IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Anchoring vignettes with sample selection due to non‐response

  • Omar Paccagnella

No abstract is available for this item.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Article provided by Royal Statistical Society in its journal Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society).

Volume (Year): 174 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (07)
Pages: 665-687

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:174:y:2011:i:3:p:665-687
Contact details of provider: Postal: 12 Errol Street, London EC1Y 8LX, United Kingdom
Phone: -44-171-638-8998
Fax: -44-171-256-7598
Web page: http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rssa
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://ordering.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subs.asp?ref=1467-985X&doi=10.1111/(ISSN)1467-985X

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Viola Angelini & Danilo Cavapozzi & Luca Corazzini & Omar Paccagnella, 2014. "Do Danes and Italians Rate Life Satisfaction in the Same Way? Using Vignettes to Correct for Individual-Specific Scale Biases," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 76(5), pages 643-666, October.
  3. Nigel Rice & Silvana Robone & Peter Smith, 2009. "Analysis of the Validity of the Vignette Approach to Correct for Heterogeneity in Reporting Health System Responsiveness," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/28, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  4. Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
  5. repec:ner:tilbur:urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-210598 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. Heckman, James J, 1978. "Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(4), pages 931-59, July.
  7. Rebecca R. Andridge & Roderick J. A. Little, 2010. "A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non-response," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(1), pages 40-64, 04.
  8. Kristensen, Nicolai & Johansson, Edvard, 2006. "New Evidence on Cross-Country Differences in Job Satisfaction Using Anchoring Vignettes," Working Papers 06-1, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
  9. Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Kristensen, Nicolai & Pozzoli, Dario, 2010. "External validation of the use of vignettes in cross-country health studies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 854-865, July.
  10. Bago d'Uva T & Lindeboom M & O'Donnell O & van Doorslaer E, 2009. "Slipping Anchor? Testing the Vignettes Approach to Identification and Correction of Reporting Heterogeneity," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/30, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  11. Giuseppe De Luca & Valeria Perotti, 2010. "Estimation of ordered response models with sample selection," CEIS Research Paper 168, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 03 Jun 2010.
  12. Robin Shealy & William Stout, 1993. "A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 159-194, June.
  13. John Bound, 1991. "Self-Reported Versus Objective Measures of Health in Retirement Models," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 26(1), pages 106-138.
  14. Kapteyn, A. & Smith, J.P. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2007. "Vignettes and self-reports of work disability in the United States and the Netherlands," Other publications TiSEM 17902a1e-7cbb-4f3f-a772-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  15. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
  16. Arthur van Soest & Tatiana Andreyeva & Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith, 2011. "Self-Reported Disability and Reference Groups," NBER Chapters, in: Investigations in the Economics of Aging, pages 237-264 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
  18. Meng, Chun-Lo & Schmidt, Peter, 1985. "On the Cost of Partial Observability in the Bivariate Probit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(1), pages 71-85, February.
  19. Teresa Bago d’Uva & Eddy Van Doorslaer & Maarten Lindeboom & Owen O’Donnell & Somnath Chatterji, 2006. "Does reporting heterogeneity bias the measurement of health disparities?," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 06/03, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  20. repec:dgr:uvatin:20090091 is not listed on IDEAS
  21. Giuseppe De Luca & Franco Peracchi, 2012. "Estimating Engel curves under unit and item nonresponse," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(7), pages 1076-1099, November.
  22. Alfonso Miranda & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, 2005. "Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Endogenous Switching And Sample Selection Models for Binary, Count, And Ordinal Variables," Keele Economics Research Papers KERP 2005/14, Centre for Economic Research, Keele University.
  23. Arthur van Soest & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon & Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith, 2011. "Validating the use of anchoring vignettes for the correction of response scale differences in subjective questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 575-595, 07.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:174:y:2011:i:3:p:665-687. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.