Skip to main content

Mixed-Mode Surveys: Nonresponse and Measurement Errors

I've been away from the blog for a while, but I'm back. One of the things that I did during my hiatus from the blog was to read papers on mixed-mode surveys. In most of these surveys, there are nonresponse biases and measurement biases that vary across the modes. These errors are almost always confounded. An important exception is Olson's paper. In that paper, she had gold standard data that allowed her to look at both error sources. Absent those gold standard data, there are limits on what can be done.

I read a number of interesting papers, but my main conclusion was that we need to make some assumptions in order to motivate any analysis. For example, one approach is to build nonresponse adjustments for each of the modes, and then argue that any differences remaining are measurement biases. Without such an assumption, not much can be said about either error source. Experimental designs certainly strengthen these assumptions, but do not completely unconfound the sources of error.

Having said that, gold standard studies, like Olson's, are an important step to test the validity of these kinds of assumptions. It seems that more such studies, focused on disentangling at least two error sources, would be very useful.




Labels:

Comments

  1. www.peterlugtig.comJanuary 19, 2015 at 10:09 AM

    I can recommend the work of my colleague Jorre Vannieuwenhuyze. He laid out several methods to disentangle such errors. http://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=ekOuDiwAAAAJ&hl=nl

    ReplyDelete
  2. James WagnerJanuary 21, 2015 at 9:32 PM

    Thanks! I'm familiar with his work. My point is that we need some assumptions to motivate any such method. There isn't any magic available!

    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

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
4 comments
Read more