Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prävention, Korrektur oder beides?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nonresponse Bias

Zusammenfassung

Die Ausschöpfungsquote galt lange Zeit als wichtigster Indikator der Datenqualität in Umfragen, denn sie ist relativ einfach zu berechnen und zu vergleichen. Sie kann jedoch auch sehr leicht fehlinterpretiert werden, da eine hohe Ausschöpfung nicht immer mit einem niedrigen Nonresponse Bias einhergeht. Deshalb wurden in den letzten Jahren verschiedene Maßnahmen entwickelt, wie der Nonresponse Bias unabhängig von der Ausschöpfungsquote reduziert werden kann. In diesem Beitrag werden dazu drei Wege auf Grundlage von geschätzten Teilnahmewahrscheinlichkeiten („Propensity Scores“) vorgestellt und anhand einer Simulationsstudie diskutiert.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • ADM (Arbeitskreis Deutscher Markt- und Sozialforschungsinstitute e.V.). (2013). Jahresbericht 2013. Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, M. (2011). Propensity Score Weighting: Methods and Applications. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the European Survey Research Association (ESRA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G. (2002). Weighting Nonresponse Adjustments Based on Auxiliary Information. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, R. J. A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beullens, K., & Loosveldt, G. (2012). Should High Response Rates Really be a Primary Objective? Survey Practice 5 (3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenberg, M. S., & Gummer, T. (2013). Gewichtung in der German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. GESIS-Technical Reports 2013|19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenstiel, J. E. (2013). How to Leave the Path of Least Resistance. Reducing Nonresponse Bias through Case Prioritization in Telephone Sur veys. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European Survey Research Association (ESRA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenstiel, J. E., & Gummer, T. (2013). Long-Term Panels of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES): concept and implementation. GESIS-Technical Reports 2013|11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremer, J., Terhanian, G., & Smith, R. (2000). A Propensity Score Adjustment for Selection Bias in Online Surveys. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings “Celebrate Diversity in Statistics”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., & Wagner, J. (2011). Using Paradata and Responsive Design to Manage Survey Nonresponse. Paper presented at the ISI 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E., & De Heer, W. (2002). Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and International Comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, R. J. A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey Nonresponse (S. 41–54). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E., Callegaro, M., Hox, J., Korendijk, E., & Lensvelt-Mulders, G. (2007). The Influence of Advance Letters on Response in Telephone Surveys. A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (3), 413–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes. American Sociological Review 20 (2), 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006): Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5), 646–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey Methodology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Heeringa, S. G. (2006). Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series a-Statistics in Society 169 (3), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias. A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A Generalization of Sampling Without Replacement From a Finite Universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association 47 (260), 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A. (1998). Wenn „mehr“ nicht gleichbedeutend mit „besser“ ist: Ausschöpfungsquoten und Stichprobenverzerrung in Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfragen. ZUMA-Nachrichten 42, 66–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, F., & Olson, K. (2013). Paradata for Nonresponse Error Investigation. In F. Kreuter (Hrsg.), Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information (S. 13–42). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, F., & Olson, K. (2011). Multiple Auxiliary Variables in Nonresponse Adjustment. Sociological Methods & Research 40 (2), 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, H., Smith, R., & Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for Reducing Nonresponse in a Longitudinal Panel Survey. Journal of Official Statistics 15 (2), 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (2006). Propensity Score Adjustment as a Weighting Scheme for Volunteer Panel Web Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 22 (2), 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Valliant, R. (2009). Estimation for Volunteer Panel Web Surveys Using Propensity Score Adjustment and Calibration Adjustment. Sociological Methods & Research 37 (3), 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepkowski, J. M., & Couper, M. P. (2002). Nonresponse in the Second Wave of Longitudinal Household Surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, R. J. A. Little (Hrsg.), Survey Nonresponse (S. 259–272). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A. (1986): Survey Nonresponse Adjustments for Estimates of Means. International Statistical Review 54 (2), 139–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loosveldt, G., & Sonck, N. (2008). An Evaluation of the Weighting Procedures for an Online Access Panel Survey. Survey Research Methods 2 (2), 93–105.

    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 

  • McCarty, C., House, M., Harman, J., & Richards, S. (2006). Effort in Phone Survey Response Rates: The Effects of Vendor and Client-Controlled Factors. Field Methods 18 (2), 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partheymüller, J., Schmitt-Beck, R., & Hoops, C. (2013). Kampagnendynamik bei der Bundestagswahl 2013. Die Rolling Cross-Section-Studie im Rahmen der „German Longitudinal Election Study“ 2013. Arbeitspapiere des Mannheimer Zentrums für Europäische Sozialforschung 154, 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev, A., Baxter, R. K., & Carley-Baxter, L. R. (2009). Not All Survey Effort is Equal: Reduction of Nonresponse Bias and Nonresponse Error. Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (4), 785–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev, A., Riley, S., Rosen, J., Murphy, J., & Lindblad, M. (2010). Reduction of Nonresponse Bias in Surveys through Case Prioritization. Survey Research Methods 4 (1), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, J., Murphy, J., Peytchev, A., Holder, T., Dever, J. A., Herget, D. R., et al. (2014). Priorizing Low-Propensity Sample Members in a Survey: Implications for Nonresponse Bias. Survey Practice 7 (1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 70 (1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schonlau, M., van Soest, A., Kapteyn, A., & Couper, M. (2009). Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores. Sociological Methods & Research 37 (3), 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten, B., Cobben, F., & Bethlehem, J. G. (2009). Indicators for the Representativeness of Survey Response. Survey Methodology 35 (1), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., & Maher, M. P. (2000). Experiments with Incentives in Telephone Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (2), 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinibaldi, J., Trappmann, M., & Kreuter, F. (2014). Which Is the Better Investment for Nonresponse Adjustment: Purchasing Commercial Auxiliary Data or Collecting Interviewer Observations? Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (2), 440–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The Hunt for the Last Respondent: Nonresponse in Sample Surveys. The Hague: SCP, Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandecasteele, L., & Debels, A. (2006). Attrition in Panel Data: The Effectiveness of Weighting. European Sociological Review 23 (1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. (2012): A Comparison of Alternative Indicators for the Risk of Nonresponse Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J., West, B. T., Kirgis, N., Lepkowski, J. M., Waxinn, W. G., & Ndiaye, S. K. (2012). Use of Paradata in a Responsive Design Framework to Manage a Field Data Collection. Journal of Official Statistics 28 (4), 477–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasmer, M., Scholz, E., Blohm, M., Walter, J., & Jutz, R. (2012). Konzeption und Durchführung der „Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften“ (ALLBUS) 2010. GESIS-Technical Reports 2012|12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2009). Identifying Factors Affecting Longitudinal Survey Response. In P. Lynn (Hrsg.), Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys (S. 157–182). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The Total Survey Error Approach. A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, B. T., & Groves, R. M. (2013). A Propensity-Adjusted Interviewer Performance Indicator. Public Opinion Quarterly 77 (1), 352–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Jan Eric Blumenstiel

  2. GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Tobias Gummer

Authors
  1. Jan Eric Blumenstiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Gummer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Eric Blumenstiel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DIW Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jürgen Schupp

  2. GESIS - Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Mannheim, Germany

    Christof Wolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Blumenstiel, J., Gummer, T. (2015). Prävention, Korrektur oder beides?. In: Schupp, J., Wolf, C. (eds) Nonresponse Bias. Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10459-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10458-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10459-7

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation