Survey Methods Musings

One issue that we have been discussing is indicators for the risk of nonresponse bias. There are some indicators that use observed information (i.e. largely sampling frame data) to determine whether respondents and nonrespondents are similar. The R-Indicator is an example of this type of indicator. It's not the only one. There are several sample balance indicators. There is an implicit model that the observed characteristics are related to the survey data and controlling for them will, therefore, also control the potential for nonresponse bias. Another indicator uses the observed data, including the observed survey data, and a model to fill in the missing survey data. The goal here is to predict whether nonresponse bias is likely to occur. Here, the model is explicit. An issue that impacts either of these approaches is that if you are able to predict the survey variables with the sampling frame data, then why bother addressing imbalances on them during data collection? One answ...

I have been talking to undergraduates about survey methodology. The students I talk to have learned either some social research methods or statistics. I think that many are interested in data science and/or big data. From these conversations, I found it was useful to describe survey methodologists as "data quality specialists." Survey methodology is not a field that most undergraduates are even aware of. But when I started talking about how we evaluate the quality of data, I could see ears perking up. It reinforced for me the idea that the Total Survey Error perspective is valuable for Big Data .We can talk about nonresponse and measurement error in a coherent way. Raising questions about the quality of the data, the need to understand the processes that generated those data, and methods for evaluation of the data were all ideas that seemed to resonate with undergraduates... well, at least some. It was energizing and exciting to speak with them. Hopefully they bring that ...

A recent article by Brick and Tourangeau re-examines the data from a paper by Groves and Peytcheva (2008). The original analyses from Groves and Peytcheva were based upon 959 estimates with known variables measured on 59 surveys with varying response rates. They found very little correlation between the response rate and the bias on those 959 estimates. Brick and Tourangeau view the problem as a multi-level problem of 59 clusters (i.e. surveys) of the 959 estimates. They created for each survey a composite score based on all the bias estimates from each survey. Their results were somewhat sensitive to how the composite score was created. They do present several different ways of doing this -- simple mean, mean weighted by sample size, mean weighted by the number of estimates. Each of these study-level composite bias scores is more correlated with the response rate. They conclude: "This strongly suggests that nonresponse bias is partly a function of study-level characteristics; ...

Susan Murphy's work on dynamic treatment regimes had a big impact on me as I was working on my dissertation. I was very excited about the prospect of learning from the paradata. I did a lot of work on trying to identify the best next step based on analysis of the history of a case. Two examples were 1) choosing the lag before the next call and the incentive, and 2) the timing of the next call. At this point, I'm a little less sure of the utility of the approach for those settings. In those settings, where I was looking at call record paradata, I think the paradata are not at all correlated with most survey outcomes. So it's difficult to identify strategies that will do anything but improve efficiency. That is, changes in strategies based on analysis of call records aren't very likely to change estimates. Still, I think there are some areas where the dynamic treatment regime approach can be useful. The first is mode switching. Modes are powerful, and offering them i...

The title of this post is a paraphrase of a saying coined by Tolstoi. " Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." I'm stealing the concept to think about survey respondents.  To simplify discussion, I'll focus on two extremes. Some people are easy respondents. No matter what we do, no matter how poorly conceived, they will respond. Other people are difficult respondents. I would argue that these latter respondents are heterogenous with respect to the impact of different survey designs on them. That is, they might be more likely to respond under one design relative to another. Further, the most effective design will vary from person to person within this difficult group.  It sounds simple enough, but we don't often carry this idea into practice. For example, we often estimate a single response propensity, label a subset with low estimated propensities as difficult, and then give them all some extra thing (often more money). ...

It seems that intensive measurement is on the rise. There are a number of different kinds of things that are difficult to recall sufficiently over longer periods of time where it might be preferred to ask the question more frequently with a shorter reference period. For example, the number of alcoholic drinks consumed by day. More accurate measurements might be achieved if the questions was asked daily about the previous 24 hour period. But what is the right period of time? And how do you determine that? This might be an interesting question. The studies I've seen tend to guess at what the correct periodicity is. I think it's probably the case that it would require some experimentation to determine that, including experimentation in the lab. There are a couple of interesting wrinkles to this problem. 1. How do you set the periodicity when you measure several things that might have different periodicity? Ask the questions at the most frequent periodicity? 2. How does non...

