Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tackling Panel Attrition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research

Abstract

Over time, some respondents have been recruited to participate in longitudinal research may stop responding to survey requests. This phenomenon is known as panel attrition and it occurs when a longitudinal panel fails to retain all recruited members. While there are many potential causes of this attrition, there are a number of concrete steps that researchers that manage panels can take to tackle the problem of panel attrition. This chapter provides an overview of the causes and consequences of panel attrition. It also highlights strategies that may be effective in addressing this problem by reviewing innovations and best practices for minimizing panel attrition and also reducing the statistical impacts of attrition when it does occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References and Further Reading

  • Behr, A., Bellgardt, E., & Rendtel, U. 2005. “Extent and determinants of panel attrition in the European Community Household Panel.” European Sociological Review 21(5): 489–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. J., & Steel, D. 2000. “An Evaluation of a Large-Scale CATI Household Survey using Random Digit Dialling.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 42(3): 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, D. 1998. “Longitudinal surveys: why are these surveys different from all other surveys?.” Survey Methodology 24: 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderwood, L., Cleary, A., Flore, G., & Wiggins, R. D. 2012. “Using response propensity models to inform fieldwork practice on the fifth wave of the Millenium Cohort Study.” Paper presented at the International Panel Survey Methods Workshop, Melbourne, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, P., Sturgis, P., & Purdon, S. 1997. Can You Hear Me Knocking? An Investigation into the Impact of Interviewers on Survey Response Rates. The Survey Methods Centre at SCPR, London, GB. Available at http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/80198/.

  • Couper, M. P., & Ofstedal, M. B. 2009. “Keeping in Contact with Mobile Sample Members.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 183–203. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E. D. 2005. “To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics 21(2): 233–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G. J., & Kalton, G. 1987. “Issues of design and analysis of surveys across time.” International Statistical Review 55: 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, P. 1998. “The impact of attrition in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics on intergenerational analysis.” Journal of Human Resources 33(2): 300–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fumagalli, L., Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. 2013. “Experiments with Methods to Reduce Attrition in Longitudinal Surveys.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 176(2): 499–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. 1992. “Understanding the decision to participate in a survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 475–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Hansen, S. E., 1996. Survey Design Features to Maximise Respondent Retention in Longitudinal Surveys. Report to the National Center for Health Statistics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, D. H., & Willis, R. J. 2001. “Reducing panel attrition: a search for effective policy instruments.” Journal of Human Resources 36(3): 416–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäckle, A., Lynn, P., & Burton, J. 2015. “Going online with a face-to-face household panel: effects of a mixed mode design on item and unit nonresponse.” Survey Research Methods 9(1): 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton, G., Lepkowski, J., Montanari, G. E., & Maligalig, D., 1990. “Characteristics of second wave nonrespondents in a panel survey.” In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section, 462–467. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz, M. D., Lupi, F., Couper, M. P., & Thorp, L. 2012. “The effect of invitation design on web survey response rates.” Social Science Computer Review 30(3): 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagorio, C., 2016. “Call and response: Modelling longitudinal contact and cooperation using Wave 1 call records data.” Understanding Society Working Paper 2016–01. Colchester: University of Essex. https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers.

  • Laurie, H., Smith, H., & Scott, L. 1999. “Strategies for reducing nonresponse in a longitudinal panel study.” Journal of Official Statistics 15(2): 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. 2009. “The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 205–233. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lepkowski, J. M., & Couper, M. P. 2002. “Nonresponse in the second wave of longitudinal household surveys.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little, 259–272. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luiten, A., & Schouten, B. 2013. “Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: An experiment in the survey of consumer satisfaction.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 176(1): 169–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. 2009. “Methods for longitudinal surveys.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 1–19. Chichester UK: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. 2013. “Alternative sequential mixed mode designs: effects on attrition rates, attrition bias and costs.” Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1(2): 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P., Kaminska, O., & Goldstein, H. 2014. “Panel attrition: how important is interviewer continuity?.” Journal of Official Statistics 30(3): 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. 2014a. “Longer interviews may not affect subsequent survey participation propensity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78(2): 500–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. 2014b. “Targeted response inducement strategies on longitudinal surveys.” In Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research, edited by U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, & P. Sturgis, 322–338. Abingdon UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P., & Kaminska, O. 2010. “Criteria for developing non-response weight adjustments for secondary users of complex longitudinal surveys.” Paper presented at the International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse, Nürnberg, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGonagle, K. A., Schoeni, R. F., & Couper, M. P. 2013. “The effects of a between-wave incentive experiment on contact update and production outcomes in a panel study.” Journal of Official Statistics 29(2): 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton-Williams, J. 1993. Interviewer Approaches. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti, C., & Buck, N. H. 2004. “Explaining interviewee contact and co-operation in the British and German household panels..” In Harmonisation of Panel Surveys and Data Quality, edited by M. Ehling & U. Rendtel, 143–166. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistiches Bundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, R. J. 2005. “The problem of respondent attrition: survey methodology is key.” Monthly Labour Review 128: 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadig, H., 2014. “Unknown eligibility whilst weighting for non-response: The puzzle of who has died and who is still alive?” ISER Working Paper 2014-35. Colchester: University of Essex. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2014-35

  • Schouten, B., Cobben, F., Lundqvist, P., & Wagner, J. 2016. “Does more balanced survey response imply less non-response bias?.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 179(3): 727–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E. 2002. “The use of incentives to reduce nonresponse in household surveys.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little, 163–177. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Lynn, P., 1997. “The effect of time between contacts, questionnaire length, personalisation and other factors on response to the Youth Cohort Study,” Department for Education and Employment Research Series, no.8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Brick, J. M., Lohr, S., & Li, J. 2017. “Adaptive and responsive survey designs: a review and assessment.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) 180(1): 203–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanGeest, J. B., Johnson, T. P., & Welch, V. L. 2007. “Methodologies for improving response ates in surveys of physicians: A systematic review.” Evaluation and the Health Professions 30(4): 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabel, J. E. 1998. “An analysis of attrition in the panel study of income dynamics and the survey of income and program participation with an application to a model of labour market behavior.” Journal of Human Resources 33(2): 479–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Peter Lynn

Authors
  1. Peter Lynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Lynn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University , Stanford, California, USA

    David L. Vannette

  2. Stanford University , Stanford, California, USA

    Jon A. Krosnick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lynn, P. (2018). Tackling Panel Attrition. In: Vannette, D., Krosnick, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation