Author
Listed:
- Sam Slamowicz
- Darren Pennay
- Dina Neiger
- Benjamin Phillips
- Andrew C Ward
- Michael Xu
Abstract
Over the last 15 years or so, many studies have compared the accuracy of estimates produced when the same questionnaire is administered to samples generated using probability and nonprobability sampling methods. Most studies conclude that estimates from probability sample surveys are more accurate than estimates from nonprobability sample surveys.In trying to understand why probability sample surveys generally produce more accurate estimates than nonprobability sample surveys, most research has focused on the differences in survey samples reached as a result of the sampling mechanisms used by each approach, and looked to various adjustment (weighting) approaches to bring the nonprobability sample estimates closer to the comparative probability sample estimates and independent benchmarks. Less common, however, are comparative studies that focus on measurement error.This study compares estimates generated from five Australian online panels; one probability-based online panel and four nonprobability online panels. We use widely implemented techniques to identify instances of survey satisficing—the phenomenon of survey respondents providing lower quality responses to reduce cognitive effort. When comparing the level of satisficing across panels, a higher proportion of respondents in the nonprobability panels give responses consistent with satisficing than in the probability panel. We then show that excluding these suboptimal responses from our analysis dataset, before weighting, results in a greater bias reduction across the nonprobability panels than weighting alone, and that this is the case across all four nonprobability panels. In contrast, very little change to bias is observed after applying the same exclusions to the probability panel. We end with a call for others to undertake similar research in the hope that this approach might become part of the toolkit of techniques being developed to reduce the bias in survey estimates generated from nonprobability online samples.
Suggested Citation
Sam Slamowicz & Darren Pennay & Dina Neiger & Benjamin Phillips & Andrew C Ward & Michael Xu, 2025.
"Reducing the Bias from Probability and Nonprobability Online Panels by Excluding Satisficers,"
Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, American Association for Public Opinion Research and American Statistical Association, vol. 13(5), pages 469-493.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:jassam:v:13:y:2025:i:5:p:469-493.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:oup:jassam:v:13:y:2025:i:5:p:469-493.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jssam .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.