Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R: Response rates and their maximisation. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 1995, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 21: 294-321.
Google Scholar
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R: Methods to increase response rates to postal questionnaires. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2003, 4
McKenzie-McHarg K, Tully L, Gates S, Ayers S, Brocklehurst P: Effect on survey response rate of hand-written versus printed signature on a covering letter: randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2005, 5: 52-10.1186/1472-6963-5-52.
Article
Google Scholar
DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-88. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D: Measuring inconsistencies in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal. 2003, 327: 557-560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Article
Google Scholar
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-34.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Roberts RE, McCrory OF, Forthofer RN: Further evidence on using a deadline to stimulate responses to a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1978, 42: 407-410. 10.1086/268464.
Article
Google Scholar
Wright SJ: Mail survey response rates: A test of four techniques designed to increase response rates and a discussion of the associated cost considerations. Student Research Report. 1984, Massey University, Department of Marketing
Google Scholar
Childers TL, Skinner SJ: Theoretical and empirical issues in the identification of survey respondents. Journal of the Market Research Society. 1985, 27 (1): 39-53.
Google Scholar
Martin WS, Duncan WJ, Powers TL, Sawyer JC: Costs and benefits of selected response inducement techniques in mail survey research. Journal of Business Research. 1989, 19: 67-79. 10.1016/0148-2963(89)90041-6.
Article
Google Scholar
White MB, Chambers KM: Type of cover letter and questionnaire color: do they influence the response rate in survey research with marriage and family therapists?. Family Therapy. 1997, 24 (1): 19-24.
Google Scholar
Weilbacher WM, Walsh HR: Mail questionnaires and the personalized letter of transmittal. Marketing Notes. 1952, 16: 331-336.
Article
Google Scholar
Dillman DA, Frey JH: Contribution of personalization to mail questionnaire response as an element of a previously tested method. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (3): 297-301. 10.1037/h0036534.
Article
Google Scholar
Matteson MT: Type of transmittal letter and questionnaire colour as two variables influencing response rates in a mail survey. J Appl Psychol. 1974, 59 (4): 535-536. 10.1037/h0037275.
Article
Google Scholar
Kerin RA, Harvey MG: Methodological considerations in corporate mail surveys: a research note. Journal of Business Research. 1976, 4 (3): 277-281. 10.1016/0148-2963(76)90029-1.
Article
Google Scholar
King JO: The influence of personalization on mail survey response rates. Arkansas Business Economic Rev. 1978, 11: 15-18.
Google Scholar
Worthen BR, Valcarce RW: Relative effectiveness of personalized and form covering letters in initial and follow-up mail surveys. Psychology Reports. 1985, 57: 735-744.
Article
Google Scholar
Green KE, Kvidahl RF: Personalization and offers of results: effects on response rates. Journal of Experimental Education. 1989, 57: 263-270.
Article
Google Scholar
Gitelson RJ, Drogin EB: An experiment on the efficacy of a certified final mailing. Journal of Leisure Research. 1992, 24 (1): 72-78.
Article
Google Scholar
Shin E: An experimental study of techniques to improve response rates of mail questionnaire. 1992, Utah State University
Google Scholar