IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v33y2017i2p367-383n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Linked Survey Paradata to Improve Sampling Strategies in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Mirel Lisa B.

    (Office of Analysis and Epidemiology, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, United States of America)

  • Chowdhury Sadeq R.

    (Center for Financing, Access, and Cost Trends, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, United States of America)

Abstract

Using paradata from a prior survey that is linked to a new survey can help a survey organization develop more effective sampling strategies. One example of this type of linkage or subsampling is between the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). MEPS is a nationally representative sample of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on a complex multi-stage sample design. Each year a new sample is drawn as a subsample of households from the prior year’s NHIS. The main objective of this article is to examine how paradata from a prior survey can be used in developing a sampling scheme in a subsequent survey. A framework for optimal allocation of the sample in substrata formed for this purpose is presented and evaluated for the relative effectiveness of alternative substratification schemes. The framework is applied, using real MEPS data, to illustrate how utilizing paradata from the linked survey offers the possibility of making improvements to the sampling scheme for the subsequent survey. The improvements aim to reduce the data collection costs while maintaining or increasing effective responding sample sizes and response rates for a harder to reach population.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 367-383, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:367-383:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2017-0018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2017-0018?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. 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.
    2. Annemieke Luiten & Barry Schouten, 2013. "Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(1), pages 169-189, January.
    3. 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 801-833, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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, Sciendo, vol. 36(4), pages 907-931, December.
    6. Walejko Gina & Wagner James, 2018. "A Study of Interviewer Compliance in 2013 and 2014 Census Test Adaptive Designs," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 649-670, September.
    7. Vandenplas Caroline & Loosveldt Geert & Beullens Koen, 2017. "Fieldwork Monitoring for the European Social Survey: An illustration with Belgium and the Czech Republic in Round 7," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 659-686, September.
    8. Barry Schouten & Fannie Cobben & Peter Lundquist & James Wagner, 2016. "Does more balanced survey response imply less non-response bias?," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(3), pages 727-748, June.
    9. Murphy Joe & Biemer Paul & Berry Chip, 2018. "Transitioning a Survey to Self-Administration using Adaptive, Responsive, and Tailored (ART) Design Principles and Data Visualization," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(3), pages 625-648, September.
    10. McCarthy Jaki & Wagner James & Sanders Herschel Lisette, 2017. "The Impact of Targeted Data Collection on Nonresponse Bias in an Establishment Survey: A Simulation Study of Adaptive Survey Design," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 857-871, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Brick J. Michael & Tourangeau Roger, 2017. "Responsive Survey Designs for Reducing Nonresponse Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 735-752, September.
    13. 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, Sciendo, vol. 33(4), pages 901-919, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Early Kirstin & Mankoff Jennifer & Fienberg Stephen E., 2017. "Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 625-657, September.
    16. Chun Asaph Young & Schouten Barry & Wagner James, 2017. "JOS Special Issue on Responsive and Adaptive Survey Design: Looking Back to See Forward – Editorial: In Memory of Professor Stephen E. Fienberg, 1942–2016," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 571-577, September.
    17. Reza C. Daniels, 2012. "A Framework for Investigating Micro Data Quality, with Application to South African Labour Market Household Surveys," SALDRU Working Papers 90, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    18. Reist, Benjamin M. & Rodhouse, Joseph B. & Ball, Shane T. & Young, Linda J., 2019. "Subsampling of Nonrespondents in the 2017 Census of Agriculture," NASS Research Reports 322826, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.
    19. Lewis Taylor, 2017. "Univariate Tests for Phase Capacity: Tools for Identifying When to Modify a Survey’s Data Collection Protocol," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 601-624, September.
    20. 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.

    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:vrs:offsta:v:33:y:2017:i:2:p:367-383:n:4. 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.sciendo.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.