Aggregate and Systemic Components of Risk in Total Survey Error Models John L. Eltinge U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics International Total Survey Error.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of Simulation Methods Using Historical Data in the U.S. International Price Program M.J. Cho, T-C. Chen, P.A. Bobbitt, J.A. Himelein, S.P. Paben,
Advertisements

Description, Characterization and Optimization of Drill-Down Methods for Outlier Detection and Treatment in Establishment Surveys J. L. Eltinge, U.S. Bureau.
The Response Process Model as a Tool for Evaluating Business Surveys Deirdre Giesen Statistics Netherlands Montreal, June 20th 2007 ICES III.
Characterization and Management of Multiple Components of Cost and Risk in Disclosure Protection for Establishment Surveys Discussion of Advances in Disclosure.
Paul Smith Office for National Statistics
Conducting the Community Analysis. What is a Community Analysis?  Includes market research and broader analysis of community assets and challenges 
Federal Guidance on Statistical Use of Administrative Data Shelly Wilkie Martinez, Statistical and Science Policy, OIRA U. S. Office of Management and.
Metadata to Support the Survey Life Cycle Alice Born, Statistics Canada Joint UNECE/Eurostat/OECD Work Session on Statistical Metadata (METIS) Geneva,
Schneider Institute for Health Policy, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University Components of health services research projects.
Covariance and Correlation: Estimator/Sample Statistic: Population Parameter: Covariance and correlation measure linear association between two variables,
Enhancing Data Quality of Distributive Trade Statistics Workshop for African countries on the Implementation of International Recommendations for Distributive.
1 Revisiting the SCHIP Funding Formula AcademyHealth National Health Policy Conference State Health Research and Policy Interest Group Meeting Washington.
The Many Ways of Improving the Industrial Coding for Statistics Canada’s Business Register Yanick Beaucage ICES III June 2007.
Overview Lesson 10,11 - Software Quality Assurance
Chapter 3 Preparing and Evaluating a Research Plan Gay and Airasian
Discussion Alan Zaslavsky Harvard Medical School.
Dimensions of Data Quality M&E Capacity Strengthening Workshop, Addis Ababa 4 to 8 June 2012 Arif Rashid, TOPS.
Vienna, 23 April 2008 UNECE Work Session on SDE Topic (v) Editing on results (post-editing) 1 Topic (v): Editing based on results Discussants: Maria M.
European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics (Q2010) 4-6 May 2010, Helsinki, Finland Brancato G., Carbini R., Murgia M., Simeoni G. Istat, Italian.
Volunteer Angler Data Collection and Methods of Inference Kristen Olson University of Nebraska-Lincoln February 2,
Use of survey (LFS) to evaluate the quality of census final data Expert Group Meeting on Censuses Using Registers Geneva, May 2012 Jari Nieminen.
Two Approaches to the Use of Administrative Records to Reduce Respondent Burden and Data Collection Costs John L. Eltinge Office of Survey Methods Research.
12th Meeting of the Group of Experts on Business Registers
Q2010, Helsinki Development and implementation of quality and performance indicators for frame creation and imputation Kornélia Mag László Kajdi Q2010,
ArrayCluster: an analytic tool for clustering, data visualization and module finder on gene expression profiles 組員:李祥豪 謝紹陽 江建霖.
Health Datasets in Spatial Analyses: The General Overview Lukáš MAREK Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty.
Assessing Quality for Integration Based Data M. Denk, W. Grossmann Institute for Scientific Computing.
Eurostat Overall design. Presented by Eva Elvers Statistics Sweden.
Deliverable 2.6: Selective Editing Hannah Finselbach 1 and Orietta Luzi 2 1 ONS, UK 2 ISTAT, Italy.
Scot Exec Course Nov/Dec 04 Survey design overview Gillian Raab Professor of Applied Statistics Napier University.
Topic (ii): New and Emerging Methods Maria Garcia (USA) Jeroen Pannekoek (Netherlands) UNECE Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Paris, France,
1 f02kitchenham5 Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering Barbara A. Kitchenham etal IEEE TSE Aug 02.
Ergonomics Regulatory Requirements Bawan Saravanabawan, Labour Program, HRSDC February 4, 2008.
