IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v32y2015i26.html

Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald R. Rindfuss

    (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

  • Minja K. Choe

    (East-West Center)

  • Noriko O. Tsuya

    (Keio University)

  • Larry L. Bumpass

    (University of Wisconsin–Madison)

  • Emi Tamaki

    (Ritsumeikan University)

Abstract

Background: In developed countries, response rates have dropped to such low levels that many in the population field question whether the data can provide unbiased results. Objective: The paper uses three Japanese surveys conducted in the 2000s to ask whether low survey response rates bias results. A secondary objective is to bring results reported in the survey response literature to the attention of the demographic research community. Methods: Using a longitudinal survey as well as paradata from a cross-sectional survey, a variety of statistical techniques (chi square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), logistic regression, ordered probit or ordinary least squares regression (OLS), as appropriate) are used to examine response-rate bias. Results: Evidence of response-rate bias is found for the univariate distributions of some demographic characteristics, behaviors, and attitudinal items. But when examining relationships between variables in a multivariate analysis, controlling for a variety of background variables, for most dependent variables we do not find evidence of bias from low response rates. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with results reported in the econometric and survey research literatures. Low response rates need not necessarily lead to biased results. Bias is more likely to be present when examining a simple univariate distribution than when examining the relationship between variables in a multivariate model. Comments: The results have two implications. First, demographers should not presume the presence or absence of low response-rate bias; rather they should test for it in the context of a specific substantive analysis. Second, demographers should lobby data gatherers to collect as much paradata as possible so that rigorous tests for low response-rate bias are possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald R. Rindfuss & Minja K. Choe & Noriko O. Tsuya & Larry L. Bumpass & Emi Tamaki, 2015. "Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(26), pages 797-828.
  • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:32:y:2015:i:26
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/26/32-26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.26?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Casas-Cordero & F. Kreuter & Y. Wang & S. Babey, 2013. "Assessing the measurement error properties of interviewer observations of neighbourhood characteristics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 227-249, January.
    2. Durrant, Gabriele B. & D'Arrigo, Julia & Steele, Fiona, 2011. "Using field process data to predict best times of contact conditioning on household and interviewer influences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 52201, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. William Axinn & Cynthia Link & Robert Groves, 2011. "Responsive Survey Design, Demographic Data Collection, and Models of Demographic Behavior," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(3), pages 1127-1149, August.
    4. Mick P. Couper & Frauke Kreuter, 2013. "Using paradata to explore item level response times in surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 271-286, January.
    5. Gabriele B. Durrant & Julia D'Arrigo & Fiona Steele, 2011. "Using paradata to predict best times of contact, conditioning on household and interviewer influences," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(4), pages 1029-1049, October.
    6. James P. Ziliak & Thomas J. Kniesner, 1998. "The Importance of Sample Attrition in Life Cycle Labor Supply Estimation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 507-530.
    7. Van den Berg, G J & Lindeboom, M & Ridder, G, 1994. "Attrition in Longitudinal Panel Data and the Empirical Analysis of Dynamic Labour Market Behaviour," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 421-435, Oct.-Dec..
    8. Thomas MaCurdy & Thomas Mroz & R. Mark Gritz, 1998. "An Evaluation of the National Longitudinal Survey on Youth," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 345-436.
    9. Robert M. Groves & Steven G. Heeringa, 2006. "Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(3), pages 439-457, July.
    10. Guilkey, David K. & Murphy, James L., 1993. "Estimation and testing in the random effects probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 301-317, October.
    11. Noriko O. Tsuya & Larry L. Bumpass & Minja K. Choe & Ronald R. Rindfuss, 2012. "Employment and household tasks of Japanese couples, 1994-2009," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 27(24), pages 705-718.
    12. Kristen Olson, 2013. "Do non-response follow-ups improve or reduce data quality?: a review of the existing literature," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 129-145, January.
    13. Paul P. Biemer & Patrick Chen & Kevin Wang, 2013. "Using level-of-effort paradata in non-response adjustments with application to field surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 147-168, January.
    14. Brady T. West, 2013. "An examination of the quality and utility of interviewer observations in the National Survey of Family Growth," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 211-225, January.
    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. Durrant Gabriele B. & Maslovskaya Olga & Smith Peter W. F., 2017. "Using Prior Wave Information and Paradata: Can They Help to Predict Response Outcomes and Call Sequence Length in a Longitudinal Study?," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 33(3), pages 801-833, September.
    2. Roger Tourangeau & J. Michael Brick & Sharon Lohr & Jane Li, 2017. "Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 203-223, January.
    3. Gabriele B. Durrant & Julia D’Arrigo, 2014. "Doorstep Interactions and Interviewer Effects on the Process Leading to Cooperation or Refusal," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(3), pages 490-518, August.
    4. Lagorio, Carlos, 2016. "Call and response: modelling longitudinal contact and cooperation using Wave 1 call records data," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2016-01, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    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. Gabriele B. Durrant & Sylke V. Schnepf, 2018. "Which schools and pupils respond to educational achievement surveys?: a focus on the English Programme for International Student Assessment sample," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1057-1075, October.
    7. Jiayun Jin & Caroline Vandenplas & Geert Loosveldt, 2019. "The Evaluation of Statistical Process Control Methods to Monitor Interview Duration During Survey Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, June.
    8. Roberts Caroline & Vandenplas Caroline & Herzing Jessica M.E., 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, Paradigm, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.
    9. Shin, Jaeun & Moon, Sangho, 2006. "Fertility, relative wages, and labor market decisions: A case of female teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 591-604, December.
    10. Holly Matulewicz & Eric Grau & Arif Mamun & Gina Livermore, "undated". "Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE): PROMISE 60-Month Sampling and Survey Plan," Mathematica Policy Research Reports be402161c12e402392af9182e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Lipps Oliver & Voorpostel Marieke, 2020. "Can Interviewer Evaluations Predict Short-Term and Long-Term Participation in Telephone Panels?," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 36(1), pages 117-136, March.
    12. Mirel Lisa B. & Chowdhury Sadeq R., 2017. "Using Linked Survey Paradata to Improve Sampling Strategies in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 33(2), pages 367-383, June.
    13. Hanly, Mark & Clarke, Paul & Steele, Fiona, 2016. "Sequence analysis of call record data: exploring the role of different cost settings," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64896, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Beaumont Jean-Francois & Bocci Cynthia & Haziza David, 2014. "An Adaptive Data Collection Procedure for Call Prioritization," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 30(4), pages 607-621, December.
    15. Wagner James & West Brady T. & Elliott Michael R. & Coffey Stephanie, 2020. "Comparing the Ability of Regression Modeling and Bayesian Additive Regression Trees to Predict Costs in a Responsive Survey Design Context," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 36(4), pages 907-931, December.
    16. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    17. Tobias Gummer & Pablo Christmann & Sascha Verhoeven & Christof Wolf, 2022. "Using a responsive survey design to innovate self‐administered mixed‐mode surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 916-932, July.
    18. Kibuchi, Eliud & Durrant, Gabriele B. & Maslovskaya, Olga & Sturgis, Patrick, 2024. "An assessment of the utility of a Bayesian framework to improve response propensity modes in longitudinal data," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126599, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Steele, Fiona & Durrant, Gabriele B., 2011. "Alternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50113, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Ashmead Robert & Slud Eric & Hughes Todd, 2017. "Adaptive Intervention Methodology for Reduction of Respondent Contact Burden in the American Community Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Paradigm, vol. 33(4), pages 901-919, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - 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:dem:demres:v:32:y:2015:i:26. 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: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    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.