IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v8y2020i3p423-d332727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treating Nonresponse in Probability-Based Online Panels through Calibration: Empirical Evidence from a Survey of Political Decision-Making Procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Arcos

    (Department of Statistics and Operational Research, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Maria del Mar Rueda

    (Department of Statistics and Operational Research, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

  • Sara Pasadas-del-Amo

    (Institute for Advanced Social Studies, 14004 Cordoba, Spain)

Abstract

The use of probability-based panels that collect data via online or mixed-mode surveys has increased in the last few years as an answer to the growing concern with the quality of the data obtained with traditional survey modes. However, in order to adequately represent the general population, these tools must address the same sources of bias that affect other survey-based designs: namely under coverage and non-response. In this work, we test several approaches to produce calibration estimators that are suitable for survey data affected by non response where auxiliary information exists at both the panel level and the population level. The first approach adjusts the results obtained in the cross-sectional survey to the population totals, while, in the second, the weights are the result of two-step process where different adjusts on the sample, panel, and population are done. A simulation on the properties of these estimators is performed. In light of theory and simulation results, we conclude that weighting by calibration is an effective technique for the treatment of non-response bias when the response mechanism is missing at random. These techniques have also been applied to real data from the survey Andalusian Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Arcos & Maria del Mar Rueda & Sara Pasadas-del-Amo, 2020. "Treating Nonresponse in Probability-Based Online Panels through Calibration: Empirical Evidence from a Survey of Political Decision-Making Procedures," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:423-:d:332727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/3/423/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/3/423/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alfons, Andreas & Templ, Matthias & Filzmoser, Peter, 2010. "An Object-Oriented Framework for Statistical Simulation: The R Package simFrame," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 37(i03).
    2. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303512_4 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lilli Japec & Frauke Kreuter & Marcus Berg & Paul Biemer & Paul Decker & Cliff Lampe & Julia Lane & Cathy O’Neil & Abe Usher, "undated". "Big Data in Survey Research: AAPOR Task Force Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c57e7c039f6a4db982b26c6fe, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    5. Sinnenberg, L. & Buttenheim, A.M. & Padrez, K. & Mancheno, C. & Ungar, L. & Merchant, R.M., 2017. "Twitter as a tool for health research: A systematic review," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Templ, Matthias & Meindl, Bernhard & Kowarik, Alexander & Dupriez, Olivier, 2017. "Simulation of Synthetic Complex Data: The R Package simPop," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i10).
    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. Luis-Millán González & José Devís-Devís & Maite Pellicer-Chenoll & Miquel Pans & Alberto Pardo-Ibañez & Xavier García-Massó & Fernanda Peset & Fernanda Garzón-Farinós & Víctor Pérez-Samaniego, 2021. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Sport in Twitter: A Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    3. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.
    4. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    5. Muhammad Imran & Umair Qazi & Ferda Ofli, 2022. "TBCOV: Two Billion Multilingual COVID-19 Tweets with Sentiment, Entity, Geo, and Gender Labels," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Isaac Chun-Hai Fung & Jingjing Yin & Keisha D. Pressley & Carmen H. Duke & Chen Mo & Hai Liang & King-Wa Fu & Zion Tsz Ho Tse & Su-I Hou, 2019. "Pedagogical Demonstration of Twitter Data Analysis: A Case Study of World AIDS Day, 2014," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12, June.
    7. Rachid Belaroussi & Younes Delhoum, 2024. "Forecasting Daily Activity Plans of a Synthetic Population in an Upcoming District," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-26, May.
    8. Nason Maani Hessari & May CI van Schalkwyk & Sian Thomas & Mark Petticrew, 2019. "Alcohol Industry CSR Organisations: What Can Their Twitter Activity Tell Us about Their Independence and Their Priorities? A Comparative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-12, March.
    9. Hofert, Marius & Mächler, Martin, 2016. "Parallel and Other Simulations in R Made Easy: An End-to-End Study," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(i04).
    10. Sonja I. Garske & Suzanne Elayan & Martin Sykora & Tamar Edry & Linus B. Grabenhenrich & Sandro Galea & Sarah R. Lowe & Oliver Gruebner, 2021. "Space-Time Dependence of Emotions on Twitter after a Natural Disaster," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-13, May.
    11. Ernesto Ganuza & Joan Font, 2020. "Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 520-532.
    12. Santoveña-Casal, Sonia & Pérez, Ma Dolores Fernández, 2022. "Relevance of E-Participation in the state health campaign in Spain: #EstoNoEsUnJuego / #ThisIsNotAGame," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Kowarik, Alexander & Templ, Matthias, 2016. "Imputation with the R Package VIM," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 74(i07).
    14. Barbara Felderer & Jannis Kueck & Martin Spindler, 2021. "Big Data meets Causal Survey Research: Understanding Nonresponse in the Recruitment of a Mixed-mode Online Panel," Papers 2102.08994, arXiv.org.
    15. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr, 2017. "Preferences for direct democracy: intrinsic or instrumental? Evidence from a survey experiment," Working Papers 1719, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    16. Diane Ezeh Aruah & Yvonne Henshaw & Kim Walsh-Childers, 2023. "Tweets That Matter: Exploring the Solutions to Maternal Mortality in the United States Discussed by Advocacy Organizations on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Paramveer S. Dhillon & Sinan Aral, 2021. "Modeling Dynamic User Interests: A Neural Matrix Factorization Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1059-1080, November.
    18. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    19. Meng Hsiu Tsai & Yingfeng Wang, 2021. "Analyzing Twitter Data to Evaluate People’s Attitudes towards Public Health Policies and Events in the Era of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy & Amir Karami & Courtney Monroe & Heather M. Brandt, 2020. "Dietary pattern recognition on Twitter: a case example of before, during, and after four natural disasters," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1035-1049, August.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:8:y:2020:i:3:p:423-:d:332727. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.