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...

A few years ago, I was presenting at a conference of substantive experts. I gave an update on a progress on a survey of interest to this group. I talked about how nonresponse bias can be complex, and that the response rate might not be a good predictor of when this bias occurs -- based on Groves and Peytcheva . I was speaking with one of the researchers after my presentation, and I was surprised to hear her say that she interpreted my comments to mean that "response rates don't matter." Although that interpretation makes sense, it hadn't really occurred to me in that way until she said it. Since then, it seems like we've seen a lot of published papers and conference presentation where lowering the response rate becomes a tactic for improving the survey. Most studies taking this tactic lower the response rates for groups that tend to respond at higher rates. The purported benefit is  response set balance on known characteristics from the sampling frame is improve...

A case can be made that balanced response -- that is, achieving similar response rates across all the subgroups that can be defined using sampling frame and paradata -- will improve the quality of survey data. A paper that I was co-author on used simulation with real survey data to show that actions that improved the balance of response usually led to reduced bias in adjusted estimates. I believe the case is an empirical one. We need more studies to speak more generally about how and when this might be true. On the other hand, I worry that studies that seek balance by reducing response rates (for high-responding groups) might create some issues. I see two types of problems. First, low response rates are generally easier to achieve. It takes skills and effort to achieve high response rates. The ability to obtain high response rates, like any muscle, might be lost if it is not used. Second, if these studies justify the lower response rate by saying that estimates are not significantly ...

We talk a lot about response propensities. I'm starting to think we actually create a lot of confusion for ourselves by the way we sometimes have these discussions. First, there is a distinction between an actual and an estimated propensity. This distinction is important as our models are almost always misspecified. It is probably the case that important predictors are never observed -- for example, the mental state of the sampled person at the moment that we happen to contact them. So that the estimated propensity and true propensity are different things. The model selection choices we make can, therefore, have something of an arbitrary flavor to them. I think the choices we make should depend on the purpose of the model. We examined in a recent paper on nonresponse weighting whether call record information, especially the number of calls and refusal indicators, were useful predictors of response propensities for this purpose. It turns out that these variables were strong predic...

I found this interesting article about using survey data to uncover missing data in big data. The big data are electronic medical records, which are cheap to analyze, but have important gaps. These folks used a survey to assess the gaps.

Just a short blog post. I recently attended the 4th Workshop on Adaptive and Responsive Survey Design . There were many good papers delivered at this workshop. There was a particular focus on Bayesian approaches to the estimation of survey design parameters or paradata modeling. The link has some of the slides and papers.

I've been reading a bit on mixed-mode surveys. I've noticed several discussions of web surveys and coverage error. This is a relatively recent mode, and one of the key issues has been to what extent the population has access to the internet. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can't complete a web survey. Everyone agrees upon that. But how do we describe the source of this error? Is it coverage or nonresponse error? In my mind, coverage error is a property of the sampling frame. If the unit is not on the sampling frame, then it is not covered. But many web surveys are general population surveys that don't have a tight association with a frame. That is, since there is not "internet" sampling frame in the way we have RDD or area probability samples. Many surveys start today from ABS sampling and then might do telephone, mail, web, or mixed-mode designs. In this case, a lack of internet access is an impediment to responding and not an imp...

I've seen several studies that examine whether "balancing response" with respect to a set of covariates available on the frame can lead to reductions in nonresponse bias. Most of the studies indicate that more balanced response is associated with less nonresponse bias. However, there is a strategy for balancing response that worries me a bit -- reducing the response rates of the groups that have the highest response rates and, thereby, reducing the overall response rate. Why does this worry me? Several reasons. First, when does this work? We have some studies that show reductions in bias. The studies that show increases in bias might be suppressed due to publication bias. So, how are we supposed to know when it works and when it doesn't? Second, it's easy to reduce response rates. It's harder to raise them. What's worse, once we reduce response rates, how do we ever get back the skills required for obtaining higher response rates. Maybe we are simp...

