IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v167y2004i4p579-595.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The sensitivity of estimates of the change in population behaviour to realistic changes in bias in repeated surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew J. Copas
  • Vern T. Farewell
  • Catherine H. Mercer
  • Guiqing Yao

Abstract

Summary. The first British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) was conducted in 1990–1991 and the second in 1999–2001. When surveys are repeated, the changes in population parameters are of interest and are generally estimated from a comparison of the data between surveys. However, since all surveys may be subject to bias, such comparisons may partly reflect a change in bias. Typically limited external data are available to estimate the change in bias directly. However, one approach, which is often possible, is to define in each survey a sample of participants who are eligible for both surveys, and then to compare the reporting of selected events that occurred before the earlier survey time point. A difference in reporting suggests a change in overall survey bias between time points, although other explanations are possible. In NATSAL, changes in bias are likely to be similar for groups of sexual experiences. The grouping of experiences allows the information that is derived from the selected events to be incorporated into inference concerning population changes in other sexual experiences. We use generalized estimating equations, which incorporate weighting for differential probabilities of sampling and non‐response in a relatively straightforward manner. The results, combined with estimates of the change in reporting, are used to derive minimum established population changes, based on NATSAL data. For some key population parameters, the change in reporting is seen to be consistent with a change in bias alone. Recommendations are made for the design of future surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew J. Copas & Vern T. Farewell & Catherine H. Mercer & Guiqing Yao, 2004. "The sensitivity of estimates of the change in population behaviour to realistic changes in bias in repeated surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 167(4), pages 579-595, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:167:y:2004:i:4:p:579-595
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00706.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00706.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00706.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miller M. E. & Ten Have T. R. & Reboussin B. A. & Lohman K. K. & Rejeski W.J., 2001. "A Marginal Model for Analyzing Discrete Outcomes From Longitudinal Surveys With Outcomes Subject to Multiple-Cause Nonresponse," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 844-857, September.
    2. Geert Molenberghs & Michael G. Kenward & Els Goetghebeur, 2001. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete contingency tables: the Slovenian plebiscite case," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 50(1), pages 15-29.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rendtel, Ulrich & Basic, Edin, 2007. "Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German microcensus panel: an evaluation using data from the socio-economic panel," Discussion Papers 2007/6, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.

    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. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    2. Frederico Poleto & Geert Molenberghs & Carlos Paulino & Julio Singer, 2011. "Sensitivity analysis for incomplete continuous data," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 20(3), pages 589-606, November.
    3. Frederico Z. Poleto & Julio M. Singer & Carlos Daniel Paulino, 2011. "Comparing diagnostic tests with missing data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 1207-1222, April.
    4. Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Geert Molenberghs & Geert Verbeke, 2009. "A multifaceted sensitivity analysis of the Slovenian public opinion survey data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(2), pages 171-196, May.
    5. Baojiang Chen & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2011. "Doubly Robust Estimates for Binary Longitudinal Data Analysis with Missing Response and Missing Covariates," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 830-842, September.
    6. Mauricio Sadinle & Jerome P. Reiter, 2017. "Itemwise conditionally independent nonresponse modelling for incomplete multivariate data," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 104(1), pages 207-220.
    7. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs, 2008. "A flexible marginal modelling strategy for non‐monotone missing data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(2), pages 347-373, April.
    8. Edin Basic & Ulrich Rendtel, 2007. "Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German Microcensus Panel: an evaluation using data from the Socio-Economic Panel," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 91(3), pages 311-334, October.
    9. D. Nitsch & B. L. DeStavola & S. M. B. Morton & D. A. Leon, 2006. "Linkage bias in estimating the association between childhood exposures and propensity to become a mother: an example of simple sensitivity analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 493-505, July.
    10. Andrzej S. Kosinski & Huiman X. Barnhart, 2003. "Accounting for Nonignorable Verification Bias in Assessment of Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(1), pages 163-171, March.
    11. Kim, Seongyong & Park, Yousung & Kim, Daeyoung, 2015. "On missing-at-random mechanism in two-way incomplete contingency tables," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 196-203.
    12. Shin-Soo Kang & Kenneth Koehler & Michael Larsen, 2012. "Fractional imputation for incomplete two-way contingency tables," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(5), pages 581-599, July.
    13. Margarita Moreno-Betancur & Grégoire Rey & Aurélien Latouche, 2015. "Direct likelihood inference and sensitivity analysis for competing risks regression with missing causes of failure," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 498-507, June.
    14. Ivy Jansen & Geert Molenberghs & Marc Aerts & Herbert Thijs & Kristel Van Steen, 2003. "A Local Influence Approach Applied to Binary Data from a Psychiatric Study," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 410-419, June.
    15. Ivy Jansen & Ann Van den Troost & Geert Molenberghs & Ad A. Vermulst & Jan R. M. Gerris, 2006. "Modeling Partially Incomplete Marital Satisfaction Data," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(1), pages 113-136, August.
    16. Joseph Hogan, 2009. "Comments on: Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 18(1), pages 59-64, May.
    17. Rendtel, Ulrich & Basic, Edin, 2007. "Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German microcensus panel: an evaluation using data from the socio-economic panel," Discussion Papers 2007/6, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jorssa:v:167:y:2004:i:4:p:579-595. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.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.