Gewichtung und Integration von Auffrischungsstichproben am Beispiel des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP)

Chapter
Part of the Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute book series (SASI)

Zusammenfassung

In prospektiven Panelstudien wie dem Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP) gibt es im Grundsatz zwei Argumente, die eine Integration von neuen Stichproben sinnvoll erscheinen lassen. Zum einen sollen diese neuen Stichproben, die ab der zweiten Welle gezogen und in die laufende Stichprobe der ersten Welle integriert werden, ausgefallene Untersuchungseinheiten ersetzen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. AAPOR (2001). Standard Definitions. Final Dispositions of Case codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Revised 2011.Google Scholar
  2. De Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J., & Huisman M. (2003). Prevention and Treatment of Item Nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics 19 (2), 153–176.Google Scholar
  3. Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). On a Least Squares Adjustment of a Sampled Frequency Table When the Expected Marginal Totals are Known. Journal of the American Statistical Association 35, 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng, Y., Hillygus, D. S., Reiter, J. P., Si, Y., & Zheng, S. (2013). Handling Attrition in Longitudinal Studies: The Case for Refreshment Samples. Statistical Science 28 (2), 238–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deville, J.-C., Särndal, C.-E., & Sautory, O. (1993). Generalized Raking Procedures in Survey Sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 (423), 1013–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorsett, R. (2010). Adjusting for nonignorable sample attrition using survey substitutes identified by propensity score matching: An empirical investigation using labour market data. Journal of Official Statistics 26, 105–125.Google Scholar
  7. Goebel, J., Grabka, M., Krause, P., Kroh, M., Pischner, R., Sieber, I., & Spiess, M. (2008). Mikrodaten, Gewichtung und Datenstruktur der Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP). In J. Frick, O. Groh- Samberg, J. Schupp & K. Spiess (Hrsg.), Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 3. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  8. Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5), 646–675.Google Scholar
  9. Haisken-DeNew, J. P., & Frick, J. R. (2005). DTC Desktop Companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Version 8.0 Dec 2005, Updated to Wave 21 (U).Google Scholar
  10. Hausman, J. A., & Wise, D. A. (1979). Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment. Econometrica 47, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., Ridder, G., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Combining Panel Data Sets With Attrition And Refreshment Samples. Econometrica 69 (6), 1645–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement From a Finite Universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47 (206), 663–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalton, G., & Flores-Cervantes, I. (2003). Weighting Methods. Journal of Official Statistics 19, 81–97.Google Scholar
  15. Kalton, G., & Kasprzyk, D. (1986). The Treatment of Missing Survey Data. Survey Methodology 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  16. Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959). A „Replacement“ Procedure for Reducing the Bias of Nonresponse. The American Statistician 13, 17–19.Google Scholar
  17. Kish, L (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Kish, L. (1992). Weighting for Unequal. Journal of Official Statistics 8 (2), 183–200.Google Scholar
  19. Kim, J. K., & Kim, J. J. (2007). Nonresponse weighting adjustment using estimated response probability. Canadian Journal of Statistics 35, 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kroh, M., Pischner, R., Spiess, M., & Wagner, G. G. (2008). On the Treatment of Non-Original Sample Members in the German Household Panel Study (SOEP): Tracing, Weighting, and Frequencies. Methoden, Daten, Analysen. Zeitschrift für Empirische Sozialforschung 2, 179–198.Google Scholar
  21. Kroh, M. (2014). Documentation of sample sizes and panel attrition in the German Socio Economic Panel (SOEP) (1984 until 2012). SOEP Survey Papers 177: Series D. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.Google Scholar
  22. Kroh, M., Käppner, K., & Kühne, S. (2014b). Sampling, Nonresponse and Weighting in the 2011 and 2012 Refreshment Samples J and K of the German Socio-Economic Panel. DIW Survey Papers (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Kroh, M., Goebel, J., Kühne, S., & Preu, F. (2015). The 2013 SOEP-IAB Migration Sample (M): Sampling Design and Weighting Adjustment. DIW Data Documentation (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Little, J. J. A., & Rubin, D. A. (2002). Statistial Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Lohr, S. L. (2009). Sampling: Design and Analysis. 2nd edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Lynn, P., & Kaminska, O. (2010). Weighting strategy for Understanding Society (No. 2010–05). Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.Google Scholar
  27. Patterson, H. D. (1950). Sampling on successive occasions with partial replacement of units. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 12, 241–255.Google Scholar
  28. Pischner, R. (1994). Quer- und Längsschnittgewichtung des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. In S. Gabler, J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik & D. Krebs (Hrsg.), Gewichtung in der Umfragepraxis (S. 166–187). Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rendtel, U. (1995). Lebenslagen im Wandel: Panelausfälle und Panelrepräsentativität (Vol. 8). Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Royston, P. (2009). Multiple imputation of missing values: Further update of ice, with an emphasis on categorical variables. The Stata Journal 9 (3), 466–477.Google Scholar
  32. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63 (3), 581–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Särndal, C. E., Swensson, B., & Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schnell, R. (2012). Survey-Interviews. Methoden standardisierter Befragungen. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Schnell, R., & Kreuter, F. (2005). Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. Journal of Official Statistics 21 (3), 389–410.Google Scholar
  36. Schräpler, J.-P., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2010). Individual and Neighborhood Determinants of Survey Nonresponse. SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 288. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.Google Scholar
  37. Schonlau, M., Watson, N., & Kroh, M. (2011). Household Survey Panels: How Much do Following Rules Affect Sample Size? Survey Research Methods 5, 53–61.Google Scholar
  38. Schonlau, M., Kroh, M., & Watson, N. (2013). The Implementation of Cross- Sectional Weights in Household Panel Surveys. Statistics Surveys 7, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schröder, M., Siegers, R., & Spiess, C. K. (2013). Familien in Deutschland- FiD. Schmollers Jahrbuch 133, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (1995). Die Zuwanderer-Stichprobe des Soziooekonomischen Panels (SOEP). Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 64 (1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  41. Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin 46 (2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Statistisches Bundesamt (2013a). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit. Haushalte und Familien – Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus. Fachserie 1 Reihe 3. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  43. Statistisches Bundesamt (2013b). Mikrozensus 2012. Qualitätsbericht. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  44. TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2013). SOEP 2012– Methodenbericht zum Befragungsjahr 2012 (Welle 29) des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. SOEP Survey Papers 144: Series B. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.Google Scholar
  45. Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) – Scope, Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch 127 (1), 139–169.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, N. (2012). Longitudinal and cross-sectional weighting methodology for the HILDA Survey.Google Scholar
  47. Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2011). Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience. SOEPpapers 379. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIW BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations