IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp347.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Household Survey Panels: How Much Do Following Rules Affect Sample Size?

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Schonlau
  • Nicole Watson
  • Martin Kroh

Abstract

In household panels, typically all household members are surveyed. Because household composition changes over time, so-called following rules are implemented to decide whether to continue surveying household members who leave the household (e.g. former spouses/partners, grown children) in subsequent waves. Following rules have been largely ignored in the literature leaving panel designers unaware of the breadth of their options and forcing them to makead hoc decisions. In particular, to what extent various following rules affect sample size over time is unknown. From an operational point of view such knowledge is important because sample size greatly affects costs. Moreover, the decisionof whom to follow has irreversible consequences as finding household members who moved out years earlier is very difficult. We find that household survey panels implement a wide variety of following rules but their effect on sample size is relatively limited. Even after 25 years, the rule "follow only wave 1 respondents" still captures 85% of the respondents of the rule "follow everyone who can be traced back to a wave 1 household through living arrangements". Almost all of the remaining 15% live in households of children of wave 1 respondents who have grown up (5%) and in households of former spouses/partners (10%). Unless attrition is low, there is no danger of an ever expanding panel because even wide following rules do not typically exceed attrition.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Schonlau & Nicole Watson & Martin Kroh, 2010. "Household Survey Panels: How Much Do Following Rules Affect Sample Size?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 347, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.366429.de/diw_sp0347.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A., 2001. "Religion and Voting Behaviour in Great Britain: A Reassessment," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 523-554, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Kroh, 2011. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2010)," Data Documentation 59, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Martin Kroh, 2012. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2011)," Data Documentation 66, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Coulson, N. Edward & Grieco, Paul L.E., 2013. "Mobility and mortgages: Evidence from the PSID," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-7.
    4. Lipps Oliver & Voorpostel Marieke, 2020. "Can Interviewer Evaluations Predict Short-Term and Long-Term Participation in Telephone Panels?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(1), pages 117-136, March.
    5. Bettina Lamla, 2012. "Family Background, Informal Networks and the Decision to Provide for Old Age: A Siblings Approach," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 466, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Martin Kroh, 2013. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2012)," Data Documentation 71, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. repec:mea:meawpa:12261 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Martin Kroh & Rainer Siegers, 2014. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2013)," Data Documentation 75, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    9. Bettina Lamla, 2013. "Family background and the decision to provide for old age: a siblings approach," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 483-504, August.

    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. Alan S. Zuckerman & Malcolm Brynin, 2001. "A Decision Heuristic for Party Identification: New British and German Data and a New Understanding for a Classic Concept," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 268, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Rowden, Jessica & Lloyd, David J.B. & Gilbert, Nigel, 2014. "A model of political voting behaviours across different countries," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 413(C), pages 609-625.
    3. Gizem Arikan & Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom, 2019. "“I was hungry and you gave me food”: Religiosity and attitudes toward redistribution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, March.
    4. Rami Zeedan, 2024. "Social Identity and Voting Behavior in a Deeply Divided Society: The Case of Israel," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Alan S. Zuckerman & Martin Kroh, 2004. "The Social Logic of Bounded Partisanship in Germany: A Comparison of Veteran Citizens (West Germans), New Citizens (East Germans) and Immigrants," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 450, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Rothengatter, Marloes, 2016. "Insights in cognitive patterns : Essays on heuristics and identification," Other publications TiSEM 5f812a9d-8968-48b8-8d1b-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Nwankwo Cletus Famous, 2019. "Religion and Voter Choice Homogeneity in the Nigerian Presidential Elections of the Fourth Republic," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Survey panels; Survey methodology;

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. SOEP based publications

    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:diw:diwsop:diw_sp347. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.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.