Presentation on theme: "Chasing hard to get cases in panel surveys – is it worth it? Nicole Watson, University of Melbourne Mark Wooden, University of Melbourne."— Presentation transcript:
Chasing hard to get cases in panel surveys – is it worth it? Nicole Watson, University of Melbourne Mark Wooden, University of Melbourne
Acknowledgements This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The HILDA Project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and view reported in this paper, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either FaHCSIA or the Melbourne Institute.
Research Questions 1.Are hard-to-get cases (that are interviewed) noticeably different from other interviewed cases? 2.Do the cases that require a lot of effort in one survey wave require a lot of effort in all waves? 3.Are hard-to-get cases in one wave simply going to attrit at the next wave? 4.Is data quality inversely associated with effort?
Data: The HILDA Survey National household panel survey –Nationally representative household sample (7682 hhs) –Started in 2001; annual interviewing –Face-to-face interviews (mostly) w all persons 15+ yrs –New household members added each wave Response –W1 hh response rate = 66% –Re-interview rates: w2 = 87%, rising to 95%+ by w6 Sample size (unbalanced panel, 11 waves)* –N = 143,812; i =22,019
Defining “Hard-to-Get” Measure based on: Examples of previous researchHILDA measure 1.Call attempts Fitzgerald & Fuller (1982); Cottler et al. (1987); Lin & Schaeffer (1995); Lynn et al. (2002); Yan et al. (2007); Heerwegh et al (2007); Hall et al. (2011) (i) 13+ calls vs fewer (ii) 7+ calls vs fewer 2.Time to final outcome Yan et al. (2004); Haring et al. (2009) (i)Responded in initial FW phase vs Later (ii)Prior to end of year vs Post New Year 3.Initial refusal Robins (1963); Smith (1984); Lin & Schaeffer (1995); Cohen et al (2000); Lynn et al. (2002); Yan et al. (2004); Billiet et al. (2005); Kaminska et al (2010); Hall et al. (2011) Initial refusal vs No refusal 4.Respond’t cooperation Kaminska et al (2010) Ivwr assessed cooperation: Very poor / Poor / Fair vs Excellent / Good
How Many Cases are Hard-to-Get?
Who are Hard-to-Get Cases Most Like? Tests of joint significance from MNL predicting response type at time t (P) Characteristics at t-1 LateInitial refusal13+ calls EasyNREasyNREasyNR Age Female LF status x Hours Home ownership Country of birth Education Marital status Region # adults in hh # children in hh Eq. hh income LT health condition HH moved
Are Hard-to-Get Cases Always Hard to Get? (I)
Are Hard-to-Get Cases Always Hard to Get? (II)
Do Hard-to-Get Cases Exit at Next Wave?
Impact of Interview Status at t-1 on Response Outcomes at t
Number of Interviews by Wave 1 Interview Status
Summary Size of hard to get (H2G) group is definition dependent. H2G are distinct from both easy-to-get cases and non-respondents. Most H2G cases (P=70-73%) will be E2G at next survey wave. H2G more likely to attrit (P=12-17%), but most don’t. There may be some implications for data quality.