We analyse patterns of consent and consent bias in the context of a large general household survey, the 'Improving survey measurement of income and employment' survey, also addressing issues that arise when there are multiple consent questions. A multivariate probit regression model for four binary outcomes with two incidental truncations is used. We show that there are biases in consent to data linkage with benefit and tax credit administrative records that are held by the Department for Work and Pensions, and with wage and employment data held by employers. There are also biases in respondents' willingness and ability to supply their national insurance number. The biases differ according to the question that is considered. We also show that modelling questions on consent independently rather than jointly may lead to misleading inferences about consent bias. A positive correlation between unobservable individual factors affecting consent to Department for Work and Pensions record linkage and consent to employer record linkage is suggestive of a latent individual consent propensity. Copyright 2006 Royal Statistical Society.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Stewart, Mark B & Swaffield, Joanna K, 1999.
"Low Pay Dynamics and Transition Probabilities,"
Economica,
London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 66(261), pages 23-42, February.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)