IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v185y2022i3p773-797.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From German Internet Panel to Mannheim Corona Study: Adaptable probability‐based online panel infrastructures during the pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Carina Cornesse
  • Ulrich Krieger
  • Marie‐Lou Sohnius
  • Marina Fikel
  • Sabine Friedel
  • Tobias Rettig
  • Alexander Wenz
  • Sebastian Juhl
  • Roni Lehrer
  • Katja Möhring
  • Elias Naumann
  • Maximiliane Reifenscheid
  • Annelies G. Blom

Abstract

The outbreak of COVID‐19 has sparked a sudden demand for fast, frequent and accurate data on the societal impact of the pandemic. This demand has highlighted a divide in survey data collection: Most probability‐based social surveys, which can deliver the necessary data quality to allow valid inference to the general population, are slow, infrequent and ill‐equipped to survey people during a lockdown. Most non‐probability online surveys, which can deliver large amounts of data fast, frequently and without interviewer contact, however, cannot provide the data quality needed for population inference. Well aware of this chasm in the data landscape, at the onset of the pandemic, we set up the Mannheim Corona Study (MCS), a rotating panel survey with daily data collection on the basis of the long‐standing probability‐based online panel infrastructure of the German Internet Panel (GIP). The MCS has provided academics and political decision makers with key information to understand the social and economic developments during the early phase of the pandemic. This paper describes the panel adaptation process, demonstrates the power of the MCS data on its own and when linked to other data sources, and evaluates the data quality achieved by the MCS fast‐response methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Carina Cornesse & Ulrich Krieger & Marie‐Lou Sohnius & Marina Fikel & Sabine Friedel & Tobias Rettig & Alexander Wenz & Sebastian Juhl & Roni Lehrer & Katja Möhring & Elias Naumann & Maximiliane Reife, 2022. "From German Internet Panel to Mannheim Corona Study: Adaptable probability‐based online panel infrastructures during the pandemic," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 773-797, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:3:p:773-797
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12749
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12749?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Malhotra, Neil & Krosnick, Jon A., 2007. "The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 286-323, July.
    2. Lynn, Peter & Hader, Sabine & Gabler, Siegfried & Laaksonen, Seppo, 2004. "Methods for achieving equivalence of samples in cross-national surveys: the European Social Survey experience," ISER Working Paper Series 2004-09, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Kühne, Simon & Kroh, Martin & Liebig, Stefan & Zinn, Sabine, 2020. "The Need for Household Panel Surveys in Times of Crisis: The Case of SOEP-CoV," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2), pages 195-203.
    4. Christian Schnaudt & Michael Weinhardt & Rory Fitzgerald & Stefan Liebig, 2014. "The European Social Survey: Contents, Design, and Research Potential," Schmollers Jahrbuch : Journal of Applied Social Science Studies / Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 134(4), pages 487-506.
    5. Schouten, Barry & Shlomo, Natalie & Skinner, Chris J., 2011. "Indicators for monitoring and improving representativeness of response," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 39121, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Annemieke Luiten & Barry Schouten, 2013. "Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 169-189, January.
    7. Kaminska Olena & Lynn Peter, 2017. "The Implications of Alternative Allocation Criteria in Adaptive Design for Panel Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 781-799, September.
    8. Patrick Sturgis & Jouni Kuha & Nick Baker & Mario Callegaro & Stephen Fisher & Jane Green & Will Jennings & Benjamin E. Lauderdale & Patten Smith, 2018. "An assessment of the causes of the errors in the 2015 UK general election opinion polls," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 757-781, June.
    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. Roberts Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E. & Vandenplas Caroline, 2020. "A Validation of R-Indicators as a Measure of the Risk of Bias using Data from a Nonresponse Follow-Up Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.
    2. Aneta Chmielewska & Małgorzata Renigier-Biłozor & Artur Janowski, 2022. "Representative Residential Property Model—Soft Computing Solution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-24, November.
    3. Barry Schouten & Fannie Cobben & Peter Lundquist & James Wagner, 2016. "Does more balanced survey response imply less non-response bias?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(3), pages 727-748, June.
    4. Friedel Sabine & Birkenbach Tim, 2020. "Evolution of the Initially Recruited SHARE Panel Sample Over the First Six Waves," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 507-527, September.
    5. Brücker, Herbert & Gundacker, Lidwina & Hauptmann, Andreas & Jaschke, Philipp, 2021. "Arbeitsmarktwirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie: Stabile Beschäftigung, aber steigende Arbeitslosigkeit von Migrantinnen und Migranten (Labor Market Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Robust Employment, bu," IAB-Kurzbericht 202109, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    6. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.
    7. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    8. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Georgellis, Yannis & Tsitsianis, Nicholas & Yin, Ya Ping, 2009. "Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 42-51, February.
    9. Marie Diekmann & Ludwig Theuvsen, 2019. "Value structures determining community supported agriculture: insights from Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 733-746, December.
    10. Lasse J. Jessen & Sebastian Koehne & Patrick Nüß & Jens Ruhose, 2024. "Socioeconomic Inequality in Life Expectancy: Perception and Policy Demand," CESifo Working Paper Series 10940, CESifo.
    11. Roger Tourangeau & J. Michael Brick & Sharon Lohr & Jane Li, 2017. "Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 203-223, January.
    12. Karytsas, Spyridon & Theodoropoulou, Helen, 2014. "Socioeconomic and demographic factors that influence publics' awareness on the different forms of renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 480-485.
    13. Carl-Erik Särndal & Imbi Traat & Kaur Lumiste, 2018. "Interaction Between Data Collection And Estimation Phases In Surveys With Nonresponse," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 19(2), pages 183-200, June.
    14. Aaron C. Sparks & Heather Hodges & Sarah Oliver & Eric R. A. N. Smith, 2020. "Confidence in Local, National, and International Scientists on Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    15. Sakshaug Joseph W. & Wiśniowski Arkadiusz & Ruiz Diego Andres Perez & Blom Annelies G., 2019. "Supplementing Small Probability Samples with Nonprobability Samples: A Bayesian Approach," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(3), pages 653-681, September.
    16. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    17. Sabine Zinn & Michael Bayer, 2021. "Time Spent on School-Related Activities at Home during the Pandemic: A Longitudinal Analysis of Social Group Inequality among Secondary School Students," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1132, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    18. Gail Pacheco & Thomas Lange, 2010. "Political participation and life satisfaction: a cross‐European analysis," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 37(9), pages 686-702, August.
    19. Plewis Ian & Shlomo Natalie, 2017. "Using Response Propensity Models to Improve the Quality of Response Data in Longitudinal Studies," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 753-779, September.
    20. van Berkel Kees & van der Doef Suzanne & Schouten Barry, 2020. "Implementing Adaptive Survey Design With an Application to the Dutch Health Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 609-629, September.

    More about this item

    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:bla:jorssa:v:185:y:2022:i:3:p:773-797. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.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.