Tångdahl, Sara () (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)
Abstract
In most surveys, the risk of nonresponse is a factor taken into account at the planning stage. Commonly, resources are set aside for a follow-up procedure which aims at reducing the nonresponse rate. However, we should pay attention to the effect of nonresponse, rather than the nonresponse rate itself. When considering nonresponse error, i.e. bias and variance, it is not obvious that the resources spent on nonresponse rate reduction efforts are time and money well spent.
In this paper we address this issue, continuing the work begun in Tångdahl (2004), now focusing on the effect of follow-ups on estimator variance. The components of the variance for some common estimators are derived under a setup that allows us to take into account the data collection process, and follow-up efforts in particular.
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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Örebro University, Swedish Business School in its series Working Papers with number
2005:9.
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.:
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.)
Did you know? All full texts are decentralized with the publishers, none reside on this server, thus making it possible to offer this service for free to all parties.