Responsive Survey Designs for Reducing Nonresponse Bias

被引:48
|
作者
Brick, J. Michael [1 ]
Tourangeau, Roger [1 ]
机构
[1] Westat Corp, 1600 Res Blvd, Rockville, MD 20850 USA
关键词
Adaptive design; response propensities; two-phase sampling; RATES; IMPACT; INCENTIVES;
D O I
10.1515/JOS-2017-0034
中图分类号
O1 [数学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Survey researchers have been investigating alternative approaches to reduce data collection costs while mitigating the risk of nonresponse bias or to produce more accurate estimates within the same budget. Responsive or adaptive design has been suggested as one means for doing this. Falling survey response rates and the need to find effective ways of implementing responsive design has focused attention on the relationship between response rates and nonresponse bias. In our article, we re-examine the data compiled by Groves and Peytcheva (2008) in their influential article and show there is an important between-study component of variance in addition to the within-study variance highlighted in the original analysis. We also show that theory implies that raising response rates can help reduce the nonresponse bias on average across the estimates within a study. We then propose a typology of response propensity models that help explain the empirical findings, including the relative weak relationship between nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias. Using these results, we explore when responsive design tools such as switching modes, giving monetary incentives, and increasing the level of effort are likely to be effective. We conclude with some comments on the use of responsive design and weighting to control nonresponse bias.
引用
收藏
页码:735 / 752
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Assessing Nonresponse Bias in Farm Injury Surveillance Data
    Beseler, Cheryl L.
    Rautiainen, Risto H.
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, 2021, 27 (04): : 215 - 227
  • [42] SENSITIVE TOPICS AND RELUCTANT RESPONDENTS DEMONSTRATING A LINK BETWEEN NONRESPONSE BIAS AND MEASUREMENT ERROR
    Tourangeau, Roger
    Groves, Robert M.
    Redline, Cleo D.
    PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2010, 74 (03) : 413 - 432
  • [43] Survey topic and unit nonresponse Evidence from an online survey on mating
    Zillmann, Doreen
    Schmitz, Andreas
    Skopek, Jan
    Blossfeld, Hans-Peter
    QUALITY & QUANTITY, 2014, 48 (04) : 2069 - 2088
  • [44] Nonresponse analysis and adjustment in a mail survey on car accidents
    Tivesten, Emma
    Jonsson, Sofia
    Jakobsson, Lotta
    Norin, Hans
    ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, 2012, 48 : 401 - 415
  • [45] DO SEQUENTIAL MIXED-MODE SURVEYS DECREASE NONRESPONSE BIAS, MEASUREMENT ERROR BIAS, AND TOTAL BIAS? AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
    Sakshaug, Joseph W.
    Cernat, Alexandru
    Raghunathan, Trivellore E.
    JOURNAL OF SURVEY STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY, 2019, 7 (04) : 545 - 571
  • [46] Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias Among 20 Years of Pediatrician Surveys
    Burr, William H.
    Gottschlich, Elizabeth A.
    Kist, Tylar W.
    Somberg, Chloe A.
    Frintner, Mary P.
    Cull, William L.
    ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS, 2025, 25 (02)
  • [48] Effects of Survey Mode, Patient Mix, and Nonresponse on CAHPS® Hospital Survey Scores
    Elliott, Marc N.
    Zaslavsky, Alan M.
    Goldstein, Elizabeth
    Lehrman, William
    Hambarsoomians, Katrin
    Beckett, Megan K.
    Giordano, Laura
    HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2009, 44 (02) : 501 - 518
  • [49] An ad hoc method for dual adjusting for measurement errors and nonresponse bias for estimating prevalence in survey data: Application to Iranian mental health survey on any illicit drug use
    Khalagi, Kazem
    Mansournia, Mohammad Ali
    Motevalian, Seyed-Abbas
    Nourijelyani, Keramat
    Rahimi-Movaghar, Afarin
    Bakhtiyari, Mahmood
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 27 (10) : 3062 - 3076
  • [50] The Impact of Active Consent Procedures on Nonresponse and Nonresponse Error in Youth Survey Data Evidence From a New Experiment
    Courser, Matthew W.
    Shamblen, Stephen R.
    Lavrakas, Paul J.
    Collins, David
    Ditterline, Paul
    EVALUATION REVIEW, 2009, 33 (04) : 370 - 395