Successful Concepts Study Rationale Literature Review Study Design Rationale for Intervention Eligibility Criteria Endpoint Measurement Tools.
Stop the Madness: Use Quality Targets Laurie Reedman.
Topic (vi): New and Emerging Methods Topic organizer: Maria Garcia (USA) UNECE Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Oslo, Norway, September 2012.
Survey Methodology Lilian Ma November 6, Three aspects 1. How questions were designed 2. How data was collected 3. How samples were drawn Probability.
Evaluation of Multiple Components of Error in the Collection and Integration of Survey and Administrative Record Data John L. Eltinge International.
MDG data at the sub-national level: relevance, challenges and IAEG recommendations Workshop on MDG Monitoring United Nations Statistics Division Kampala,
Assessment of Misclassification Error in Stratification Due to Incomplete Frame Information Donsig Jang, Xiaojing Lin, Amang Sukasih Mathematica Policy.
Statistik.atSeite 1 Norbert Rainer Quality Reporting and Quality Indicators for Statistical Business Registers European Conference on Quality in Official.
Household Economic Resources Discussant Comments UN EXPERT GROUP MEETING 9 September 2008 Garth Bode, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
CBS-SSB STATISTICS NETHERLANDS – STATISTICS NORWAY Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Oslo, Norway, September 2012 Jeroen Pannekoek and Li-Chun.
© Federal Statistical Office Germany, Division IB, Institute for Research and Development in Federal Statistics Sheet 1 Surveys, administrative data or.
Copyright © 2008 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 14 Designing and Implementing a Data Collection Plan.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Statistical Division High-Level Group Achievements and Plans Steven Vale UNECE
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Principles, criteria and methods Part 2 Quality management Produced in Collaboration between.
Eurostat Weighting and Estimation. Presented by Loredana Di Consiglio Istituto Nazionale di Statistica, ISTAT.
Learning Objectives In this chapter you will learn about the elements of the research process some basic research designs program evaluation the justification.
Question paper 1997.
Topic (iii): Macro Editing Methods Paula Mason and Maria Garcia (USA) UNECE Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9-11 May 2011.
Local level governance and schooling in decentralizing Indonesia Vivi Alatas (EASPR) and Deon Filmer (DECRG) Conference on Governance and Accountability.
Comments on the Washington Group Position Paper Proposed Purpose of an Internationally Comparable General Disability Measure Alicia Bercovich IBGE Brazil.
CROSS-COUNTRY INCOME MOBILITY COMPARISONS UNDER PANEL ATTRITION: THE RELEVANCE OF WEIGHTING SCHEMES Luis Ayala (IEF, URJC) Carolina Navarro (UNED) Mercedes.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Recommended Tabulations and Dissemination Section B.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Managing processes Core business of the NSO Part 1 Strengthening Statistics Produced in Collaboration.
Onsite Quarterly Meeting SIPP PIPs June 13, 2012 Presenter: Christy Hormann, LMSW, CPHQ Project Leader-PIP Team.
1 Chapter 13 Collecting the Data: Field Procedures and Nonsampling Error © 2005 Thomson/South-Western.
Assessing Nonresponse Bias and Measurement Error Using Statistical Matching John Dixon U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics June 15, 2010 The opinions.
INFO 4470/ILRLE 4470 Visualization Tools and Data Quality John M. Abowd and Lars Vilhuber March 16, 2011.
5.8 Finalise data files 5.6 Calculate weights Price index for legal services Quality Management / Metadata Management Specify Needs Design Build CollectProcessAnalyse.
1 General Recommendations of the DIME Task Force on Accuracy WG on HBS, Luxembourg, 13 May 2011.
How to deal with quality aspects in estimating national results Annalisa Pallotti Short Term Expert Asa 3st Joint Workshop on Pesticides Indicators Valletta.
Methods for Data-Integration
30TH May 2017 Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
Survey phases, survey errors and quality control system
Survey phases, survey errors and quality control system
Performance Improvement Projects: PIP Library
“Managing Modern National Statistical Systems in Democratic Societies”
STEPS Site Report.
Presentation transcript:

