IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2011-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Panel attrition: how important is it to keep the same interviewer?

Author

Listed:
  • Lynn, Peter
  • Kaminska, Olena
  • Goldstein, Harvey

Abstract

We assess whether the probability of a sample member participating at a particular wave of a panel survey is greater if the same interviewer is deployed as at the previous wave. Previous research on this topic mainly uses non-experimental data. Consequently, a) interviewer change is generally non-random, and b) continuing interviewers are more experienced by the time of the next wave. We designed a balanced experiment in which both interviewer continuity and experience are controlled. Multilevel multiple membership models are used to explore the effects of interviewer continuity on refusal rate and response rate as well as interactions of interviewer continuity with other variables.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynn, Peter & Kaminska, Olena & Goldstein, Harvey, 2011. "Panel attrition: how important is it to keep the same interviewer?," ISER Working Paper Series 2011-02, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2011-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2011-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jörg-Peter Schräpler, 2002. "Respondent Behavior in Panel Studies: A Case Study for Income-Nonresponse by Means of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 299, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Jörg-Peter Schräpler, 2001. "Respondent Behavior in Panel Studies: A Case Study of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 244, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    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. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Weighting for non-monotonic response pattern in longitudinal surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-34, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Dolan, Melissa & Biemer, Paul & Ringeisen, Heather & Testa, Mark & Keeney, Jennifer & Casanueva, Cecilia & Smith, Keith & Day, Orin, 2023. "The third national survey of child and adolescent well-being: Design overview and methodological lessons learned during the baseline wave," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Francisco Perales & Bernard Baffour & Francis Mitrou, 2015. "Ethnic Differences in the Quality of the Interview Process and Implications for Survey Analysis: The Case of Indigenous Australians," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    5. Carine Burricand & Jean-Paul Lorgnet, 2014. "L’attrition dans l’enquête SRCV : déterminants et effets sur la mesure des variables monétaires," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 469(1), pages 19-35.

    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. Kerstin Ruckdeschel & Lenore Sauer & Robert Naderi, 2016. "Reliability of retrospective event histories within the German Generations and Gender Survey," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 34(11), pages 321-358.
    2. Regina Riphahn & Oliver Serfling, 2005. "Item non-response on income and wealth questions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 521-538, September.
    3. Michal Myck & Mateusz Najsztub, 2015. "Data and Model Cross-validation to Improve Accuracy of Microsimulation Results: Estimates for the Polish Household Budget Survey," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(1), pages 33-66.
    4. Jörg-Peter Schräpler & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2010. "Individual and Neighborhood Determinants of Survey Nonresponse: An Analysis Based on a New Subsample of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), Microgeographic Characteristics and Survey-Based Intervi," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 288, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Serfling, Oliver, 2004. "The interaction between unit and item nonresponse in view of the reverse cooperation continuum," Working papers 2004/02, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    6. Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2003. "Missing Income Data in the German SOEP: Incidence, Imputation and its Impact on the Income Distribution," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 376, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Stocké, Volker, 2004. "Attitudes Toward Surveys, Attitude Accessibility and the Effect on Respondents� Susceptibility to Nonresponse," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-30, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Stocké, Volker, 2004. "Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents' susceptibility to nonresponse," Papers 04-30, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ese:iserwp:2011-02. 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: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcessuk.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.