IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/unasrr/322826.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subsampling of Nonrespondents in the 2017 Census of Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Reist, Benjamin M.
  • Rodhouse, Joseph B.
  • Ball, Shane T.
  • Young, Linda J.

Abstract

Excerpts from the report Introduction: As response rates decline, the costs associated with how the survey will be designed, conducted and analyzed to ensure the creditability of results increase. Data collection becomes more difficult and costly, and questions are raised about the best way to address the increased nonresponse bias due to low participation rates. The following report provides an in-depth overview of NASS’s subsampling design to address nonresponse in the 2017 Census of Agriculture. The theory and methodology of subsampling in the survey methodological literature is presented, as well as examples of large, nationally representative sample surveys and censuses that use subsampling to improve response and quality metrics. The subsampling method developed by NASS and the conclusions drawn from this inaugural effort are detailed near the end of the report.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:unasrr:322826
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.322826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/322826/files/2017Census-Sub-Sampling.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.322826?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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang & Alfaro-Inocente, Adriana & Bastola, Sapana, 2020. "Payment versus Charitable Donations to Attract Producer Survey Participation," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304329, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Brick J. Michael, 2013. "Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 329-353, June.
    15. Siu-Ming Tam & Frederic Clarke, 2015. "Big Data, Official Statistics and Some Initiatives by the Australian Bureau of Statistics," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 83(3), pages 436-448, December.
    16. repec:iab:iabfda:201307(en is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Böhme, Marcus & Stöhr, Tobias, 2012. "Guidelines for the use of household interview duration analysis in CAPI survey management," Kiel Working Papers 1779, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Lynn, Peter, 2014. "Targeted initial letters to longitudinal survey sample members: effects on response rates, response speed, and sample composition," Understanding Society Working Paper Series 2014-08, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    21. Mario Callegaro & Charlotte Steeh & Trent D. Buskirk & Vasja Vehovar & Vesa Kuusela & Linda Piekarski, 2007. "Fitting disposition codes to mobile phone surveys: experiences from studies in Finland, Slovenia and the USA," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 647-670, July.

    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:ags:unasrr:322826. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nass.usda.gov/ .

    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.