Abstract
Non-response bias has long been a concern for surveys, even more so over the past decades with the increasing decline of the response rates. A similar problem concerns the surveys based on non-representative samples, the convenience and cost-effectiveness of which has increased with the recent technological innovations that allow for collecting large numbers of highly non-representative samples via online surveys. In both cases it must be assumed that the bias is the result of a self-selection process and, for both, quality indicators are needed to measure the impact of this process. The goal of this research is to show the opportunity in each survey of monitoring the risk of self-selection bias at two different level: at the level of the whole survey and at the level of each statistic of interest. The combined use of two indicators is suggested and empirically evaluated under various scenarios.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Cocran, W.G.: The planning of observational studies of human populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 128, 234–255 (1965)
Curtin, R., Presser, S., Singer, E.: The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opin. Q. 64, 413–428 (2000)
Ehrenberg, A.S.C.: Data Reduction; Analysing and Interpreting Statistical Data. Wiley, New York (1975)
Groves, R.M., Peytcheva, E.: The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opin. Q. 72, 167–189 (2008)
Kim, J.K., Kim, J.J.: Nonresponse weigthing adjustment usuing estimated response probabilitties. Can. J. Stat. 35, 501–514 (2007)
Kruskal, W., Mosteller, F.: Representative sampling III: Current statistical literature. Int. Stat. Rev. 47, 111–123 (1979)
Little, R.J.A., Rubin, D.B.: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edn. Wiley, NJ (2002)
Little, R.J.A., Vartivarian, S.: Does weighting for nonresponse increase the variance of survey mean. Surv. Meth. 31, 161–168 (2005)
Olson, K.: Survey partecipation, nonresponse bias, measurement error bias and total bias. Public Opin. Q. 70, 737–758 (2006)
Rocco, E.: Using auxiliary information and nonparametric methods in weigthing adjustments. In: Torelli, N., et al. (eds.) Advanced in Theorethical and Applied Statistics, Studies in Theorethical and Applied Statistics, pp. 193–302. Springer, Berlin (2013)
Schouten, B., Cobben, F., Betleehem, J.: Indicators for the representativeness of survey response. Surv. Meth. 35, 101–113 (2009)
Shlomo, N., Skinner, C., Schouten, B.: Estimation of an indicator for the representativeness of survey response. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 142, 201–211 (2012)
Wagner, J.: A comparison of althernative indicators for the risk of nonresponsebias. Public Opin. Q. 76, 555–575 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rocco, E. (2019). Indicators for Monitoring the Survey Data Quality When Non-response or a Convenience Sample Occurs. In: Petrucci, A., Racioppi, F., Verde, R. (eds) New Statistical Developments in Data Science. SIS 2017. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 288. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21158-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21158-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21157-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21158-5
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)