Skip to main content

Baby and the Bathwater

This post is a follow-up on my last. Since my last post, I came across an interesting article at Survey Practice. I'm really pleased to see this article, since this is a discussion we really need to have. The article, by Koen Beullens and Geert Loosveldt, presents the results of a simulation study on the impact of using different indicators to govern data collection. In other words, the simulate the consequences of maximizing different indicators in data collection. The three indicators are the response rate, the R-Indicator (Schouten, et al., 2009), and the maximal bias (also developed by Schouten et al. 2009). The simulation shows a situation where you would get a different result from maximizing either of the latter two indicators compared to when you maximize the response rate. Maximizing the R-Indicator, for example, led to a slightly lower response rate than the data collection strategy that maximizes the response rate.

This is an interesting simulation. It pretty clearly explores the distortions that can occur when maximizing the response rate is the goal.

However, I don't see it as convincing evidence that we should radically change our data collection procedures. As I mentioned in my last post, I wouldn't want anyone to conclude that lowering response rates is always OK. The problem is certainly more complicated than that.I would contend that we need experimental evidence regarding the impact of using other indicators to guide data collection.

In the first instance, data collection is such a complex activity that it is impossible to describe all the 'essential features' of any design. It's even more difficult to understand the impact of all these choices. Before changing those practices, we should understand the consequences of doing so. We wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. In my mind, that requires experimental evidence.

It is also the case that each of the indicators proposed has weaknesses. If the model underlying the R-Indicator is misspecified, this could lead to inefficient or even bias-increasing actions. It would be good to understand when and how this might happen -- and what protections against this we might develop. My view is that this will require a constellation of indicators that tell an underlying story.

The good news is that this would require the work of many survey methodologists.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Assessment of Maching Learning Classifiers

I heard another interesting episode of the Data Skeptic podcast . They were discussing how a classifier could be assessed (episode 121). Many machine learning models are so complex that a human being can't really interpret the meaning of the model. This can lead to problems. They gave an example of a problem where they had a bunch of posts from two discussion boards. One was atheist and the other board was composed of Christians. They tried to classify each post as being from one or the other board. There was one poster who posted heavily on the Christian board. His name was Keith. Sadly, the model learned that if the person who was posting was named Keith, then they were Christian. The problem is that this isn't very useful for prediction. It's an artifact of the input data. Even cross-validation would eliminate this problem. A human being can see the issue, but a model can't. In any event, the proposed solution was to build interpretable models in local areas of t...
3 comments
Read more

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 f...
1 comment
Read more