IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v184y2021i1p301-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do coefficients of variation of response propensities approximate non‐response biases during survey data collection?

Author

Listed:
  • Jamie C. Moore
  • Gabriele B. Durrant
  • Peter W. F. Smith

Abstract

We evaluate the utility of coefficients of variation of response propensities (CVs) as measures of risks of survey variable non‐response biases when monitoring survey data collection. CVs quantify variation in sample response propensities estimated given a set of auxiliary attribute covariates observed for all subjects. If auxiliary covariates and survey variables are correlated, low levels of propensity variation imply low bias risk. CVs can also be decomposed to measure associations between auxiliary covariates and propensity variation, informing collection method modifications and post‐collection adjustments to improve dataset quality. Practitioners are interested in such approaches to managing bias risks, but risk indicator performance has received little attention. We describe relationships between CVs and expected biases and how they inform quality improvements during and post‐data collection, expanding on previous work. Next, given auxiliary information from the concurrent 2011 UK census and details of interview attempts, we use CVs to quantify the representativeness of the UK Labour Force Survey dataset during data collection. Following this, we use survey data to evaluate inference based on CVs concerning survey variables with analogues measuring the same quantities among the auxiliary covariate set. Given our findings, we then offer advice on using CVs to monitor survey data collection.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamie C. Moore & Gabriele B. Durrant & Peter W. F. Smith, 2021. "Do coefficients of variation of response propensities approximate non‐response biases during survey data collection?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 301-323, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:184:y:2021:i:1:p:301-323
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12624
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12624?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. Durrant, Gabriele B. & D'Arrigo, Julia & Steele, Fiona, 2011. "Using field process data to predict best times of contact conditioning on household and interviewer influences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 52201, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Schouten, Barry & Shlomo, Natalie & Skinner, Chris J., 2011. "Indicators for monitoring and improving representativeness of response," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 39121, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Gabriele B. Durrant & Julia D'Arrigo & Fiona Steele, 2011. "Using paradata to predict best times of contact, conditioning on household and interviewer influences," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(4), pages 1029-1049, October.
    4. Robert M. Groves & Steven G. Heeringa, 2006. "Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 439-457, July.
    5. Fox, John, 2003. "Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i15).
    6. Jackson, Christopher, 2011. "Multi-State Models for Panel Data: The msm Package for R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 38(i08).
    7. David J. Hand, 2018. "Statistical challenges of administrative and transaction data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 555-605, June.
    8. Jamie C. Moore & Gabriele B. Durrant & Peter W. F. Smith, 2018. "Data set representativeness during data collection in three UK social surveys: generalizability and the effects of auxiliary covariate choice," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(1), pages 229-248, January.
    9. repec:mpr:mprres:4780 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:mpr:mprres:4937 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Fox, John & Hong, Jangman, 2009. "Effect Displays in R for Multinomial and Proportional-Odds Logit Models: Extensions to the effects Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 32(i01).
    12. Fiona Steele & Gabriele B. Durrant, 2011. "Alternative Approaches to Multilevel Modelling of Survey Non‐Contact and Refusal," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 79(1), pages 70-91, April.
    13. Barry Schouten & Natalie Shlomo, 2017. "Selecting Adaptive Survey Design Strata with Partial R-indicators," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 85(1), pages 143-163, April.
    14. Steele, Fiona & Durrant, Gabriele B., 2011. "Alternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50113, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Barry Schouten & Fannie Cobben & Peter Lundquist & James Wagner, 2016. "Does more balanced survey response imply less non-response bias?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(3), pages 727-748, June.
    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. Roberts Caroline & Vandenplas Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E., 2020. "A Validation of R-Indicators as a Measure of the Risk of Bias using Data from a Nonresponse Follow-Up Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.
    2. Brick J. Michael, 2013. "Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 329-353, June.
    3. Durrant Gabriele B. & Maslovskaya Olga & Smith Peter W. F., 2017. "Using Prior Wave Information and Paradata: Can They Help to Predict Response Outcomes and Call Sequence Length in a Longitudinal Study?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 801-833, September.
    4. Plewis Ian & Shlomo Natalie, 2017. "Using Response Propensity Models to Improve the Quality of Response Data in Longitudinal Studies," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 753-779, September.
    5. Stephanie Coffey, PhD. & Jaya Damineni & John Eltinge, PhD. & Anup Mathur, PhD. & Kayla Varela & Allison Zotti, 2023. "Some Open Questions on Multiple-Source Extensions of Adaptive-Survey Design Concepts and Methods," Working Papers 23-03, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    6. Lagorio, Carlos, 2016. "Call and response: modelling longitudinal contact and cooperation using Wave 1 call records data," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2016-01, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    7. Särndal Carl-Erik & Lundquist Peter, 2017. "Inconsistent Regression and Nonresponse Bias: Exploring Their Relationship as a Function of Response Imbalance," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 709-734, September.
    8. Ronald R. Rindfuss & Minja K. Choe & Noriko O. Tsuya & Larry L. Bumpass & Emi Tamaki, 2015. "Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(26), pages 797-828.
    9. Gabriele B. Durrant & Julia D’Arrigo, 2014. "Doorstep Interactions and Interviewer Effects on the Process Leading to Cooperation or Refusal," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 490-518, August.
    10. Jamie C. Moore & Peter W. F. Smith & Gabriele B. Durrant, 2018. "Correlates of record linkage and estimating risks of non‐linkage biases in business data sets," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1211-1230, October.
    11. Gabriele B. Durrant & Sylke V. Schnepf, 2018. "Which schools and pupils respond to educational achievement surveys?: a focus on the English Programme for International Student Assessment sample," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1057-1075, October.
    12. Chun Asaph Young & Schouten Barry & Wagner James, 2017. "JOS Special Issue on Responsive and Adaptive Survey Design: Looking Back to See Forward – Editorial: In Memory of Professor Stephen E. Fienberg, 1942–2016," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 571-577, September.
    13. Christian Kleiber & Achim Zeileis, 2016. "Visualizing Count Data Regressions Using Rootograms," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(3), pages 296-303, July.
    14. Carl-Erik Särndal & Imbi Traat & Kaur Lumiste, 2018. "Interaction Between Data Collection And Estimation Phases In Surveys With Nonresponse," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 19(2), pages 183-200, June.
    15. van Berkel Kees & van der Doef Suzanne & Schouten Barry, 2020. "Implementing Adaptive Survey Design with an Application to the Dutch Health Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 609-629, September.
    16. Li-Chun Zhang & Ib Thomsen & Øyvin Kleven, 2013. "On the Use of Auxiliary and Paradata for Dealing With Non-sampling Errors in Household Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 81(2), pages 270-288, August.
    17. Tobias Gummer & Pablo Christmann & Sascha Verhoeven & Christof Wolf, 2022. "Using a responsive survey design to innovate self‐administered mixed‐mode surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 916-932, July.
    18. Lundquist Peter & Särndal Carl-Erik, 2013. "Aspects of Responsive Design with Applications to the Swedish Living Conditions Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(4), pages 557-582, December.
    19. Pilhöfer, Alexander & Unwin, Antony, 2013. "New Approaches in Visualization of Categorical Data: R Package extracat," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 53(i07).
    20. Steele, Fiona & Durrant, Gabriele B., 2011. "Alternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50113, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:184:y:2021:i:1:p:301-323. 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.