IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v48y2024i2p221-250.html

A Novel Indicator to Correct for Individual Reported Heterogeneity. An Application to Self-Evaluation of Later-Life Depression

Author

Listed:
  • Serena Berretta
  • Sara Garbin
  • Maria Iannario
  • Omar Paccagnella

Abstract

Program evaluations often investigate complex or multi-dimensional constructs, such as individual opinions or attitudes, by means of ratings. A different interpretation of the same question may affect cross-country comparability, leading to the Differential Item Functioning problem. Anchoring vignettes were introduced in the literature as a way to adjust self-evaluations from this interpersonal incomparability. In this paper, we first introduce a new nonparametric solution to analyse anchoring vignette data, recoding a variable based on a rating scale to a new corrected- variable that guarantees comparability in any cross-country analysis. Then, we exploit the flexibility of a mixture model introduced to account for uncertainty in the response process (the CUP model) to test if the proposed solution is effectively able to remove this reported heterogeneity. This solution is easy to construct and has important advantages compared with the original nonparametric solution adopted with anchoring vignette data. The novel indicator is applied to investigate self-reported depression in an old population. Data that will be analysed come from the second wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, collected in 2006/2007. Results highlight the need of correcting for reported heterogeneity comparing individual self-evaluations. Once interpersonal incomparability resulting from the different uses of response scales is removed from the self-assessments, some estimates are reversed in magnitude and signs with respect to the analysis of the collected data.

Suggested Citation

  • Serena Berretta & Sara Garbin & Maria Iannario & Omar Paccagnella, 2024. "A Novel Indicator to Correct for Individual Reported Heterogeneity. An Application to Self-Evaluation of Later-Life Depression," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(2), pages 221-250, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:48:y:2024:i:2:p:221-250
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X231171965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X231171965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X231171965?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. Robin Shealy & William Stout, 1993. "A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DTF as well as item bias/DIF," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 159-194, June.
    2. Hana Voňková & Patrick Hullegie, 2011. "Is the anchoring vignette method sensitive to the domain and choice of the vignette?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 597-620, July.
    3. Gerhard Tutz & Micha Schneider, 2019. "Flexible uncertainty in mixture models for ordinal responses," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 1582-1601, July.
    4. Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith & Arthur van Soest, 2007. "Vignettes and Self-Reports of Work Disability in the United States and the Netherlands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 461-473, March.
    5. Maria Iannario & Domenico Piccolo, 2016. "A comprehensive framework of regression models for ordinal data," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 74(2), pages 233-252, August.
    6. Hendrik Jürges & Joachim Winter, 2013. "Are Anchoring Vignettes Ratings Sensitive To Vignette Age And Sex?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 1-13, January.
    7. John Bound, 1991. "Self-Reported Versus Objective Measures of Health in Retirement Models," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 26(1), pages 106-138.
    8. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    9. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:01:p:191-207_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Viola Angelini & Danilo Cavapozzi & Luca Corazzini & Omar Paccagnella, 2014. "Do Danes and Italians Rate Life Satisfaction in the Same Way? Using Vignettes to Correct for Individual-Specific Scale Biases," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 76(5), pages 643-666, October.
    11. Renske Kok & Mauricio Avendano & Teresa Bago d’Uva & Johan Mackenbach, 2012. "Can Reporting Heterogeneity Explain Differences in Depressive Symptoms Across Europe?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 191-210, January.
    12. Kristensen, Nicolai & Johansson, Edvard, 2008. "New evidence on cross-country differences in job satisfaction using anchoring vignettes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 96-117, February.
    13. King, Gary & Wand, Jonathan, 2007. "Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 46-66, January.
    14. Arthur van Soest & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon & Arie Kapteyn & James P. Smith, 2011. "Validating the use of anchoring vignettes for the correction of response scale differences in subjective questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 575-595, July.
    15. Maria Iannario & Claudia Tarantola, 2023. "How to Interpret the Effect of Covariates on the Extreme Categories in Ordinal Data Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 52(1), pages 231-267, February.
    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. Zhiyong Huang & Haoxian Wang & Wenyuan Zheng, 2021. "An extended hierarchical ordered probit model robust to heteroskedastic vignette perceptions with an application to functional limitation assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Omar Paccagnella, 2011. "Anchoring vignettes with sample selection due to non‐response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 665-687, July.
    3. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    4. Bertoni, Marco, 2015. "Hungry today, unhappy tomorrow? Childhood hunger and subjective wellbeing later in life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 40-53.
    5. Franco Peracchi & Claudio Rossetti, 2013. "The heterogeneous thresholds ordered response model: identification and inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 703-722, June.
    6. Hana Vonkova, 2019. "Life Satisfaction among Different Groups of Children: Self-Reports, Differential Scale Usage and Anchoring Vignettes," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(6), pages 2111-2136, December.
    7. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Yulia Raskina & Olga Podkorytova & Ruslan Kuchakov, 2022. "Health determinants and the reporting heterogeneity bias in Russia: Anchoring vignettes approach," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 66, pages 118-143.
    9. Rachel J. Knott & Nicole Black & Bruce Hollingsworth & Paula K. Lorgelly, 2017. "Response‐Scale Heterogeneity in the EQ‐5D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 387-394, March.
    10. Arthur van Soest & Hana Vonkova, 2014. "Testing the specification of parametric models by using anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(1), pages 115-133, January.
    11. Greene, William & Harris, Mark N. & Knott, Rachel & Rice, Nigel, 2023. "Reporting heterogeneity in modeling self-assessed survey outcomes," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    12. Montgomery, Mallory, 2022. "Reversing the gender gap in happiness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 65-78.
    13. Renske Kok & Mauricio Avendano & Teresa Bago d’Uva & Johan Mackenbach, 2012. "Can Reporting Heterogeneity Explain Differences in Depressive Symptoms Across Europe?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 191-210, January.
    14. Teresa Bago d'Uva & Maarten Lindeboom & Owen O'Donnell & Eddy van Doorslaer, 2011. "Education‐related inequity in healthcare with heterogeneous reporting of health," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(3), pages 639-664, July.
    15. Kapteyn, Arie & Wah, Saw Htay, 2016. "Challenges to small and medium-size businesses in Myanmar: What are they and how do we know?," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-22.
    16. Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Kristensen, Nicolai & Pozzoli, Dario, 2010. "External validation of the use of vignettes in cross-country health studies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 854-865, July.
    17. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2012. "Scale-perception bias in the valuation of environmental risks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(20), pages 2607-2617, July.
    18. Hendrik Jürges & Arthur Soest, 2012. "Comparing the Well-Being of Older Europeans: Introduction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 105(2), pages 187-190, January.
    19. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2011. "Vignette Equivalence and Response Consistency: The Case of Job Satisfaction," IZA Discussion Papers 6174, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0126218 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Fontaine, Xavier & Haywood, Luke, 2018. "On the comparison of group inequalities using subjective data," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 17-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:evarev:v:48:y:2024:i:2:p:221-250. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.