Response and nonresponse

Skip to filters. View results.
View results

Filter results by

Search Help
Currently selected filters that can be removed

Keyword(s)

Type

2 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Geography

1 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Survey or statistical program

5 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.

Content

1 facets displayed. 0 facets selected.
Sort Help
entries

Results

All (133)

All (133) (0 to 10 of 133 results)

  • 1. Study: Attrition in the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults, Wave 1 (2012) to Wave 4 (2018)
    Stats in brief: 11-001-X202231822683
    Description: Release published in The Daily – Statistics Canada’s official release bulletin
    Release date: 2022-11-14
  • 2. Attrition in the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults, Wave 1 (2012) to Wave 4 (2018)
    Articles and reports: 89-648-X2022001
    Description:

    This report explores the size and nature of the attrition challenges faced by the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults (LISA) survey, as well as the use of a non-response weight adjustment and calibration strategy to mitigate the effects of attrition on the LISA estimates. The study focuses on data from waves 1 (2012) to 4 (2018) and uses practical examples based on selected demographic variables, to illustrate how attrition be assessed and treated.

    Release date: 2022-11-14
  • 3. Is undesirable answer behaviour consistent across surveys? An investigation into respondent characteristics
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200100001
    Description:

    In this study, we investigate to what extent the respondent characteristics age and educational level may be associated with undesirable answer behaviour (UAB) consistently across surveys. We use data from panel respondents who participated in ten general population surveys of CentERdata and Statistics Netherlands. A new method to visually present UAB and an inventive adaptation of a non-parametric effect size measure are used. The occurrence of UAB of respondents with specific characteristics is summarized in density distributions that we refer to as respondent profiles. An adaptation of the robust effect size Cliff’s Delta is used to compare respondent profiles on the potentially consistent occurrence of UAB across surveys. Taking all surveys together, the degree of UAB varies by age and education. The results do not show consistent UAB across individual surveys: Age and educational level are associated with a relatively higher occurrence of UAB for some surveys, but a relatively lower occurrence for other surveys. We conclude that the occurrence of UAB across surveys may be more dependent on the survey and its items than on respondent’s cognitive ability.

    Release date: 2022-06-21
  • 4. Non-response follow-up for business surveys
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200100006
    Description:

    In the last two decades, survey response rates have been steadily falling. In that context, it has become increasingly important for statistical agencies to develop and use methods that reduce the adverse effects of non-response on the accuracy of survey estimates. Follow-up of non-respondents may be an effective, albeit time and resource-intensive, remedy for non-response bias. We conducted a simulation study using real business survey data to shed some light on several questions about non-response follow-up. For instance, assuming a fixed non-response follow-up budget, what is the best way to select non-responding units to be followed up? How much effort should be dedicated to repeatedly following up non-respondents until a response is received? Should they all be followed up or a sample of them? If a sample is followed up, how should it be selected? We compared Monte Carlo relative biases and relative root mean square errors under different follow-up sampling designs, sample sizes and non-response scenarios. We also determined an expression for the minimum follow-up sample size required to expend the budget, on average, and showed that it maximizes the expected response rate. A main conclusion of our simulation experiment is that this sample size also appears to approximately minimize the bias and mean square error of the estimates.

    Release date: 2022-06-21
  • 5. Assessing the coverage of confidence intervals under nonresponse. A case study on income mean and quantiles in some municipalities from the 2015 Mexican Intercensal Survey
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202100200004
    Description:

    This note presents a comparative study of three methods for constructing confidence intervals for the mean and quantiles based on survey data with nonresponse. These methods, empirical likelihood, linearization, and that of Woodruff’s (1952), were applied to data on income obtained from the 2015 Mexican Intercensal Survey, and to simulated data. A response propensity model was used for adjusting the sampling weights, and the empirical performance of the methods was assessed in terms of the coverage of the confidence intervals through simulation studies. The empirical likelihood and linearization methods had a good performance for the mean, except when the variable of interest had some extreme values. For quantiles, the linearization method had a poor performance, while the empirical likelihood and Woodruff methods had a better one, though without reaching the nominal coverage when the variable of interest had values with high frequency near the quantile of interest.

