IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/fhecpo/v25y2022i1-2p41-55n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing Nonresponse and Data Linkage Consent Bias in Large-Scale Panel Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Sakshaug Joseph W.

    (University of Warwick, Coventry, UK)

Abstract

Selection bias is an ongoing concern in large-scale panel surveys where the cumulative effects of unit nonresponse increase at each subsequent wave of data collection. A second source of selection bias in panel studies is the inability to link respondents to supplementary administrative records, either because respondents do not consent to link or the matching algorithm fails to locate their administrative records. Both sources of selection bias can affect the validity of conclusions drawn from these data sources. In this article, I discuss recently proposed methods of reducing both sources of selection bias in panel studies, with a special emphasis on reducing selection bias in the US Health and Retirement Study.

Suggested Citation

  • Sakshaug Joseph W., 2022. "Reducing Nonresponse and Data Linkage Consent Bias in Large-Scale Panel Surveys," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 25(1-2), pages 41-55, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:fhecpo:v:25:y:2022:i:1-2:p:41-55:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/fhep-2021-0060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2021-0060
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/fhep-2021-0060?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen P. Jenkins & Lorenzo Cappellari & Peter Lynn & Annette Jäckle & Emanuela Sala, 2006. "Patterns of consent: evidence from a general household survey," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 701-722, October.
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:4937 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:4780 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Emanuela Sala & Jonathan Burton & Gundi Knies, 2012. "Correlates of Obtaining Informed Consent to Data Linkage," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(3), pages 414-439, August.
    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. Fertig, Michael & Görlitz, Katja, 2013. "Missing wages: How to test for biased estimates in wage functions?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 269-271.
    2. Sala, Emanuela & Knies, Gundi & Burton, Jonathan, 2013. "Propensity to consent to data linkage: experimental evidence from the Innovation Panel on the role of three survey design features," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2013-05, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    3. Al Baghal, Tarek & Knies, Gundi & Burton, Jonathan, 2014. "Linking administrative records to surveys: differences in the correlates to consent decisions," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2014-09, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Zeina Mneimneh, 2022. "Evaluation of consent to link Twitter data to survey data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(S2), pages 364-386, December.
    5. Joseph W. Sakshaug & Mick P. Couper & Mary Beth Ofstedal & David R. Weir, 2012. "Linking Survey and Administrative Records," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(4), pages 535-569, November.
    6. Gessendorfer Jonathan & Beste Jonas & Drechsler Jörg & Sakshaug Joseph W., 2018. "Statistical Matching as a Supplement to Record Linkage: A Valuable Method to Tackle Nonconsent Bias?," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(4), pages 909-933, December.
    7. Warnke, Arne Jonas, 2017. "An investigation of record linkage refusal and its implications for empirical research," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-031, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    9. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    10. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    13. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    14. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    15. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    16. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    17. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    18. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    19. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.

    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:bpj:fhecpo:v:25:y:2022:i:1-2:p:41-55:n:7. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.