IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v39y2023i3p325-349n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Days to Respondent Contact in Cross-Sectional Surveys Using a Bayesian Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Coffey Stephanie

    (U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland, 20746 U.S.A.)

  • Elliott Michael R.

    (University of Michigan, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, M4041 SPH II, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, Michigan, 48105 U.S.A.)

Abstract

Surveys estimate and monitor a variety of data collection parameters, including response propensity, number of contacts, and data collection costs. These parameters can be used as inputs to a responsive/adaptive design or to monitor the progression of a data collection period against predefined expectations. Recently, Bayesian methods have emerged as a method for combining historical information or external data with data from the in-progress data collection period to improve prediction. We develop a Bayesian method for predicting a measure of case-level progress or productivity, the estimated time lag, in days, between first contact attempt and first respondent contact. We compare the quality of predictions from the Bayesian method to predictions generated from more commonly-used predictive methods that leverage data from only historical data collection periods or the in-progress round of data collection. Using prediction error and misclassification as short- or long- day lags, we demonstrate that the Bayesian method results in improved predictions close to the day of the first contact attempt, when these predictions may be most informative for interventions or interviewer feedback. This application adds to evidence that combining historical and current information about data collection, in a Bayesian framework, can improve predictions of data collection parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Coffey Stephanie & Elliott Michael R., 2023. "Predicting Days to Respondent Contact in Cross-Sectional Surveys Using a Bayesian Approach," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 39(3), pages 325-349, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:39:y:2023:i:3:p:325-349:n:1
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2023-0015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2023-0015
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2023-0015?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. Gabriele B. Durrant & Fiona Steele, 2009. "Multilevel modelling of refusal and non‐contact in household surveys: evidence from six UK Government surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(2), pages 361-381, April.
    2. Mullahy, John, 1986. "Specification and testing of some modified count data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 341-365, December.
    3. Cindy Xin Feng, 2021. "A comparison of zero-inflated and hurdle models for modeling zero-inflated count data," Journal of Statistical Distributions and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. Wagner James & Olson Kristen, 2018. "An Analysis of Interviewer Travel and Field Outcomes in Two Field Surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 34(1), pages 211-237, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Camila Pareja Yale & Hugo Tsugunobu Yoshida Yoshizaki & Luiz Paulo Fávero, 2022. "A New Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial Multilevel Model for Forecasting the Demand of Disaster Relief Supplies in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(22), pages 1-11, November.
    6. Thakuriah, Piyushimita (Vonu), 2024. "Disentangling policy and structural effects on car-ownership for car-owning and carless US households during and after the COVID-19 pandemic," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 20-33.
    7. Gordeev, Stepan & Steinbach, Sandro, 2024. "Determinants of PTA design: Insights from machine learning," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Boncinelli, Fabio & Bartolini, Fabio & Casini, Leonardo, 2018. "Structural factors of labour allocation for farm diversification activities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 204-212.
    10. 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.
    11. Wuyts Celine & Loosveldt Geert, 2020. "Measurement of Interviewer Workload within the Survey and an Exploration of Workload Effects on Interviewers’ Field Efforts and Performance," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 561-588, September.
    12. Kan, Kamhon & Fu, Tsu-Tan, 1997. "Analysis of Housewives' Grocery Shopping Behavior in Taiwan: An Application of the Poisson Switching Regression," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 397-407, December.
    13. Silva João M. C. Santos & Tenreyro Silvana & Windmeijer Frank, 2015. "Testing Competing Models for Non-negative Data with Many Zeros," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 29-46, January.
    14. Bilgic, Abdulbaki & Florkowski, Wojciech J., 2003. "Truncated-At-Zero Count Data Models With Partial Observability: An Application To The Freshwater Fishing Demand In The Southeastern U.S," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35185, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Domenico Piccolo & Rosaria Simone, 2019. "The class of cub models: statistical foundations, inferential issues and empirical evidence," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 28(3), pages 389-435, September.
    16. Isamu Matsukawa, 2004. "The Effects of Information on Residential Demand for Electricity," The Energy Journal, , vol. 25(1), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Greene, William, 2007. "Functional Form and Heterogeneity in Models for Count Data," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 113-218, August.
    18. Christopher J. W. Zorn, 1998. "An Analytic and Empirical Examination of Zero-Inflated and Hurdle Poisson Specifications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 368-400, February.
    19. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    20. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "A Utility Based Repeated Discrete Choice Model of Consumer Demand," Working Papers 9611, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.

    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:39:y:2023:i:3:p:325-349:n:1. 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.