IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v4y2014i1p2158244014526211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Procedure to Assess Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Geert Loosveldt
  • Koen Beullens

Abstract

It is generally accepted that interviewers have a considerable effect on survey response. The difference between response success and failure does not only affect the response rate, but can also influence the composition of the realized sample or respondent set, and consequently introduce nonresponse bias. To measure these two different aspects of the obtained sample, response propensities will be used. They have an aggregate mean and variance that can both be used to construct quality indicators for the obtained sample of respondents. As these propensities can also be measured on the interviewer level, this allows evaluation of the interviewer group and of the extent to which individual interviewers contribute to a biased respondent set. In this article, a procedure based on a multilevel model with random intercepts and random slopes is elaborated and illustrated. The results show that the procedure is informative to detect influential interviewers with an impact on nonresponse basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Geert Loosveldt & Koen Beullens, 2014. "A Procedure to Assess Interviewer Effects on Nonresponse Bias," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014526211
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014526211
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014526211
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014526211?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. Durrant, Gabriele B. & Steele, Fiona, 2009. "Multilevel modelling of refusal and non-contact in household surveys: evidence from six UK Government surveys," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50112, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Gabriele B. Durrant & Fiona Steele, 2009. "Multilevel modelling of refusal and non‐contact in household surveys: evidence from six UK Government surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(2), pages 361-381, April.
    3. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys: Reply," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 300-301, July.
    4. Jan Pickery & Geert Loosveldt, 2002. "A Multilevel Multinomial Analysis of Interviewer Effects on Various Components of Unit Nonresponse," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 427-437, November.
    5. Pamela Campanelli & Colm O'Muircheartaigh, 1999. "Interviewers, Interviewer Continuity, and Panel Survey Nonresponse," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 59-76, February.
    6. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    7. C. O'Muircheartaigh & P. Campanelli, 1999. "A multilevel exploration of the role of interviewers in survey non‐response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 162(3), pages 437-446.
    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. Rebecca Vassallo & Gabriele Durrant & Peter Smith, 2017. "Separating interviewer and area effects by using a cross-classified multilevel logistic model: simulation findings and implications for survey designs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(2), pages 531-550, February.
    2. Wagner James & Olson Kristen, 2018. "An Analysis of Interviewer Travel and Field Outcomes in Two Field Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 211-237, March.
    3. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    4. Michele Lalla & Maddalena Cavicchioli, 2020. "Nonresponse and measurement errors in income: matching individual survey data with administrative tax data," Department of Economics 0170, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    5. Mark Amos, 2018. "Interviewer effects on patterns of nonresponse: Evaluating the impact on the reasons for contraceptive nonuse in the Indonesia and the Philippines DHS," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(14), pages 415-430.
    6. Steele, Fiona & Durrant, Gabriele B., 2011. "Alternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50113, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Finaba Berete & Johan Van der Heyden & Stefaan Demarest & Rana Charafeddine & Lydia Gisle & Elise Braekman & Jean Tafforeau & Geert Molenberghs, 2019. "Determinants of unit nonresponse in multi-mode data collection: A multilevel analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Kristen Olson, 2013. "Paradata for Nonresponse Adjustment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 142-170, January.
    9. Gabriele B. Durrant & Sylke V. Schnepf, 2018. "Which schools and pupils respond to educational achievement surveys?: a focus on the English Programme for International Student Assessment sample," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1057-1075, October.
    10. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    11. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Alireza Rezaee & Mojtaba Ganjali & Ehsan Bahrami Samani, 2022. "Sample selection bias with multiple dependent selection rules: an application to survey data analysis with multilevel nonresponse," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 158(1), pages 1-15, December.
    13. Gerko Vink & Laurence E. Frank & Jeroen Pannekoek & Stef Buuren, 2014. "Predictive mean matching imputation of semicontinuous variables," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(1), pages 61-90, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Martin, Eisele & Zhu, Junyi, 2013. "Multiple imputation in a complex household survey - the German Panel on Household Finances (PHF): challenges and solutions," MPRA Paper 57666, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Dang, Hai-Anh & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Daniel Schunk, 2007. "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey," MEA discussion paper series 07121, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    18. Brownstone, David, 1997. "Multiple Imputation Methodology for Missing Data, Non-Random Response, and Panel Attrition," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2zd6w6hh, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. Zachary H. Seeskin, 2016. "Evaluating the Use of Commercial Data to Improve Survey Estimates of Property Taxes," CARRA Working Papers 2016-06, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    20. F. Di Lascio & Simone Giannerini & Alessandra Reale, 2015. "Exploring copulas for the imputation of complex dependent data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 24(1), pages 159-175, March.

    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:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014526211. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.