↓ Skip to main content

Surveying immigrants without sampling frames – evaluating the success of alternative field methods

Overview of attention for article published in Comparative Migration Studies, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 204)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Surveying immigrants without sampling frames – evaluating the success of alternative field methods
Published in
Comparative Migration Studies, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40878-016-0044-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Reichel, Laura Morales

Abstract

This paper evaluates the sampling methods of an international survey, the Immigrant Citizens Survey, which aimed at surveying immigrants from outside the European Union (EU) in 15 cities in seven EU countries. In five countries, no sample frame was available for the target population. Consequently, alternative ways to obtain a representative sample had to be found. In three countries 'location sampling' was employed, while in two countries traditional methods were used with adaptations to reach the target population. The paper assesses the main methodological challenges of carrying out a survey among a group of immigrants for whom no sampling frame exists. The samples of the survey in these five countries are compared to results of official statistics in order to assess the accuracy of the samples obtained through the different sampling methods. It can be shown that alternative sampling methods can provide meaningful results in terms of core demographic characteristics although some estimates differ to some extent from the census results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 33 46%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,796,711
of 18,893,921 outputs
Outputs from Comparative Migration Studies
#45
of 204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,803
of 402,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Comparative Migration Studies
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,893,921 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.