IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fubsbe/20224.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the fade-away of an initial bias in longitudinal surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Rendtel, Ulrich
  • Alho, Juha M.

Abstract

We propose a novel view of selection bias in longitudinal surveys. Such bias may arise from initial nonresponse in a probability sample, or it may be caused by self-selection in an internet survey. A contraction theorem from mathematical demography is used to show that an initial bias can "fade-away" in later panel waves, if the transition laws in the observed sample and the population are identical. Panel attrition is incorporated into the Markovian framework. Extensions to Markov chains of higher order are given, and the limitations of our approach under population heterogeneity are discussed. We use empirical data from a German Labour Market Panel to demonstrate the extend and speed of the fade-away effect. The implications of the new approach on the treatment of nonresponse, and attrition weighting, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Rendtel, Ulrich & Alho, Juha M., 2022. "On the fade-away of an initial bias in longitudinal surveys," Discussion Papers 2022/4, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fubsbe:20224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/251119/1/1793845239.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magdalena Smyk & Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas van der Velde, 2021. "A Cautionary Note on the Reliability of the Online Survey Data: The Case of Wage Indicator," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 429-464, February.
    2. John Fitzgerald & Peter Gottschalk & Robert Moffitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 251-299.
    3. Christian Dudel, 2021. "Expanding the Markov Chain Toolbox: Distributions of Occupation Times and Waiting Times," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 401-428, February.
    4. Jelke Bethlehem, 2010. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(2), pages 161-188, August.
    5. Rendtel, Ulrich & Basic, Edin, 2007. "Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German microcensus panel: an evaluation using data from the socio-economic panel," Discussion Papers 2007/6, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    6. Niels Keiding & Thomas A. Louis, 2016. "Perils and potentials of self-selected entry to epidemiological studies and surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(2), pages 319-376, February.
    7. Edin Basic & Ulrich Rendtel, 2007. "Assessing the bias due to non-coverage of residential movers in the German Microcensus Panel: an evaluation using data from the Socio-Economic Panel," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 91(3), pages 311-334, October.
    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. Walter Krämer, 2019. "Interview mit Ulrich Rendtel," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 13(2), pages 179-187, September.
    2. Sören Pannier & Ulrich Rendtel & Hartmut Gerks, 2020. "Die Prognose von Studienerfolg und Studienabbruch auf Basis von Umfrage- und administrativen Prüfungsdaten," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 14(3), pages 225-266, December.
    3. David J. Hand, 2018. "Statistical challenges of administrative and transaction data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 555-605, June.
    4. Patrick Richard & Regine Walker & Pierre Alexandre, 2018. "The burden of out of pocket costs and medical debt faced by households with chronic health conditions in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Benson, Rebecca & von Hippel, Paul T. & Lynch, Jamie L., 2018. "Does more education cause lower BMI, or do lower-BMI individuals become more educated? Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 370-377.
    6. Haiyang Lu & Peng Nie & Alfonso Sousa-Poza, 2021. "The Effect of Parental Educational Expectations on Adolescent Subjective Well-Being and the Moderating Role of Perceived Academic Pressure: Longitudinal Evidence for China," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(1), pages 117-137, February.
    7. Ramón Ferri-García & María del Mar Rueda, 2022. "Variable selection in Propensity Score Adjustment to mitigate selection bias in online surveys," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 63(6), pages 1829-1881, December.
    8. Islam, Asadul & Nguyen, Chau & Smyth, Russell, 2015. "Does microfinance change informal lending in village economies? Evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 141-156.
    9. Harsha Thirumurthy & Joshua Graff Zivin & Markus Goldstein, 2008. "The Economic Impact of AIDS Treatment: Labor Supply in Western Kenya," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(3), pages 511-552.
    10. Fitch-Fleischmann, Benjamin & Kresch, Evan Plous, 2021. "Story of the hurricane: Government, NGOs, and the difference in disaster relief targeting," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Martin, Molly A. & Lippert, Adam M., 2012. "Feeding her children, but risking her health: The intersection of gender, household food insecurity and obesity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(11), pages 1754-1764.
    12. Yoko Kijima, 2022. "Effect of Nigeria’s e-voucher input subsidy program on fertilizer use, rice production, and household income," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(4), pages 919-935, August.
    13. Saul D. Hoffman & E. Michael Foster, 2000. "AFDC Benefits and Nonmarital Births to Young Women," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 35(2), pages 376-391.
    14. Dmytro Hryshko, 2012. "Labor income profiles are not heterogeneous: Evidence from income growth rates," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), pages 177-209, July.
    15. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder & Donald B. Rubin, 2001. "Combining Panel Data Sets with Attrition and Refreshment Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1645-1659, November.
    17. Jung, Suhyun & Hajjar, Reem, 2023. "The livelihood impacts of transnational aid for climate change mitigation: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    18. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    19. Terence C. Cheng & Pravin K. Trivedi, 2015. "Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing? A Case Study Based on the Mabel Survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1101-1117, September.
    20. Lorraine Dearden & Leslie McGranahan & Leslie McGranahan & Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "Returns to Education for the Marginal Learner: Evidence from the BCS70," CEE Discussion Papers 0045, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.

    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:zbw:fubsbe:20224. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwfubde.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.