IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/unasrr/235029.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling Non-response in National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Surveys Using Classification Trees

Author

Listed:
  • McCarthy, Jaki S.
  • Jacob, Thomas
  • McCraken, Amanda

Abstract

This paper describes the use of classification trees to predict survey refusals and inaccessibles. Data from auxiliary sources were matched to the 2006 and 2007 March, September, and December Crops/Stocks survey sample members. The data matched included variables such as establishment size (both in dollars and acres), type of commodities produced, operating arrangement, operator characteristics (such as race, age, gender, etc.) from the Census of Agriculture, paradata describing their NASS reporting history (past NASS survey response, refusals, etc.), Joint Burden Indicators, and characteristics of the location of the operation (by county and zip code) that were available from the Census Bureau. Classification trees used these data to repeatedly divide our dataset to identify subsets of records more likely to be survey non-respondents. This approach was initially applied to the NASS Crops/Stocks survey, and then applied to other NASS surveys. The results from our models indicate the relatively small subset of variables that are important in predicting survey response. The most useful variables all come from the set of NASS reporting history variables. These models work consistently for the Crops/Stocks survey and for some surveys such as Cattle, but less well for others such as ARMS. Using these models, sampled operations can be ranked based on their predicted response likelihood. These may be useful for field offices to plan alternative data collection strategies for the operations most likely to be non-respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • McCarthy, Jaki S. & Jacob, Thomas & McCraken, Amanda, 2010. "Modeling Non-response in National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Surveys Using Classification Trees," NASS Research Reports 235029, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:unasrr:235029
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235029/files/RDD-10-05%20NR%20modeling.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235029?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. Katharine G. Abraham & Aaron Maitland & Suzanne M. Bianchi, 2006. "Non-response in the American Time Use Survey: Who Is Missing from the Data and How Much Does It Matter?," NBER Technical Working Papers 0328, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Cheti Nicoletti & Franco Peracchi, 2005. "Survey response and survey characteristics: microlevel evidence from the European Community Household Panel," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(4), pages 763-781, November.
    3. Fredrik Johansson-Tormod & Anders Klevmarken, 2022. "Explaining the Size and Nature of Response in a Survey on Health Status and Economic Standard," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 15(1), pages 63-77.
    4. Earp, Morgan S. & McCarthy, Jaki S., 2009. "Using Respondent Prediction Models to Improve Efficiency of Incentive Allocation," NASS Research Reports 235087, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    5. repec:ags:unassr:235087 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mitchell, Melissa & Ott, Kathy & McCarthy, Jaki, 2014. "Using Nonresponse Propensity Scores to Set Data Collection Procedures for the Quarterly Agricultural Survey," NASS Research Reports 235038, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    2. repec:ags:unassr:235038 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mitchell, Melissa & Ott, Kathy & McCarthy, Jaki, 2015. "Targeted Data Collection Efforts for the 2012 ARMS III," NASS Research Reports 234303, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    4. repec:ags:unassr:234303 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. McCarthy Jaki & Wagner James & Sanders Herschel Lisette, 2017. "The Impact of Targeted Data Collection on Nonresponse Bias in an Establishment Survey: A Simulation Study of Adaptive Survey Design," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 857-871, September.

    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. repec:ags:unassr:235029 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Isabella Buber-Ennser, 2014. "Attrition in the Austrian Generations and Gender Survey," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(16), pages 459-496.
    3. F. Kreuter & K. Olson & J. Wagner & T. Yan & T. M. Ezzati‐Rice & C. Casas‐Cordero & M. Lemay & A. Peytchev & R. M. Groves & T. E. Raghunathan, 2010. "Using proxy measures and other correlates of survey outcomes to adjust for non‐response: examples from multiple surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(2), pages 389-407, April.
    4. Jorik Vergauwen & Jonas Wood & David De Wachter & Karel Neels, 2015. "Quality of demographic data in GGS Wave 1," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(24), pages 723-774.
    5. Jonas Wood & Karel Neels & Tine Kil, 2014. "The educational gradient of childlessness and cohort parity progression in 14 low fertility countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 31(46), pages 1365-1416.
    6. Crossley, Thomas F. & Fisher, Paul & Low, Hamish, 2021. "The heterogeneous and regressive consequences of COVID-19: Evidence from high quality panel data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Michael Osei Mireku & Alina Rodriguez, 2021. "Sleep Duration and Waking Activities in Relation to the National Sleep Foundation’s Recommendations: An Analysis of US Population Sleep Patterns from 2015 to 2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Becchetti, Leonardo & Conzo, Pierluigi & Salustri, Francesco, 2017. "The impact of health expenditure on the number of chronic diseases," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(9), pages 955-962.
    9. Ronald Hagan & Andrew M. Jones & Nigel Rice, 2009. "Health and Retirement in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen & Kathleen E. Wirth, 2017. "A general instrumental variable framework for regression analysis with outcome missing not at random," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1123-1131, December.
    11. Joshua Graff Zivin & Matthew Neidell, 2014. "Temperature and the Allocation of Time: Implications for Climate Change," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 1-26.
    12. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    13. Andrew E. Clark, 2006. "A Note on Unhappiness and Unemployment Duration," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 52(4), pages 291-308.
    14. Maria Chiuri & Daniela Del Boca, 2010. "Home-leaving decisions of daughters and sons," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 393-408, September.
    15. Christopher R. Bollinger & Barry T. Hirsch, 2010. "GDP & Beyond – die europäische Perspektive," RatSWD Working Papers 165, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    16. Daniel S. Hamermesh & Katie R. Genadek & Michael C. Burda, 2022. "Reply to “Racial Differences in Time at Work Not Working†by William A. Darity Jr. et al," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 75(3), pages 573-577, May.
    17. Leonardo Becchetti & Pierluigi Conzo & Fabio Pisani, 2018. "Education and health in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(12), pages 1362-1377, March.
    18. Jens Bonke & Mette Deding & Mette Lausten & Leslie S. Stratton, 2008. "Intra‐Household Specialization in Housework in the United States and Denmark," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1023-1043, December.
    19. Arenas-Arroyo, Esther & Schmidpeter, Bernhard, 2022. "Spillover effects of immigration policies on children's human capital," Ruhr Economic Papers 974, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Borgschulte, Mark & Cho, Heepyung & Lubotsky, Darren, 2022. "Partisanship and survey refusal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 332-357.
    21. Charlene Kalenkoski & Karen Hamrick & Margaret Andrews, 2011. "Time Poverty Thresholds and Rates for the US Population," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 129-155, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:ags:unasrr:235029. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nass.usda.gov/ .

    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.