IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/23-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When and Why Does Nonresponse Occur? Comparing the Determinants of Initial Unit Nonresponse and Panel Attrition

Author

Listed:
  • Tiffany S. Neman

Abstract

Though unit nonresponse threatens data quality in both cross-sectional and panel surveys, little is understood about how initial nonresponse and later panel attrition may be theoretically or empirically distinct phenomena. This study advances current knowledge of the determinants of both unit nonresponse and panel attrition within the context of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) panel survey, which I link with high-quality federal administrative records, paradata, and geographic data. By exploiting the SIPP’s interpenetrated sampling design and relying on cross-classified random effects modeling, this study quantifies the relative effects of sample household, interviewer, and place characteristics on baseline nonresponse and later attrition, addressing a critical gap in the literature. Given the reliance on successful record linkages between survey sample households and federal administrative data in the nonresponse research, this study also undertakes an explicitly spatial analysis of the place-based characteristics associated with successful record linkages in the U.S.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiffany S. Neman, 2023. "When and Why Does Nonresponse Occur? Comparing the Determinants of Initial Unit Nonresponse and Panel Attrition," Working Papers 23-44, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:23-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2023/adrm/ces/CES-WP-23-44.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2023
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Burton & Heather Laurie & Peter Lynn, 2006. "The long‐term effectiveness of refusal conversion procedures on longitudinal surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 459-478, July.
    2. Daniel H. Hill & Robert J. Willis, 2001. "Reducing Panel Attrition: A Search for Effective Policy Instruments," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 36(3), pages 416-438.
    3. Lynn Peter & Kaminska Olena & Goldstein Harvey, 2014. "Panel Attrition: How Important is Interviewer Continuity?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(3), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    2. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    3. Kapteyn, Arie & Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Smith, James P. & van Soest, Arthur, 2006. "Effects of Attrition and Non-Response in the Health and Retirement Study," IZA Discussion Papers 2246, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. McGovern, Mark E. & Canning, David & Bärnighausen, Till, 2018. "Accounting for non-response bias using participation incentives and survey design: An application using gift vouchers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 239-244.
    5. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants in Germany: The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 30, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Andrew Dabalen & Alvin Etang & Johannes Hoogeveen & Elvis Mushi & Youdi Schipper & Johannes von Engelhardt, 2016. "Mobile Phone Panel Surveys in Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 24595, December.
    7. Teresa Molina Millan & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," NOVAFRICA Working Paper Series wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics, NOVAFRICA.
    8. Thomas, Duncan & Witoelar, Firman & Frankenberg, Elizabeth & Sikoki, Bondan & Strauss, John & Sumantri, Cecep & Suriastini, Wayan, 2012. "Cutting the costs of attrition: Results from the Indonesia Family Life Survey," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 108-123.
    9. Regina Riphahn & Oliver Serfling, 2005. "Item non-response on income and wealth questions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 521-538, September.
    10. Joachim Frick & Kristina Krell, 2011. "Einkommensmessungen in Haushaltspanelstudien für Deutschland: Ein Vergleich von EU-SILC und SOEP," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 5(3), pages 221-248, December.
    11. Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2007. "Item Non-response and Imputation of Annual Labor Income in Panel Surveys from a Cross-National Perspective," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 49, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    12. Robert F. Schoeni & Frank Stafford & Katherine A. Mcgonagle & Patricia Andreski, 2013. "Response Rates in National Panel Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 60-87, January.
    13. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Labour Market Outcomes of Immigrants in Germany – The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," Ruhr Economic Papers 0020, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    14. Loretti I. Dobrescu, 2015. "To Love or to Pay: Savings and Health Care in Older Age," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(1), pages 254-299.
    15. Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2003. "Missing Income Data in the German SOEP: Incidence, Imputation and its Impact on the Income Distribution," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 376, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Jörg-Peter Schräpler & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2013. "Conversion of Non-Respondents in an Ongoing Panel Survey: The Case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 626, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Fertig, Michael & Schurer, Stefanie, 2007. "Labour Market Outcomes of Immigrants in Germany – The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," Ruhr Economic Papers 20, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Watson, Nicole & Pudney, Stephen, 2013. "If at first you don’t succeed? Fieldwork, panel attrition, and health-employment inferences in BHPS and HILDA," ISER Working Paper Series 2013-27, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    19. Laura Fumagalli & Heather Laurie & Peter Lynn, 2013. "Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(2), pages 499-519, February.
    20. Luis Ayala & Carolina Navarro & Mercedes Sastre, 2011. "Cross-country income mobility comparisons under panel attrition: the relevance of weighting schemes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(25), pages 3495-3521.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unit Nonresponse; Panel Attrition; Refusal; Noncontact; Interviewer Effects; Area Effects;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:23-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.