Aggregate and Systemic Components of Risk in Total Survey Error Models John L. Eltinge U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics International Total Survey Error Workshop June 20, 2011

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer The author thanks Ted Chang, Moon Jung Cho, Mike Davern, John Dixon, Malay Ghosh, Jeffrey Gonzalez, Rachel Harter, Bill Iwig, Mike Horrigan, Brandon Kopp, Phil Kott, Bill Mockovak, Danny Pfeffermann, Jay Ryan, George Stamas and Michael Sverchkov for many helpful discussions of the topics considered in this paper. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2

Overview I. Survey Risk, Data Quality and Total Survey Error Models II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Risk III. Impact of, and Recovery from, Systemic Errors IV. Adjusting Design Features to Account for Systemic Error Components 3

I. Survey Risk, Data Quality and Total Survey Error Models A. Survey Risk 1. Degradation of one or more dimensions of survey quality 2. Six dimensions from Brackstone (1999, Survey Methodology) Accuracy, Timeliness, Relevance, Interpretability, Accessibility, Coherence 4

I. Survey Risk, Data Quality and Total Survey Error Models (Continued) B. Total Survey Error Model: Detailed decomposition of the “accuracy” component of quality (Estimator) – (True value) = (frame error) + (sampling error) + (incomplete data effects) + (measurement error) + (processing effects) 5

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk A. Types of Survey Risk: For degradation in any component of data quality (and especially for TSE components), distinguish between aggregate risk and systemic risk 1. Aggregate risk: Combined effects of a large number of (infinitesimal) random events a. Superpopulation effects b. Local imperfections in frame, listing operation c. Selection mechanism d. Incomplete data e. Measurement error 6

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk (Continued) 2. Systemic risk: Large shocks with widespread impact on our data collection and estimation work Ex: Change in administrative record system used to produce frame, auxiliary data Ex: Change in field management; training problems Ex: Errors in programming collection instrument 7

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk (Continued) Additional Examples: Ex: Lack of fit in implicit or explicit models used for imputation, measurement error adjustments Ex: Failure to identify important sources of nonsampling error in preliminary lab studies, pilot tests, field operations Ex: Problems in implementation of rules for edit, imputation, allocation 8

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk (Continued) B. Historical Pattern: 1. Research community has focused on characterization, modeling and management of aggregate risk 2. Survey managers often worry as much, or more, about systemic risk 9 A. Origins of Systemic Errors: Mixed linear or hierarchical Bayes models Note especially that many systemic components riskill affect many (or all) data collectedA. Origins of Systemic Errors: Mixed linear or hierarchical Bayes models Note especially that many systemic components riskill affect many (or all) data collected

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk (Continued) C. Potential models for systemic risk: 1. Generalized mixed linear models, e.g., Y_ij = X_ij A + Z_ij B + u_i + e_ij X: Design variables Z: Observed paradata A, B: Coefficient vectors u_i: Regional or other coarse random effects e_ij: Deviation specific to unit j in region I Reflect systemic effects in coefficients A, B or coarse random effect u_i 10

II. Aggregate and Systemic Components of Survey Risk (Continued) 2. Hierarchical Bayes models 3. Life-testing models for identification of software problems 4. For all potential models, issues with a. Model identification information b. Limited effective sample sizes 11

III. Impact of, and Recovery from, Systemic Errors A. Four Possible Outcomes from Systemic Error 1. Perfect resilience 2. Substantial degradation in quality with slow recovery 3. Moderate degradation, again with slow recovery 4. Substantial degradation with rapid recovery (cf. literature on “recoverable computing”) 12

III. Impact of, and Recovery from, Systemic Errors (Continued) B. Features of outcomes in the four graphs arising from: 1. Population characteristics (e.g., decay rate of systemic shocks) 2. Survey design (design features to buffer systemic shocks) 3. Ad hoc direct intervention 14

IV. Adjusting Design Features to Account for Systemic Error Components A. Potential Goals: 1. Prevent systemic errors from arising 2. Limit the effects of systemic errors in current production sample (cf. discussion of weighting methods that are robust against model misspecification) 3. Timely identification of, and direct adjustment for, systemic errors (cf. responsive or multi-phase designs) 15

IV. Adjusting Design Features to Account for Systemic Error Components (Continued) B. Tools to Prevent, or Reduce the Impact of, Systemic Errors (cf. “The Three Es” of Risk Management) 1. Enforcement - Formal management directives - Incentive structures in organization 16

IV. Adjusting Design Features to Account for Systemic Error Components (Continued) 2. Education: Training of methodologists, managers, field personnel 3. Engineering: Modification of Methodological and Technological Features of Survey Processes 17

V. Closing Remarks A. Survey Risk: Likelihood and impact of failure in one or more dimensions of survey quality, including TSE components B. Important for methodologists to study both aggregate and systemic components of risk C. Consider design work to identify and ameliorate systemic components 18

V. Closing Remarks (Continued) D. Discussion Questions 1. Have you (or your survey organization) encountered forms of systemic errors? 2. If so: a. What are their dominant features? b. What models have you used to describe the errors, and their effect on data quality? c. What changes in design or estimation methods have you used to ameliorate their effects? 19

Contact Information John L. Eltinge Associate Commissioner Office of Survey Methods Research