were compared with institution records for the day of the interview. The frequency with which an interviewer obtained the validated account(s) forms the basis for the criteria of interviewer effectiveness. This paper suggests that many frequently used measures of interviewer performance are poor indicators of interviewer effectiveness. Hypotheses for future testing are also presented on how the identification procedure might be improved.