Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization

How response rates are increased can determine the remaining nonresponse bias in estimates. Studies often target sample members that are most likely to be interviewed to maximize response rates. Instead, we suggest targeting likely nonrespondents from the onset of a study with a different protocol t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andy Peytchev, Sarah Riley, Jeff Rosen, Joe Murphy, Mark Lindblad
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: European Survey Research Association 2010-05-01
Series:Survey Research Methods
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/3037
id doaj-726155480c814e839295766860d5df4e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-726155480c814e839295766860d5df4e2020-11-25T00:24:14ZengEuropean Survey Research AssociationSurvey Research Methods1864-33611864-33612010-05-0141212910.18148/srm/2010.v4i1.30374134Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case PrioritizationAndy Peytchev0Sarah Riley1Jeff Rosen2Joe Murphy3Mark Lindblad4RTI InternationalUniversity of North CarolinaRTI InternationalRTI InternationalUniversity of North CarolinaHow response rates are increased can determine the remaining nonresponse bias in estimates. Studies often target sample members that are most likely to be interviewed to maximize response rates. Instead, we suggest targeting likely nonrespondents from the onset of a study with a different protocol to minimize nonresponse bias. To inform the targeting of sample members, various sources of information can be utilized: paradata collected by interviewers, demographic and substantive survey data from prior waves, and administrative data. Using these data, the likelihood of any sample member becoming a nonrespondent is estimated and on those sample cases least likely to respond, a more effective, often more costly, survey protocol can be employed to gain respondent cooperation. This paper describes the two components of this approach to reducing nonresponse bias. We demonstrate assignment of case priority based on response propensity models, and present empirical results from the use of a different protocol for prioritized cases. In a field data collection, a random half of cases with low response propensity received higher priority and increased resources. Resources for high-priority cases were allocated as interviewer incentives. We find that we were relatively successful in predicting response outcome prior to the survey and stress the need to test interventions in order to benefit from case prioritization.https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/3037Nonresponse biasResponse propensityParadataCase prioritization
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Andy Peytchev
Sarah Riley
Jeff Rosen
Joe Murphy
Mark Lindblad
spellingShingle Andy Peytchev
Sarah Riley
Jeff Rosen
Joe Murphy
Mark Lindblad
Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
Survey Research Methods
Nonresponse bias
Response propensity
Paradata
Case prioritization
author_facet Andy Peytchev
Sarah Riley
Jeff Rosen
Joe Murphy
Mark Lindblad
author_sort Andy Peytchev
title Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
title_short Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
title_full Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
title_fullStr Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
title_full_unstemmed Reduction of Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization
title_sort reduction of nonresponse bias through case prioritization
publisher European Survey Research Association
series Survey Research Methods
issn 1864-3361
1864-3361
publishDate 2010-05-01
description How response rates are increased can determine the remaining nonresponse bias in estimates. Studies often target sample members that are most likely to be interviewed to maximize response rates. Instead, we suggest targeting likely nonrespondents from the onset of a study with a different protocol to minimize nonresponse bias. To inform the targeting of sample members, various sources of information can be utilized: paradata collected by interviewers, demographic and substantive survey data from prior waves, and administrative data. Using these data, the likelihood of any sample member becoming a nonrespondent is estimated and on those sample cases least likely to respond, a more effective, often more costly, survey protocol can be employed to gain respondent cooperation. This paper describes the two components of this approach to reducing nonresponse bias. We demonstrate assignment of case priority based on response propensity models, and present empirical results from the use of a different protocol for prioritized cases. In a field data collection, a random half of cases with low response propensity received higher priority and increased resources. Resources for high-priority cases were allocated as interviewer incentives. We find that we were relatively successful in predicting response outcome prior to the survey and stress the need to test interventions in order to benefit from case prioritization.
topic Nonresponse bias
Response propensity
Paradata
Case prioritization
url https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/view/3037
work_keys_str_mv AT andypeytchev reductionofnonresponsebiasthroughcaseprioritization
AT sarahriley reductionofnonresponsebiasthroughcaseprioritization
AT jeffrosen reductionofnonresponsebiasthroughcaseprioritization
AT joemurphy reductionofnonresponsebiasthroughcaseprioritization
AT marklindblad reductionofnonresponsebiasthroughcaseprioritization
_version_ 1725353138996641792