IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureir/10470.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Panel design effects on response rates and response quality

Author

Listed:
  • Seger, R.
  • Franses, Ph.H.B.F.

Abstract

To understand changes in individuals' opinions and attitudes it would be best to collect data through panels. Such panels, however, often cause irritation among respondents, resulting in low response rates and low response quality. We address whether this problem can be alleviated by designing a panel survey in an alternative way. For this purpose, we perform two field studies where we measure the effects of several panel design characteristics on response rates and response quality. These characteristics include the number of waves and the time between subsequent waves, which may either be fixed or random. Our findings suggest that response rates and response quality can be im-proved significantly by surveying at random time intervals. It is then crucial that panel members are not informed about the dates they will be surveyed, because in this case respondents are less likely to develop expectations as to when they will be surveyed again. The methodology we put forward can be used to improve the e±ciency of a panel study by carefully calibrating the studies' panel designs parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Seger, R. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2007. "Panel design effects on response rates and response quality," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2007-29, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:10470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/10470/EI2007-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1979. "Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 455-473, March.
    2. Verbeek, Marno & Vella, Francis, 2005. "Estimating dynamic models from repeated cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 83-102, July.
    3. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Moffitt, Robert, 1993. "Identification and estimation of dynamic models with a time series of repeated cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-2), pages 99-123, September.
    5. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54, January.
    6. Marcel Das & Vera Toepoel & Arthur van Soest, 2011. "Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 32-56, February.
    7. Nevo, Aviv, 2003. "Using Weights to Adjust for Sample Selection When Auxiliary Information Is Available," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(1), pages 43-52, January.
    8. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder & Donald B. Rubin, 2001. "Combining Panel Data Sets with Attrition and Refreshment Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1645-1659, November.
    9. Nijman, Theo & Verbeek, Marno & van Soest, Arthur, 1991. "The efficiency of rotating-panel designs in an analysis-of-variance model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 373-399, September.
    10. Ugo Trivellato, 1999. "Issues in the Design and Analysis of Panel Studies: A Cursory Review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 339-351, August.
    11. Nijman, T.E. & Verbeek, M.J.C.M., 1990. "Estimation of time-dependent parameters in linear models using cross-sections, panels, or both," Other publications TiSEM 1b042f06-e9e2-4712-8460-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    13. Nijman, T.E., 1990. "Estimation of time dependent parameters in linear models using cross sections, panels or both," Other publications TiSEM 3efbf7de-1ca7-4f9f-b515-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Deaton, Angus, 1985. "Panel data from time series of cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1-2), pages 109-126.
    15. Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2008. "Inference in panel data models under attrition caused by unobservables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 430-446, June.
    16. Simmons, Carolyn J & Bickart, Barbara A & Lynch, John G, Jr, 1993. "Capturing and Creating Public Opinion in Survey Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 316-329, September.
    17. Dholakia, Utpal M & Morwitz, Vicki G, 2002. "The Scope and Persistence of Mere-Measurement Effects: Evidence from a Field Study of Customer Satisfaction Measurement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 159-167, September.
    18. Nicoletti, Cheti, 2006. "Nonresponse in dynamic panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 461-489, June.
    19. Verbeek, Marno & Nijman, Theo, 1993. "Minimum MSE estimation of a regression model with fixed effects from a series of cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1-2), pages 125-136, September.
    20. Nijman, Theo & Verbeek, Marno, 1990. "Estimation of time-dependent parameters in linear models using cross-sections, panels, or both," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 333-346, December.
    21. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ko de Ruyter & Martin Wetzels & Paul Oosterveld, 2004. "Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-36, February.
    22. Dolores Collado, M., 1997. "Estimating dynamic models from time series of independent cross-sections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-62.
    23. DeStavola, Bianca L, 1986. "Sampling Designs for Short Panel Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 415-424, March.
    24. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
    25. Das, M., 2004. "Simple estimators for nonparametric panel data models with sample attrition," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 159-180, May.
    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. Segers, R. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2008. "Measuring weekly consumer confidence," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2008-01, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    2. Segers, Rene & Franses, Philip Hans & de Bruijn, Bert, 2017. "A novel approach to measuring consumer confidence," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 121-129.

    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. Badi Baltagi & Seuck Song, 2006. "Unbalanced panel data: A survey," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 493-523, October.
    2. Marcel Das & Vera Toepoel & Arthur van Soest, 2011. "Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 32-56, February.
    3. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Xavier d'Haultfoeuille & Stefan Hoderlein & Yuya Sasaki, 2013. "Nonlinear difference-in-differences in repeated cross sections with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP40/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 65401dae-613b-4e10-a8ae-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Mora, Jhon James & Muro, Juan, 2014. "Consistent estimation in pseudo panels in the presence of selection bias," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 8, pages 1-25.
    7. Heng Chen & Marie-Hélène Felt & Kim P. Huynh, 2017. "Retail payment innovations and cash usage: accounting for attrition by using refreshment samples," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(2), pages 503-530, February.
    8. Harding, Matthew & Lamarche, Carlos, 2019. "A panel quantile approach to attrition bias in Big Data: Evidence from a randomized experiment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 61-82.
    9. Yamana Kazufumi, 2020. "Monte Carlo Evidence on the Estimation Method for Industry Dynamics," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Hai‐Anh H. Dang & Peter F. Lanjouw, 2023. "Measuring Poverty Dynamics with Synthetic Panels Based on Repeated Cross Sections," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 599-622, June.
    11. Inoue, Atsushi, 2008. "Efficient estimation and inference in linear pseudo-panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 449-466, January.
    12. Sasaki, Yuya, 2015. "Heterogeneity and selection in dynamic panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 236-249.
    13. Rumman Khan, 2021. "Assessing Sampling Error in Pseudo‐Panel Models," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 742-769, June.
    14. Bhattacharya, Debopam, 2008. "Inference in panel data models under attrition caused by unobservables," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 430-446, June.
    15. Rosati, Nicoletta, 2013. "Efficiency of repeated-cross-section estimators in fixed-effects models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(7), pages 1770-1775.
    16. Kevin B. Moore, 2004. "The effects of the 1986 and 1993 tax reforms on self-employment," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2004-05, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    17. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1990. "Can cohort data be treated as genuine panel data?," Other publications TiSEM 17fd5894-9eef-426e-b402-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Ortiz, Rodrigo & Fernandez, Viviana, 2022. "Business perception of obstacles to innovate: Evidence from Chile with pseudo-panel data analysis," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    19. Balcazar Salazar,Carlos Felipe, 2015. "Long-run effects of democracy on income inequality : evidence from repeated cross-sections," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7153, The World Bank.
    20. Tiziana Laureti, 2014. "Life satisfaction and environmental conditions in Italy: a pseudo-panel approach," Discussion Papers 2014/192, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nonresponse; panel conditioning; panel design; randomized sampling; time sampling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    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:ems:eureir:10470. 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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feeurnl.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.