IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v175y2012i1p289-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of questioning method on measurement error in panel survey measures of benefit receipt: evidence from a validation study

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Lynn
  • Annette Jäckle
  • Stephen P. Jenkins
  • Emanuela Sala

Abstract

We assess measurement error in panel survey reports of social security benefit receipt, drawing on a unique validation study. Our aims are threefold. First, we quantify the incidence of measurement errors (under- and over-reporting). Second, we assess the extent to which this varies according to the questioning method that is used. Specifically, dependent interviewing has been proposed as a way to reduce under-reporting in some circumstances. We compare two versions of dependent interviewing with traditional independent interviewing in an experimental design. Third, we identify and assess new ways of reducing measurement error in panel surveys. We use data from a large-scale UK household panel survey and we consider six benefits. To assess the measurement error, a validation exercise was conducted, with administrative data on benefit receipt matched at the individual level to the survey microdata.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Lynn & Annette Jäckle & Stephen P. Jenkins & Emanuela Sala, 2012. "The impact of questioning method on measurement error in panel survey measures of benefit receipt: evidence from a validation study," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(1), pages 289-308, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:175:y:2012:i:1:p:289-308
    DOI: j.1467-985X.2011.00717.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00717.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Hancock & Geraldine Barker, 2005. "The quality of social security benefit data in the British Family Resources Survey: implications for investigating income support take-up by pensioners," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(1), pages 63-82.
    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. H. Xavier Jara & Marcelo Varela, 2017. "Tax-benefit microsimulation and income redistribution in Ecuador," WIDER Working Paper Series 177, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Whitaker, Stephan, 2015. "Big Data versus a Survey," Working Paper 1440, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    3. Brewer, M & Etheridge, B & O'Dea, C, 2013. "Why are households that report the lowest incomes so well-off," Economics Discussion Papers 8993, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    4. Lugtig Peter & Jäckle Annette, 2014. "Can I Just Check...? Effects of Edit Check Questions on Measurement Error and Survey Estimates," Journal of Official Statistics, De Gruyter Open, vol. 30(1), pages 45-62, March.
    5. Bucks, Brian K. & Pence, Karen M., 2015. "Wealth, Pensions, Debt, and Savings: Considerations for a Panel Survey," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-19, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    6. Johannes, Eggs & Jäckle, Annette, 2014. "Dependent interviewing and sub-optimal responding," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-32, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    7. Tasseva, Iva Valentinova, 2016. "Evaluating the performance of means-tested benefits in Bulgaria," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 919-935.
    8. repec:esx:essedp:736 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General

    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:bla:jorssa:v:175:y:2012:i:1:p:289-308. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.