Skip to main content

Using proxy measures and other correlates of survey outcomes to adjust for non-response: examples from multiple surveys

Buy Article:

$51.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

Summary. 

Non-response weighting is a commonly used method to adjust for bias due to unit non-response in surveys. Theory and simulations show that, to reduce bias effectively without increasing variance, a covariate that is used for non-response weighting adjustment needs to be highly associated with both the response indicator and the survey outcome variable. In practice, these requirements pose a challenge that is often overlooked, because those covariates are often not observed or may not exist. Surveys have recently begun to collect supplementary data, such as interviewer observations and other proxy measures of key survey outcome variables. To the extent that these auxiliary variables are highly correlated with the actual outcomes, these variables are promising candidates for non-response adjustment. In the present study, we examine traditional covariates and new auxiliary variables for the National Survey of Family Growth, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the American National Election Survey, the European Social Surveys and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute survey. We provide empirical estimates of the association between proxy measures and response to the survey request as well as the actual survey outcome variables. We also compare unweighted and weighted estimates under various non-response models. Our results from multiple surveys with multiple recruitment protocols from multiple organizations on multiple topics show the difficulty of finding suitable covariates for non-response adjustment and the need to improve the quality of auxiliary data.

Keywords: Interviewer observations; Non-response adjustment; Non-response bias; Paradata; Response propensity weights

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00621.x

Affiliations: 1: University of Maryland, College Park, USA 2: University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA 3: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA 4: National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, USA 5: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, USA 6: RTI International, Research Triangle Park, USA

Publication date: April 1, 2010

bpl/rssa/2010/00000173/00000002/art00007
dcterms_title,dcterms_description,pub_keyword
6
5
20
40
5

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more