IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/oruesi/2025_003.html

Estimation with probability edited survey data under nonresponse

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Probabilistic editing has been introduced to enable valid inference using established survey sampling theory in situations when some of the collected data points may have measurement errors and are therefore submitted to an editing process. To reduce the editing e ort and avoid over-editing, in current practice selective editing is most often used, which is a form of editing that limits the edit checks to those potential errors that, if indeed in error, are likely to have the biggest impact on estimates to be produced. However, selective editing is not grounded in probability theory associated with survey sampling, and cannot provide expressions for point and variance estimates that account for the uncertainties introduced by selective editing. In the spirit of the total survey error paradigm, this paper extends the previous work on probabilistic editing by proposing an estimation procedure that provides valid inference when two kinds of nonsampling error are simultaneously present, in addition to the sampling error: the measurement error, requiring an editing step, and the practically unavoidable nonresponse error which also needs to be taken into account when producing unbiased estimates. In a three-phase selection setup, bias due to measurement error is estimated through probabilistic editing while weight adjustment employing auxiliary information is used to deal with nonresponse. An estimator based on calibration for nonresponse and corrected for bias due to measurement error is introduced. Its theoretical variance and an estimator of the variance are derived. A simulation study illustrates the three-phase selection setup and the practical performance of the derived point and variance estimators.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilves, Maiki, 2025. "Estimation with probability edited survey data under nonresponse," Working Papers 2025:3, Örebro University, School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2025_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.oru.se/globalassets/oru-sv/institutioner/hh/workingpapers/workingpapers2025/wp-3-2025.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Joseph W. Sakshaug & Jonas Beste & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Effects of mixing modes on nonresponse and measurement error in an economic panel survey," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 57(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. repec:iab:iabjlr:v:57:p:art.02 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Willem E. Saris & Melanie Revilla, 2016. "Correction for Measurement Errors in Survey Research: Necessary and Possible," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 1005-1020, July.
    5. Leopold Granquist, 1997. "The New View on Editing," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 65(3), pages 381-387, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Signore Marina & Scanu Mauro & Brancato Giovanna, 2015. "Statistical Metadata: a Unified Approach to Management and Dissemination," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(2), pages 325-347, June.
    3. Särndal Carl-Erik & Lundquist Peter, 2017. "Inconsistent Regression and Nonresponse Bias: Exploring Their Relationship as a Function of Response Imbalance," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(3), pages 709-734, September.
    4. Felderer, Barbara & Repke, Lydia & Weber, Wiebke & Schweisthal, jonas & Bothmann, Ludwig, 2024. "Predicting the Validity and Reliability of Survey Questions," OSF Preprints hkngd, Center for Open Science.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Piotr Tarka, 2018. "An overview of structural equation modeling: its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 313-354, January.
    11. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2013. "Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 273-286.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Andy Peytchev, 2013. "Consequences of Survey Nonresponse," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 645(1), pages 88-111, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Brick J. Michael, 2013. "Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 329-353, June.
    18. repec:bla:istatr:v:83:y:2015:i:3:p:436-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. repec:iab:iabfda:201307(en is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Calinescu, Melania & Bhulai, Sandjai & Schouten, Barry, 2013. "Optimal resource allocation in survey designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 115-121.
    21. Melanie Revilla & Jan Karem Höhne & Tobias Rettig, 2023. "Differences in measurement quality depending on recall: results for a question about trust in the parliament," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2125-2146, June.
    22. 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, Sciendo, vol. 36(3), pages 675-701, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: 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:hhs:oruesi:2025_003. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieoruse.html .

    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.