IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v34y2018i1p107-120n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Calibration Weighting for Nonresponse with Proxy Frame Variables (So that Unit Nonresponse Can Be Not Missing at Random)

Author

Listed:
  • Kott Phillip S.

    (RTI International, 6110 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, USA)

  • Liao Dan

    (RTI International, 6110 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, USA)

Abstract

When adjusting for unit nonresponse in a survey, it is common to assume that the response/nonresponse mechanism is a function of variables known either for the entire sample before unit response or at the aggregate level for the frame or population. Often, however, some of the variables governing the response/nonresponse mechanism can only be proxied by variables on the frame while they are measured (more) accurately on the survey itself. For example, an address-based sampling frame may contain area-level estimates for the median annual income and the fraction home ownership in a Census block group, while a household’s annual income category and ownership status are reported on the survey itself for the housing units responding to the survey. A relatively new calibration-weighting technique allows a statistician to calibrate the sample using proxy variables while assuming the response/ nonresponse mechanism is a function of the analogous survey variables. We will demonstrate how this can be done with data from the Residential Energy Consumption Survey National Pilot, a nationally representative web-and-mail survey of American households sponsored by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Suggested Citation

  • Kott Phillip S. & Liao Dan, 2018. "Calibration Weighting for Nonresponse with Proxy Frame Variables (So that Unit Nonresponse Can Be Not Missing at Random)," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 107-120, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:34:y:2018:i:1:p:107-120:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2018-0006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2018-0006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2018-0006?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. Kott, Phillip S. & Chang, Ted, 2010. "Using Calibration Weighting to Adjust for Nonignorable Unit Nonresponse," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(491), pages 1265-1275.
    2. Ted Chang & Phillip S. Kott, 2008. "Using calibration weighting to adjust for nonresponse under a plausible model," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 95(3), pages 555-571.
    3. Geert Molenberghs & Caroline Beunckens & Cristina Sotto & Michael G. Kenward, 2008. "Every missingness not at random model has a missingness at random counterpart with equal fit," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 371-388, April.
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:4937 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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. 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.
    2. Denis Devaud & Yves Tillé, 2019. "Deville and Särndal’s calibration: revisiting a 25-years-old successful optimization problem," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 28(4), pages 1033-1065, December.
    3. Kajal Dihidar, 2014. "Estimating population mean with missing data in unequal probability sampling," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 15(3), pages 369-388, June.
    4. M. Giovanna Ranalli & Alina Matei & Andrea Neri, 2023. "Generalised calibration with latent variables for the treatment of unit nonresponse in sample surveys," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 32(1), pages 169-195, March.
    5. Särndal Carl-Erik & Traat Imbi & Lumiste Kaur, 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.
    6. Brick J. Michael, 2013. "Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 329-353, June.
    7. Hamori, Shigeyuki & Motegi, Kaiji & Zhang, Zheng, 2019. "Calibration estimation of semiparametric copula models with data missing at random," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 85-109.
    8. Pengfei Li & Jing Qin & Yukun Liu, 2023. "Instability of inverse probability weighting methods and a remedy for nonignorable missing data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3215-3226, December.
    9. Brenden Bishop & Minjeong Jeon, 2016. "Book Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(4), pages 1164-1167, December.
    10. Christopher L. Foote & Tyler Hounshell & William D. Nordhaus & Douglas Rivers & Pamela Torola, 2021. "Measuring the US Employment Situation Using Online Panels: The Yale Labor Survey," Current Policy Perspectives 93422, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    11. Maciej Berȩsewicz & Dagmara Nikulin, 2021. "Estimation of the size of informal employment based on administrative records with non‐ignorable selection mechanism," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(3), pages 667-690, June.
    12. Morten Overgaard & Stefan Nygaard Hansen, 2021. "On the assumption of independent right censoring," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1234-1255, December.
    13. Shu Xu & Shelley A. Blozis, 2011. "Sensitivity Analysis of Mixed Models for Incomplete Longitudinal Data," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-256, April.
    14. Bian, Yuan & Yi, Grace Y. & He, Wenqing, 2024. "A unified framework of analyzing missing data and variable selection using regularized likelihood," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    15. Jiang, Depeng & Zhao, Puying & Tang, Niansheng, 2016. "A propensity score adjustment method for regression models with nonignorable missing covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 98-119.
    16. Alexandra Filindra & Melanie Kolbe, 2022. "Latinx identification with whiteness: What drives it, and what effects does it have on political preferences?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(6), pages 1424-1439, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Marco Doretti & Sara Geneletti & Elena Stanghellini, 2018. "Missing Data: A Unified Taxonomy Guided by Conditional Independence," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 86(2), pages 189-204, August.
    19. Yujing Shao & Lei Wang, 2022. "Generalized partial linear models with nonignorable dropouts," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 223-252, February.
    20. Li, Mengyan & Ma, Yanyuan & Zhao, Jiwei, 2022. "Efficient estimation in a partially specified nonignorable propensity score model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    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:34:y:2018:i:1:p:107-120:n:6. 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.