IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v33y2017i3p857-871n13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Targeted Data Collection on Nonresponse Bias in an Establishment Survey: A Simulation Study of Adaptive Survey Design

Author

Listed:
  • McCarthy Jaki

    (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 3251 Old Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22030, United States of America.)

  • Wagner James

    (University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 426 Thompson St. Room 4050, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, United States of America.)

  • Sanders Herschel Lisette

    (RTI International, 701 13th St NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005, United States of America.)

Abstract

Nonresponse rates have been growing over time leading to concerns about survey data quality. Adaptive designs seek to allocate scarce resources by targeting specific subsets of sampled units for additional effort or a different recruitment protocol. In order to be effective in reducing nonresponse, the identified subsets of the sample need two key features: 1) their probabilities of response can be impacted by changing design features, and 2) once they have responded, this can have an impact on estimates after adjustment. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is investigating the use of adaptive design techniques in the Crops Acreage, Production, and Stocks Survey (Crops APS). The Crops APS is a survey of establishments which vary in size and, hence, in their potential impact on estimates. In order to identify subgroups for targeted designs, we conducted a simulation study that used Census of Agriculture (COA) data as proxies for similar survey items. Different patterns of nonresponse were simulated to identify subgroups that may reduce estimated nonresponse bias when their response propensities are changed.

Suggested Citation

  • McCarthy Jaki & Wagner James & Sanders Herschel Lisette, 2017. "The Impact of Targeted Data Collection on Nonresponse Bias in an Establishment Survey: A Simulation Study of Adaptive Survey Design," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 857-871, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:3:p:857-871:n:13
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2017-0039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0039
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2017-0039?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. repec:ags:unassr:235089 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Earp, Morgan S. & McCarthy, Jaki S., 2009. "Using Respondent Prediction Models to Improve Efficiency of Incentive Allocation," NASS Research Reports 235087, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    3. Villatoro, Mario & Langemeier, Michael, 2006. "Factors Impacting Farm Growth," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2006, pages 1-7.
    4. Johnson, James D. & El-Osta, Hisham S., 1998. "Determinants of Financial Performance of Commercial Dairy Farms," Technical Bulletins 33561, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Calinescu, Melania & Bhulai, Sandjai & Schouten, Barry, 2013. "Optimal resource allocation in survey designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 115-121.
    6. Kott, Phillip S., 2001. "Using the Delete-a-Group Jackknife Variance Estimator in NASS Surveys," NASS Research Reports 235089, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jeremy G. Weber & Dawn Marie Clay, 2013. "Who Does Dot Respond to the Agricultural Resource Management Survey and Does It Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(3), pages 755-771.
    11. Annemieke Luiten & Barry Schouten, 2013. "Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 169-189, January.
    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. Roger Tourangeau & J. Michael Brick & Sharon Lohr & Jane Li, 2017. "Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 203-223, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Brick J. Michael & Tourangeau Roger, 2017. "Responsive Survey Designs for Reducing Nonresponse Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 735-752, September.
    4. Burger Joep & Perryck Koen & Schouten Barry, 2017. "Robustness of Adaptive Survey Designs to Inaccuracy of Design Parameters," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 687-708, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Wagner James & West Brady T. & Elliott Michael R. & Coffey Stephanie, 2020. "Comparing the Ability of Regression Modeling and Bayesian Additive Regression Trees to Predict Costs in a Responsive Survey Design Context," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 907-931, December.
    8. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:ags:unassr:234303 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Mitchell, Melissa & Ott, Kathy & McCarthy, Jaki, 2015. "Targeted Data Collection Efforts for the 2012 ARMS III," NASS Research Reports 234303, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    12. 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.
    13. Lynn, Peter, 2013. "Targeted response inducement strategies on longitudinal surveys," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2013-02, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    14. 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.
    15. Vandenplas Caroline & Loosveldt Geert & Beullens Koen, 2017. "Fieldwork Monitoring for the European Social Survey: An illustration with Belgium and the Czech Republic in Round 7," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 659-686, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Eltinge John L. & Biemer Paul P. & Holmberg Anders, 2013. "A Potential Framework for Integration of Architecture and Methodology to Improve Statistical Production Systems," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(1), pages 125-145, March.
    18. Mirel Lisa B. & Chowdhury Sadeq R., 2017. "Using Linked Survey Paradata to Improve Sampling Strategies in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 367-383, June.
    19. Murphy Joe & Biemer Paul & Berry Chip, 2018. "Transitioning a Survey to Self-Administration using Adaptive, Responsive, and Tailored (ART) Design Principles and Data Visualization," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 625-648, September.
    20. Ashmead Robert & Slud Eric & Hughes Todd, 2017. "Adaptive Intervention Methodology for Reduction of Respondent Contact Burden in the American Community Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(4), pages 901-919, December.
    21. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.

    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:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:3:p:857-871:n:13. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.