    Release date: 2022-01-06
  • 6. A note on propensity score weighting method using paradata in survey sampling
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300002
    Description:

    Paradata is often collected during the survey process to monitor the quality of the survey response. One such paradata is a respondent behavior, which can be used to construct response models. The propensity score weight using the respondent behavior information can be applied to the final analysis to reduce the nonresponse bias. However, including the surrogate variable in the propensity score weighting does not always guarantee the efficiency gain. We show that the surrogate variable is useful only when it is correlated with the study variable. Results from a limited simulation study confirm the finding. A real data application using the Korean Workplace Panel Survey data is also presented.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 7. "Optimal" calibration weights under unit nonresponse in survey sampling
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300006
    Description:

    High nonresponse is a very common problem in sample surveys today. In statistical terms we are worried about increased bias and variance of estimators for population quantities such as totals or means. Different methods have been suggested in order to compensate for this phenomenon. We can roughly divide them into imputation and calibration and it is the latter approach we will focus on here. A wide spectrum of possibilities is included in the class of calibration estimators. We explore linear calibration, where we suggest using a nonresponse version of the design-based optimal regression estimator. Comparisons are made between this estimator and a GREG type estimator. Distance measures play a very important part in the construction of calibration estimators. We show that an estimator of the average response propensity (probability) can be included in the “optimal” distance measure under nonresponse, which will help to reduce the bias of the resulting estimator. To illustrate empirically the theoretically derived results for the suggested estimators, a simulation study has been carried out. The population is called KYBOK and consists of clerical municipalities in Sweden, where the variables include financial as well as size measurements. The results are encouraging for the “optimal” estimator in combination with the estimated average response propensity, where the bias was reduced for most of the Poisson sampling cases in the study.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 8. A method to correct for frame membership error in dual frame estimators
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300008
    Description:

    Dual frame surveys are useful when no single frame with adequate coverage exists. However estimators from dual frame designs require knowledge of the frame memberships of each sampled unit. When this information is not available from the frame itself, it is often collected from the respondent. When respondents provide incorrect membership information, the resulting estimators of means or totals can be biased. A method for reducing this bias, using accurate membership information obtained about a subsample of respondents, is proposed. The properties of the new estimator are examined and compared to alternative estimators. The proposed estimator is applied to the data from the motivating example, which was a recreational angler survey, using an address frame and an incomplete fishing license frame.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 9. Multiple imputation of missing values in household data with structural zeros
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900200005
    Description:

    We present an approach for imputation of missing items in multivariate categorical data nested within households. The approach relies on a latent class model that (i) allows for household-level and individual-level variables, (ii) ensures that impossible household configurations have zero probability in the model, and (iii) can preserve multivariate distributions both within households and across households. We present a Gibbs sampler for estimating the model and generating imputations. We also describe strategies for improving the computational efficiency of the model estimation. We illustrate the performance of the approach with data that mimic the variables collected in typical population censuses.

    Release date: 2019-06-27
  • 10. An assessment of accuracy improvement by adaptive survey design
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900200008
    Description:

    High nonresponse occurs in many sample surveys today, including important surveys carried out by government statistical agencies. An adaptive data collection can be advantageous in those conditions: Lower nonresponse bias in survey estimates can be gained, up to a point, by producing a well-balanced set of respondents. Auxiliary variables serve a twofold purpose: Used in the estimation phase, through calibrated adjustment weighting, they reduce, but do not entirely remove, the bias. In the preceding adaptive data collection phase, auxiliary variables also play a major role: They are instrumental in reducing the imbalance in the ultimate set of respondents. For such combined use of auxiliary variables, the deviation of the calibrated estimate from the unbiased estimate (under full response) is studied in the article. We show that this deviation is a sum of two components. The reducible component can be decreased through adaptive data collection, all the way to zero if perfectly balanced response is realized with respect to a chosen auxiliary vector. By contrast, the resisting component changes little or not at all by a better balanced response; it represents a part of the deviation that adaptive design does not get rid of. The relative size of the former component is an indicator of the potential payoff from an adaptive survey design.

    Release date: 2019-06-27
Data (0)

Data (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Analysis (133)

Analysis (133) (0 to 10 of 133 results)

  • 1. Study: Attrition in the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults, Wave 1 (2012) to Wave 4 (2018)
    Stats in brief: 11-001-X202231822683
    Description: Release published in The Daily – Statistics Canada’s official release bulletin
    Release date: 2022-11-14
  • 2. Attrition in the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults, Wave 1 (2012) to Wave 4 (2018)
    Articles and reports: 89-648-X2022001
    Description:

    This report explores the size and nature of the attrition challenges faced by the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults (LISA) survey, as well as the use of a non-response weight adjustment and calibration strategy to mitigate the effects of attrition on the LISA estimates. The study focuses on data from waves 1 (2012) to 4 (2018) and uses practical examples based on selected demographic variables, to illustrate how attrition be assessed and treated.