I saw this paper recently that talked about how to measure and evaluate nonresponse to surveys that use short, frequently-administered instruments ("measurement-burst survey"). I've been working on a problem with data like these for a while. A complication was that the questionnaire changed based upon the intervals between measurements. For example, questions might begin, "Since you last completed this survey..." or "in the last two weeks..." depending upon the situation. Plus, panel members could choose to respond at different intervals, even though they were asked to respond at a specified interval. This made for a complex pattern of missing data. I ended up defining attrition in several ways.  The most useful was to lay out a grid over time. The survey was designed to be taken weekly, so I looked at each week over the time period to see if any reporting occured. This allowed me to how many cells in the grid were missing. But even that wasn...

A colleague sent me a link to a blog arguing that the "long survey" is dead. The blog takes the point of view that anything over 20 minutes is long. There's also a link to another blog that presents data from survey monkey surveys showing that the longer the questionnaire, the less time that is spent on each question. They don't really control for question length, etc. But it's still suggestive. In my world 20 minutes is still a short survey. But the point is still taken. There has been some research on the effect of survey length (announced) on response rates. There probably is need for more. Still, it might be time to start thinking of alternatives to improve response to long surveys. The most common is to offer a higher incentive, and thereby counteract the burden of the longer survey. Another alternative is to shorten the survey. This doesn't work if your questions are the ones getting tossed. Of course, substituting big data for elements of surveys is...

This seems to come up in a number of different ways frequently. We talk a lot about nonresponse and how it may be a selective process such that it produces biases. We might try to model this process in order to correct these biases. Online panels and 'big data' like twitter have their own selection processes. It seems that it would be important to understand these processes. Can they be captured with simple demographics? If not, what else do we need to know? I think we have done some work on survey nonresponse. I'm not sure what is known about online panels or twitter relative to this question.

I conducted a webinar on responsive design this week. I had several interesting questions. One of these was a question about responsive design and quota sampling.  The question was whether these two approaches are, in fact, different? Of course, there are similarities in that the response process is being controlled -- somewhat -- by the researchers. And this may lead to "allocating" nonresponse to some groups over others. For example, if some group is responding at higher rates, we might allocate resources to the lower responding group. Quota sampling will stop data collection for groups that have reached their quota. There are differences, however. Responsive design attempts to provide balanced response, but doesn't necessarily force that to happen. Further, responsive design is attempting to control the data collection process using a variety of approaches. Quota sampling only has one approach -- stop when the quota is full.  I do worry that there may be a conver...

In Groves and Heeringa 's original formulation, responsive design proceeds in phases. They define these phases as: "A design phase is a time period of a data collection during which the same set of sampling frame, mode of data collection, sample design, recruitment protocols and measurement conditions are extant." (page 440). These responsive design phases are different than the two-phase sampling defined by Hansen and Hurwitz. Hansen and Hurwitz assumed 100% response so there was no nonresponse bias.  There two-phase sampling was all about minimizing variance for a fixed budget.  Groves and Heeringa, on the other hand, live in a world where nonresponse does occur.  They seek to control it through phases that recruit complementary groups of respondents. The goal is that the nonresponse biases from each phase will cancel each other out. The focus on bias is a new feature relative to Hansen and Hurwitz.  A question in my mind about the phases is how the...

I read this very interesting blog post by Peter Lugtig yesterday. The slides from the talk he describes are also linked to the post. He builds on an analysis of classes of nonresponders. Several distinct patterns of nonresponse are identified. The characteristics of persons in each class are then described. For example, some drop out early, some "lurk" around the survey, some stay more or less permanently. He suggests that it might be smart to identify design features that are effective for each of the groups and then tailor these features to the subgroups in an adaptive design. This makes a lot of sense. And panel studies are an attractive place to start doing this kind of work. In the panel setting, there is a lot more data available on cases. This can help in identifying subgroups. And, with repeated trials of the protocol, it may be possible to improve outcomes (response) over time. I think the hard part is creating the groups. This reminds me of a problem that I read...