IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v181y2018i1p229-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data set representativeness during data collection in three UK social surveys: generalizability and the effects of auxiliary covariate choice

Author

Listed:
  • Jamie C. Moore
  • Gabriele B. Durrant
  • Peter W. F. Smith

Abstract

We consider the use of representativeness indicators to monitor risks of non‐response bias during survey data collection. The analysis benefits from use of a unique data set linking call record paradata from three UK social surveys to census auxiliary attribute information on sample households. We investigate the utility of census information for this purpose and the performance of representativeness indicators (the R‐indicator and the coefficient of variation of response propensities) in monitoring representativeness over call records. We also investigate the extent and effects of misspecification of auxiliary covariate sets used in indicator computation and design phase capacity points in call records beyond which survey data set improvements are minimal, and whether such points are generalizable across surveys. Given our findings, we then offer guidance to survey practitioners on the use of such methods and implications for optimizing data collection and efficiency savings.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamie C. Moore & Gabriele B. Durrant & Peter W. F. Smith, 2018. "Data set representativeness during data collection in three UK social surveys: generalizability and the effects of auxiliary covariate choice," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(1), pages 229-248, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:181:y:2018:i:1:p:229-248
    DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12256
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssa.12256?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. van Berkel Kees & van der Doef Suzanne & Schouten Barry, 2020. "Implementing Adaptive Survey Design With an Application to the Dutch Health Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 609-629, September.
    2. Olga Maslovskaya & Peter Lugtig, 2022. "Representativeness in six waves of CROss‐National Online Survey (CRONOS) panel," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 851-871, July.
    3. Patrick Gleiser & Joseph W. Sakshaug & Marieke Volkert & Peter Ellguth & Susanne Kohaut & Iris Möller, 2022. "Introducing Web in a mixed‐mode establishment survey: Effects on nonresponse," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 891-915, July.
    4. Wu Shiya & Moerbeek Mirjam & Schouten Barry & Meijers Ralph, 2022. "Data Collection Expert Prior Elicitation in Survey Design: Two Case Studies," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(2), pages 637-662, June.
    5. Jamie C. Moore & Gabriele B. Durrant & Peter W. F. Smith, 2021. "Do coefficients of variation of response propensities approximate non‐response biases during survey data collection?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 301-323, January.
    6. Tobias Gummer & Bella Struminskaya, 2023. "Early and Late Participation during the Field Period: Response Timing in a Mixed-Mode Probability-Based Panel Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(2), pages 909-932, May.
    7. Roberts Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E. & Vandenplas Caroline, 2020. "A Validation of R-Indicators as a Measure of the Risk of Bias using Data from a Nonresponse Follow-Up Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.
    8. Dan Hedlin, 2020. "Is there a 'safe area' where the nonresponse rate has only a modest effect on bias despite non‐ignorable nonresponse?," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 88(3), pages 642-657, December.

    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:bla:jorssa:v:181:y:2018:i:1:p:229-248. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.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.