    Release date: 2022-11-14
  • 3. Is undesirable answer behaviour consistent across surveys? An investigation into respondent characteristics
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200100001
    Description:

    In this study, we investigate to what extent the respondent characteristics age and educational level may be associated with undesirable answer behaviour (UAB) consistently across surveys. We use data from panel respondents who participated in ten general population surveys of CentERdata and Statistics Netherlands. A new method to visually present UAB and an inventive adaptation of a non-parametric effect size measure are used. The occurrence of UAB of respondents with specific characteristics is summarized in density distributions that we refer to as respondent profiles. An adaptation of the robust effect size Cliff’s Delta is used to compare respondent profiles on the potentially consistent occurrence of UAB across surveys. Taking all surveys together, the degree of UAB varies by age and education. The results do not show consistent UAB across individual surveys: Age and educational level are associated with a relatively higher occurrence of UAB for some surveys, but a relatively lower occurrence for other surveys. We conclude that the occurrence of UAB across surveys may be more dependent on the survey and its items than on respondent’s cognitive ability.

    Release date: 2022-06-21
  • 4. Non-response follow-up for business surveys
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202200100006
    Description:

    In the last two decades, survey response rates have been steadily falling. In that context, it has become increasingly important for statistical agencies to develop and use methods that reduce the adverse effects of non-response on the accuracy of survey estimates. Follow-up of non-respondents may be an effective, albeit time and resource-intensive, remedy for non-response bias. We conducted a simulation study using real business survey data to shed some light on several questions about non-response follow-up. For instance, assuming a fixed non-response follow-up budget, what is the best way to select non-responding units to be followed up? How much effort should be dedicated to repeatedly following up non-respondents until a response is received? Should they all be followed up or a sample of them? If a sample is followed up, how should it be selected? We compared Monte Carlo relative biases and relative root mean square errors under different follow-up sampling designs, sample sizes and non-response scenarios. We also determined an expression for the minimum follow-up sample size required to expend the budget, on average, and showed that it maximizes the expected response rate. A main conclusion of our simulation experiment is that this sample size also appears to approximately minimize the bias and mean square error of the estimates.

    Release date: 2022-06-21
  • 5. Assessing the coverage of confidence intervals under nonresponse. A case study on income mean and quantiles in some municipalities from the 2015 Mexican Intercensal Survey
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X202100200004
    Description:

    This note presents a comparative study of three methods for constructing confidence intervals for the mean and quantiles based on survey data with nonresponse. These methods, empirical likelihood, linearization, and that of Woodruff’s (1952), were applied to data on income obtained from the 2015 Mexican Intercensal Survey, and to simulated data. A response propensity model was used for adjusting the sampling weights, and the empirical performance of the methods was assessed in terms of the coverage of the confidence intervals through simulation studies. The empirical likelihood and linearization methods had a good performance for the mean, except when the variable of interest had some extreme values. For quantiles, the linearization method had a poor performance, while the empirical likelihood and Woodruff methods had a better one, though without reaching the nominal coverage when the variable of interest had values with high frequency near the quantile of interest.

    Release date: 2022-01-06
  • 6. A note on propensity score weighting method using paradata in survey sampling
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300002
    Description:

    Paradata is often collected during the survey process to monitor the quality of the survey response. One such paradata is a respondent behavior, which can be used to construct response models. The propensity score weight using the respondent behavior information can be applied to the final analysis to reduce the nonresponse bias. However, including the surrogate variable in the propensity score weighting does not always guarantee the efficiency gain. We show that the surrogate variable is useful only when it is correlated with the study variable. Results from a limited simulation study confirm the finding. A real data application using the Korean Workplace Panel Survey data is also presented.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 7. "Optimal" calibration weights under unit nonresponse in survey sampling
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300006
    Description:

    High nonresponse is a very common problem in sample surveys today. In statistical terms we are worried about increased bias and variance of estimators for population quantities such as totals or means. Different methods have been suggested in order to compensate for this phenomenon. We can roughly divide them into imputation and calibration and it is the latter approach we will focus on here. A wide spectrum of possibilities is included in the class of calibration estimators. We explore linear calibration, where we suggest using a nonresponse version of the design-based optimal regression estimator. Comparisons are made between this estimator and a GREG type estimator. Distance measures play a very important part in the construction of calibration estimators. We show that an estimator of the average response propensity (probability) can be included in the “optimal” distance measure under nonresponse, which will help to reduce the bias of the resulting estimator. To illustrate empirically the theoretically derived results for the suggested estimators, a simulation study has been carried out. The population is called KYBOK and consists of clerical municipalities in Sweden, where the variables include financial as well as size measurements. The results are encouraging for the “optimal” estimator in combination with the estimated average response propensity, where the bias was reduced for most of the Poisson sampling cases in the study.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 8. A method to correct for frame membership error in dual frame estimators
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900300008
    Description:

