2014•Survey PracticeOpen access

Prioritizing Low Propensity Sample Members in a Survey: Implications for Nonresponse Bias

Jeffrey A. Rosen, Joe Murphy, Andy Peytchev, Tommy Holder, Jill A. Dever, Debbie Herget, Daniel J. Pratt

Open full text 22 citations

Abstract

Many survey methodologists now agree that simply striving to increase the response rate is not an optimal approach for reducing nonresponse bias in the final survey estimates. Targeting sample cases that are underrepresented can help reduce nonresponse bias. However, the challenge lies in which cases to prioritize when resources are finite, and reducing the risk of nonresponse bias is the goal. We present an approach which identifies, prioritizes, and intervenes on low-propensity-to-respond cases during nonresponse follow-up. Targeted cases were assigned to in-person interviewing. Our results suggest that in-person interviewing can be an effective approach for gaining participation from low-propensity cases. We also find that targeting low-propensity cases could improve representation and therefore should be considered by survey practitioners as a tool for nonresponse bias reduction.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Many survey methodologists now agree that simply striving to increase the response rate is not an optimal approach for reducing nonresponse bias in the final survey estimates. Targeting sample cases that are underrepresented can help reduce nonresponse bias. However, the challenge lies in which cases to prioritize when resources are finite, and reducing the risk of nonresponse bias is the goal. We present an approach which identifies, prioritizes, and intervenes on low-propensity-to-respond cases during nonresponse follow-up. Targeted cases were assigned to in-person interviewing. Our results suggest that in-person interviewing can be an effective approach for gaining participation from low-propensity cases. We also find that targeting low-propensity cases could improve representation and therefore should be considered by survey practitioners as a tool for nonresponse bias reduction.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 22 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Many survey methodologists now agree that simply striving to increase the response rate is not an optimal approach for reducing nonresponse bias in the final survey estimates. Targeting sample cases that are underrepresented can help reduce nonresponse bias. However, the challenge lies in which cases to prioritize when resources are finite, and reducing the risk of nonresponse bias is the goal. We present an approach which identifies, prioritizes, and intervenes on low-propensity-to-respond cases during nonresponse follow-up. Targeted cases were assigned to in-person interviewing. Our results suggest that in-person interviewing can be an effective approach for gaining participation from low-propensity cases. We also find that targeting low-propensity cases could improve representation and therefore should be considered by survey practitioners as a tool for nonresponse bias reduction.

Key concepts: Non-response bias, Propensity score matching, Interview, Sample (material), Sampling bias, Psychology, Survey data collection, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Prioritizing Low Propensity Sample Members in a Survey: Implications for Nonresponse Bias — Research Paper | ScholarLens