Skip to main content

Better to Adjust with Weights, or Adjust Data Collection?

My feeling is that this is a big question facing our field. In my view, we need both of these to be successful.

The argument runs something like this. If you are going to use those variables (frame data and paradata) for your nonresponse adjustments, then why bother using them to alter your data collection? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use them in your adjustment strategy?

There are several arguments that can be used when facing these kinds of questions. The main point I want to make here is that I believe that this is an empirical question. Let's call X my frame variable and Y the survey outcome variable. If I assume that the relationship between X and Y is the same no matter what the response rate for categories of X, then, sure, it might be cheaper to adjust. But that doesn't seem to be true very often. And that is an empirical question.

There are two ways to examine this question. [Well, whenever someone says definitively there are "two ways of doing something," in my head, I'm thinking "at least two ways."] First, use existing data and simulate adjusted estimates at different response rates. Second, run an experiment. Compare the two methods. I think we actually need both of these things. It is an important question. We might as well be thorough in our research aimed at understanding it.
Labels:

Comments

  1. RaphaelAugust 1, 2014 at 12:20 PM

    Shouldn't the question be: does adjusting data collection bring any improvements over just adjusting with weights? After all, just using weighting adjustment is most likely always cheaper than adjusting data collection, isn't it?

    I think still don't understand your point about this being an empirical question. If the relationship between X and Y is the same, no matter what response rate for categories of X, then adjusting the data collection won't bring any other benefits that weighting adjustments will. Otherwise, adjusting data collection might bring additional advantages. I understand that whether the assumption is correct or not is an empirical question, but in my view this is a question that the survey designer/analyst should answer for his/her own survey and variables. So, what I mean is, as survey methodologists, we should show in which situations adjusting the data collection or just using weights is more beneficial. Then, the practitioners should check in their own surveys in which conditions they fit better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James WagnerAugust 1, 2014 at 4:04 PM

    I agree that we would almost always want to adjust. I would say, on the other hand, that adjusting data collection might actually save costs. Groves and Heeringa had examples like that. And the title says controlling Costs and errors.

    Yes, the assumption has to be verified. My guess, most of the time, we could benefit from adjusting data collection.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...
36 comments
Read more

"Responsive Design" and "Adaptive Design"

My dissertation was entitled "Adaptive Survey Design to Reduce Nonresponse Bias." I had been working for several years on "responsive designs" before that. As I was preparing my dissertation, I really saw "adaptive" design as a subset of responsive design. Since then, I've seen both terms used in different places. As both terms are relatively new, there is likely to be confusion about the meanings. I thought I might offer my understanding of the terms, for what it's worth. The term "responsive design" was developed by Groves and Heeringa (2006) . They coined the term, so I think their definition is the one that should be used. They defined "responsive design" in the following way: 1. Preidentify a set of design features that affect cost and error tradeoffs. 2. Identify indicators for these costs and errors. Monitor these during data collection. 3. Alter the design features based on pre-identified decision rules based on ...
7 comments
Read more

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 f...
2 comments
Read more