    Dual frame surveys are useful when no single frame with adequate coverage exists. However estimators from dual frame designs require knowledge of the frame memberships of each sampled unit. When this information is not available from the frame itself, it is often collected from the respondent. When respondents provide incorrect membership information, the resulting estimators of means or totals can be biased. A method for reducing this bias, using accurate membership information obtained about a subsample of respondents, is proposed. The properties of the new estimator are examined and compared to alternative estimators. The proposed estimator is applied to the data from the motivating example, which was a recreational angler survey, using an address frame and an incomplete fishing license frame.

    Release date: 2019-12-17
  • 9. Multiple imputation of missing values in household data with structural zeros
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900200005
    Description:

    We present an approach for imputation of missing items in multivariate categorical data nested within households. The approach relies on a latent class model that (i) allows for household-level and individual-level variables, (ii) ensures that impossible household configurations have zero probability in the model, and (iii) can preserve multivariate distributions both within households and across households. We present a Gibbs sampler for estimating the model and generating imputations. We also describe strategies for improving the computational efficiency of the model estimation. We illustrate the performance of the approach with data that mimic the variables collected in typical population censuses.

    Release date: 2019-06-27
  • 10. An assessment of accuracy improvement by adaptive survey design
    Articles and reports: 12-001-X201900200008
    Description:

    High nonresponse occurs in many sample surveys today, including important surveys carried out by government statistical agencies. An adaptive data collection can be advantageous in those conditions: Lower nonresponse bias in survey estimates can be gained, up to a point, by producing a well-balanced set of respondents. Auxiliary variables serve a twofold purpose: Used in the estimation phase, through calibrated adjustment weighting, they reduce, but do not entirely remove, the bias. In the preceding adaptive data collection phase, auxiliary variables also play a major role: They are instrumental in reducing the imbalance in the ultimate set of respondents. For such combined use of auxiliary variables, the deviation of the calibrated estimate from the unbiased estimate (under full response) is studied in the article. We show that this deviation is a sum of two components. The reducible component can be decreased through adaptive data collection, all the way to zero if perfectly balanced response is realized with respect to a chosen auxiliary vector. By contrast, the resisting component changes little or not at all by a better balanced response; it represents a part of the deviation that adaptive design does not get rid of. The relative size of the former component is an indicator of the potential payoff from an adaptive survey design.

    Release date: 2019-06-27
Reference (0)

Reference (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Date modified:

Search help

How do I use the filters and the search box?

  • You can initiate a search by entering keywords or selecting filters (e.g., under Subject, Geography, etc.) on the left side of the page.

  • Filters can be used together or in any combination. Each time you select a filter, the results on the page are updated.

  • To start a new search, click on the Clear all button above the search box or deselect each filter.

  • Specified keywords and filters appear above the search box. You can deselect any or all the tags to refine or clear your search.

How do I refine my search?

  • You can enter keywords in the search box. It is not necessary to use “+” or “, “ or “AND”.

  • You can delete some or all of the keywords from your search string.

  • Quotes around keywords limit the search to a specific phrase.

    • For example, “labour force survey” will limit results to products containing this phrase.

  • Use “or” between keywords to obtain results that contain one or more search terms.

    • For example, labour or­ force or survey will limit results to products containing any or all of these words.

How does the search work?

  • This search looks for results that have your query term in the title, description, subject, geography, product number or other information about the product.

    • For example, when searching the term ‘Diseases’, all results with the word ‘Diseases’ in the title, description or tagged the subject appear.

  • The text within an article or publication are not searched. For full text searching of articles, use the site search.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides three options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.

Sort help

How are the results ordered?

The Sort by feature provides four options:

  • By date – sorts results by product release date starting with the most recent.
  • By most popular – gives priority to results that are most frequently selected by users, followed by the most recent.
  • By relevance is only needed or beneficial when you use the search box and submit a search query. Results are ordered by a combination of where the search term appears in the content, e.g., if it appears in the title, it likely means the product is more relevant to your search; how up to date or new the content in the product is; how popular the product is; and other factors.
  • By title – sorts results alphabetically.