IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberte/0328.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Non-response in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Katharine G. Abraham
  • Aaron Maitland
  • Suzanne M. Bianchi

Abstract

This paper examines non-response in a large government survey. The response rate for the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) has been below 60 percent for the first two years of its existence, raising questions about whether the results can be generalized to the target population. The paper begins with an analysis of the types of non-response encountered in the ATUS. We find that non-contact accounts for roughly 60 percent of ATUS non-response, with refusals accounting for roughly 40 percent. Next, we examine two hypotheses about the causes of this non-response. We find little support for the hypothesis that busy people are less likely to respond to the ATUS, but considerable support for the hypothesis that people who are weakly integrated into their communities are less likely to respond, mostly because they are less likely to be contacted. Finally, we compare aggregate estimates of time use calculated using the ATUS base weights without any adjustment for non-response to estimates calculated using the ATUS final weights with a non-response adjustment and to estimates calculated using weights that incorporate our own non-response adjustments based on a propensity model. While there are some modest differences, the three sets of estimates are broadly similar. The paper ends with a discussion of survey design features, their effect on the types and level of non-response, and the tradeoffs associated with different design choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharine G. Abraham & Aaron Maitland & Suzanne M. Bianchi, 2006. "Non-response in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?," NBER Technical Working Papers 0328, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberte:0328
    Note: CH LS TWP
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/t0328.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey E. Zabel, 1998. "An Analysis of Attrition in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the Survey of Income and Program Participation with an Application to a Model of Labor Market Behavior," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 479-506.
    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. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    2. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants in Germany: The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 30, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    3. James X. Sullivan, 2006. "Welfare Reform, Saving, and Vehicle Ownership: Do Asset Limits and Vehicle Exemptions Matter?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 41(1).
    4. Mesnard, Alice & Vera-Hernández, Marcos & Fitzsimons, Emla & Malde, Bansi, 2012. "Household Responses to Information on Child Nutrition: Experimental Evidence from Malawi," CEPR Discussion Papers 8915, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Hamish Low & Costas Meghir & Luigi Pistaferri & Alessandra Voena, 2018. "Marriage, Labor Supply and the Dynamics of the Social Safety Net," NBER Working Papers 24356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Mark L Bryan & Nigel Rice & Jennifer Roberts & Cristina Sechel, 2022. "Mental Health and Employment: A Bounding Approach Using Panel Data," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 84(5), pages 1018-1051, October.
    7. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Donald, Stephen G., 2008. "The effect of college curriculum on earnings: An affinity identifier for non-ignorable non-response bias," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 479-491, June.
    8. Teresa Molina Millan & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," NOVAFRICA Working Paper Series wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics, NOVAFRICA.
    9. Heng Chen & Geoffrey Dunbar & Q. Rallye Shen, 2020. "The Mode is the Message: Using Predata as Exclusion Restrictions to Evaluate Survey Design," Advances in Econometrics, in: Essays in Honor of Cheng Hsiao, volume 41, pages 341-357, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. 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.
    11. Thomas, Duncan & Witoelar, Firman & Frankenberg, Elizabeth & Sikoki, Bondan & Strauss, John & Sumantri, Cecep & Suriastini, Wayan, 2012. "Cutting the costs of attrition: Results from the Indonesia Family Life Survey," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 108-123.
    12. Switek, Maggie, 2012. "Internal Migration and Life Satisfaction: Well-Being Effects of Moving as a Young Adult," IZA Discussion Papers 7016, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Malgorzata Switek, 2016. "Internal Migration and Life Satisfaction: Well-Being Paths of Young Adult Migrants," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 191-241, January.
    14. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2004. "Modelling Low Pay Transition Probabilities, Accounting for Panel Attrition, Non-Response, and Initial Conditions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1232, CESifo.
    15. Maury Gittleman & Mark A. Klee & Morris M. Kleiner, 2018. "Analyzing the Labor Market Outcomes of Occupational Licensing," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 57-100, January.
    16. Reagan A. Baughman & Kristin E. Smith, 2012. "Labor Mobility Of The Direct Care Workforce: Implications For The Provision Of Long‐Term Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(12), pages 1402-1415, December.
    17. Gouskova, Elena, 2014. "Parameter estimates comparison of earnings functions in the PSID and CPS data, 1976–2007," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 353-357.
    18. Bach, Ruben L. & Eckman, Stephanie, 2017. "Does participating in a panel survey change respondents' labor market behavior?," IAB-Discussion Paper 201715, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    19. Imbriano Paul M. & Raghunathan Trivellore E., 2020. "Three-Form Split Questionnaire Design for Panel Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 827-854, December.
    20. Robert F. Schoeni & Frank Stafford & Katherine A. Mcgonagle & Patricia Andreski, 2013. "Response Rates in National Panel Surveys," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 60-87, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J2 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Papers and articles using the American Time Use Survey (ATUS)

    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:nbr:nberte:0328. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.