IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v173y2010i2p389-407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using proxy measures and other correlates of survey outcomes to adjust for non‐response: examples from multiple surveys

Author

Listed:
  • F. Kreuter
  • K. Olson
  • J. Wagner
  • T. Yan
  • T. M. Ezzati‐Rice
  • C. Casas‐Cordero
  • M. Lemay
  • A. Peytchev
  • R. M. Groves
  • T. E. Raghunathan

Abstract

Summary. Non‐response weighting is a commonly used method to adjust for bias due to unit non‐response in surveys. Theory and simulations show that, to reduce bias effectively without increasing variance, a covariate that is used for non‐response weighting adjustment needs to be highly associated with both the response indicator and the survey outcome variable. In practice, these requirements pose a challenge that is often overlooked, because those covariates are often not observed or may not exist. Surveys have recently begun to collect supplementary data, such as interviewer observations and other proxy measures of key survey outcome variables. To the extent that these auxiliary variables are highly correlated with the actual outcomes, these variables are promising candidates for non‐response adjustment. In the present study, we examine traditional covariates and new auxiliary variables for the National Survey of Family Growth, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the American National Election Survey, the European Social Surveys and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute survey. We provide empirical estimates of the association between proxy measures and response to the survey request as well as the actual survey outcome variables. We also compare unweighted and weighted estimates under various non‐response models. Our results from multiple surveys with multiple recruitment protocols from multiple organizations on multiple topics show the difficulty of finding suitable covariates for non‐response adjustment and the need to improve the quality of auxiliary data.

Suggested Citation

  • F. Kreuter & K. Olson & J. Wagner & T. Yan & T. M. Ezzati‐Rice & C. Casas‐Cordero & M. Lemay & A. Peytchev & R. M. Groves & T. E. Raghunathan, 2010. "Using proxy measures and other correlates of survey outcomes to adjust for non‐response: examples from multiple surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(2), pages 389-407, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:173:y:2010:i:2:p:389-407
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.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. Katharine G. Abraham & Aaron Maitland & Suzanne M. Bianchi, 2006. "Non-response in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?," NBER Technical Working Papers 0328, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Cheti Nicoletti & Franco Peracchi, 2005. "Survey response and survey characteristics: microlevel evidence from the European Community Household Panel," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(4), pages 763-781, November.
    3. Peter Lynn, 2003. "PEDAKSI: Methodology for Collecting Data about Survey Non-Respondents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 239-261, August.
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:4780 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. McCarthy, Jaki S. & Jacob, Thomas & McCraken, Amanda, 2010. "Modeling Non-response in National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Surveys Using Classification Trees," NASS Research Reports 235029, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    2. repec:ags:unassr:235029 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Weighting for non-monotonic response pattern in longitudinal surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-34, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Isabella Buber-Ennser, 2014. "Attrition in the Austrian Generations and Gender Survey," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(16), pages 459-496.
    5. Kristen Olson, 2013. "Paradata for Nonresponse Adjustment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 142-170, January.
    6. Jorik Vergauwen & Jonas Wood & David De Wachter & Karel Neels, 2015. "Quality of demographic data in GGS Wave 1," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(24), pages 723-774.
    7. Jonas Wood & Karel Neels & Tine Kil, 2014. "The educational gradient of childlessness and cohort parity progression in 14 low fertility countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(46), pages 1365-1416.
    8. Crossley, Thomas F. & Fisher, Paul & Low, Hamish, 2021. "The heterogeneous and regressive consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from high quality panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Michael Osei Mireku & Alina Rodriguez, 2021. "Sleep Duration and Waking Activities in Relation to the National Sleep Foundation’s Recommendations: An Analysis of US Population Sleep Patterns from 2015 to 2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, June.
    10. Becchetti, Leonardo & Conzo, Pierluigi & Salustri, Francesco, 2017. "The impact of health expenditure on the number of chronic diseases," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 955-962.
    11. Ronald Hagan & Andrew M. Jones & Nigel Rice, 2009. "Health and Retirement in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-20, October.
    12. Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen & Kathleen E. Wirth, 2017. "A general instrumental variable framework for regression analysis with outcome missing not at random," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1123-1131, December.
    13. Joshua Graff Zivin & Matthew Neidell, 2014. "Temperature and the Allocation of Time: Implications for Climate Change," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-26.
    14. 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.
    15. Andrew E. Clark, 2006. "A Note on Unhappiness and Unemployment Duration," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 52(4), pages 291-308.
    16. Maria Chiuri & Daniela Del Boca, 2010. "Home-leaving decisions of daughters and sons," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 393-408, September.
    17. Christopher R. Bollinger & Barry T. Hirsch, 2010. "GDP & Beyond – die europäische Perspektive," RatSWD Working Papers 165, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    18. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Katie R. Genadek & Michael C. Burda, 2022. "Reply to “Racial Differences in Time at Work Not Working†by William A. Darity Jr. et al," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(3), pages 573-577, May.
    19. Leonardo Becchetti & Pierluigi Conzo & Fabio Pisani, 2018. "Education and health in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(12), pages 1362-1377, March.
    20. Jens Bonke & Mette Deding & Mette Lausten & Leslie S. Stratton, 2008. "Intra‐Household Specialization in Housework in the United States and Denmark," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1023-1043, December.
    21. Arenas-Arroyo, Esther & Schmidpeter, Bernhard, 2022. "Spillover effects of immigration policies on children's human capital," Ruhr Economic Papers 974, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.

    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:173:y:2010:i:2:p:389-407. 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.