IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2014-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Weighting for non-monotonic response pattern in longitudinal surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Sadig, Husam

Abstract

In longitudinal studies, analysis can be based on any one of a large number of wave combinations. However, only one set of non-response weights (often based on respondents from all waves up to the latest) is typically offered on public use data files. We refer to this as a single weighting strategy (SWS). This paper uses data from the British Household Panel Survey to illustrate the limitations of the SWS. We evaluate the effect of designing weights based on response to wave-combinations concerned with the same module of questions. The analysis shows that the use of SWS may lead to an unnecessary loss of respondents if used with a different combination of waves. This leads to less precision on some, but not all, of the survey estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Weighting for non-monotonic response pattern in longitudinal surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-34, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2014-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2014-34.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. John Fitzgerald & Peter Gottschalk & Robert Moffitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 251-299.
    3. Peter Lynn, 2003. "PEDAKSI: Methodology for Collecting Data about Survey Non-Respondents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 239-261, August.
    4. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2004. "The HILDA Survey Four Years On," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(3), pages 343-349, September.
    5. Becketti, Sean & Gould, William & Lillard, Lee & Welch, Finis, 1988. "The Panel Study of Income Dynamics after Fourteen Years: An Evaluatio n," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(4), pages 472-492, October.
    6. Martin Kroh, 2009. "Documentation of Sample Sizes and Panel Attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2008)," Data Documentation 47, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Lynn Peter & Kaminska Olena & Goldstein Harvey, 2014. "Panel Attrition: How Important is Interviewer Continuity?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 30(3), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Nicoletti, Cheti & Buck, Nick, 2004. "Explaining interviewee contact and co-operation in the British and German Household Panels," ISER Working Paper Series 2004-06, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    9. Yee Kan, Â Man & Laurie, Heather, 2010. "Savings, investments, debts and psychological well-being in married and cohabiting couples," ISER Working Paper Series 2010-42, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    10. Lynn, Peter & Kaminska, Olena & Goldstein, Harvey, 2011. "Panel attrition: how important is it to keep the same interviewer?," ISER Working Paper Series 2011-02, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    11. Noah Uhrig, S.C., 2008. "The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel Study," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-05, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    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. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    2. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Unknown eligibility whilst weighting for non-response: the puzzle of who has died and who is still alive?," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-35, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    3. 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.
    4. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Non-response subgroup-tailored weighting: the choice of variables and the set of respondents used to estimate the weighting model," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-36, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    5. 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.
    6. Lagorio, Carlos, 2016. "Call and response: modelling longitudinal contact and cooperation using Wave 1 call records data," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2016-01, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    7. Annamaria Bianchi & Silvia Biffignandi, 2019. "Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 931-957, February.
    8. Peter Lugtig, 2014. "Panel Attrition," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(4), pages 699-723, November.
    9. Patrick Richard & Regine Walker & Pierre Alexandre, 2018. "The burden of out of pocket costs and medical debt faced by households with chronic health conditions in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, June.
    10. 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).
    11. James Banks & Richard Blundell & Zoe Oldfield & James P. Smith, 2010. "Housing Mobility and Downsizing at Older Ages in Britain and the United States," Working Papers WR-787, RAND Corporation.
    12. Hamish Low & Michaela Benzeval & Jon Burton & Thomas F. Crossley & Paul Fisher & Annette Jäckle & Brendan Read, 2020. "The Idiosyncratic Impact of an Aggregate Shock The Distributional Consequences of COVID-19," Economics Series Working Papers 911, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Michael Fertig & Stefanie Schurer, 2007. "Earnings Assimilation of Immigrants in Germany: The Importance of Heterogeneity and Attrition Bias," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 30, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    14. Steven Lehrer & Weili Ding, 2004. "Estimating Dynamic Treatment Effects from Project STAR," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 252, Econometric Society.
    15. Nic Baigrie & Katherine Eyal, 2014. "An Evaluation of the Determinants and Implications of Panel Attrition in the National Income Dynamics Survey (2008-2010)," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 82(1), pages 39-65, March.
    16. Magali Mazuy & Nicolas Razafindratsima & Elise de la Rochebrochard, 2005. "Déperdition dans l'enquête "Intentions de fécondité"," Working Papers 129, Institut National d'Études Démographiques (INED).
    17. Shin, Jaeun & Moon, Sangho, 2006. "Fertility, relative wages, and labor market decisions: A case of female teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 591-604, December.
    18. Thomas, Duncan & Witoelar, Firman & Frankenberg, Elizabeth & Sikoki, Bondan & Strauss, John & Sumantri, Cecep & Suriastini, Wayan, 2012. "Cutting the costs of attrition: Results from the Indonesia Family Life Survey," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 108-123.
    19. Mathilde Godard, 2015. "Gaining weight through retirement? Results from the SHARE survey," Post-Print halshs-01521884, HAL.
    20. Hryshko, Dmytro & Manovskii, Iourii, 2022. "How much consumption insurance in the U.S.?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 17-33.

    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:ese:iserwp:2014-34. 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: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcessuk.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.