Hazards of analyzing call records

I've been worrying about how to use information about the number of calls in propensity models for a while. To me, it seems that you shouldn't expect simple, linear relationships between the number of calls and the propensity of response. The distance between 1 and 2 calls, is greater than the distance between 12 and 13 calls. Maybe some kind of transformation (natural logarithm) can patch that up.

But I recently saw a presentation (at the International Statistical Institute conference in Dublin) by Paul Biemer, Patrick Chen, and Kevin Wang from RTI. They found that there were reporting errors in the call records. Interviewers didn't record when they drove by housing units and saw that no one was home. They also sometimes didn't record calls since they had limits on the number of calls they could place on any housing unit. I'm sure these errors are endemic in many/all face-to-face surveys. Biemer and his colleagues also demonstrated how these errors can bias results that use the call records for adjustment purposes. Ouch.

This is very useful to know. But it also opens up another can of worms. My first question is, what's going to be easier? Improving call records, or developing more complex models involving call records that account for measurement error?

Comments

Tailoring vs. Targeting

One of the chapters in a recent book on surveying hard-to-reach populations looks at "targeting and tailoring" survey designs. The chapter references this paper on the use of the terms among those who design health communication. I thought the article was an interesting one. They start by saying that "one way to classify message strategies like tailoring is by the level of specificity with which characteristics of the target audience are reflected in the the communication." That made sense. There is likely a continuum of specificity ranging from complete non-differentiation across units to nearly individualized. But then the authors break that continuum and try to define a "fundamental" difference between tailoring and targeting. They say targeting is for some subgroup while tailoring is to the characteristics of the individual. That sounds good, but at least for surveys, I'm not sure the distinction holds. In survey design, what would constitute

What is Data Quality, and How to Enhance it in Research

We often talk about “data quality” or “data integrity” when we are discussing the collection or analysis of one type of data or another. Yet, the definition of these terms might be unclear, or they may vary across different contexts. In any event, the terms are somewhat abstract -- which can make it difficult, in practice, to improve. That is, we need to know what we are describing with those terms, before we can improve them. Over the last two years, we have been developing a course on Total Data Quality , soon to be available on Coursera. We start from an error classification scheme adopted by survey methodology many years ago. Known as the “Total Survey Error” perspective, it focuses on the classification of errors into measurement and representation dimensions. One goal of our course is to expand this classification scheme from survey data to other types of data. The figure shows the classification scheme as we have modified it to include both survey data and organic forms of d

An Experimental Adaptive Contact Strategy

I'm running an experiment on contact methods in a telephone survey. I'm going to present the results of the experiment at the FCSM conference in November. Here's the basic idea. Multi-level models are fit daily with the household being a grouping factor. The models provide household-specific estimates of the probability of contact for each of four call windows. The predictor variables in this model are the geographic context variables available for an RDD sample. Let $\mathbf{X_{ij}}$ denote a $k_j \times 1$ vector of demographic variables for the $i^{th}$ person and $j^{th}$ call. The data records are calls. There may be zero, one, or multiple calls to household in each window. The outcome variable is an indicator for whether contact was achieved on the call. This contact indicator is denoted $R_{ijl}$ for the $i^{th}$ person on the $j^{th}$ call to the $l^{th}$ window. Then for each of the four call windows denoted $l$, a separate model is fit where each household is assu

Survey Methods Musings

Search This Blog