Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10620/18466
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWatson, Nicole-
dc.contributor.authorWooden, Mark-
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-01T06:07:03Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-01T06:07:03Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10620/18466-
dc.description.abstractIn many population surveys, fieldwork effort tends to be disproportionately concentrated on a relatively small proportion of hard-to-get cases. This article examines whether this effort is justified within a panel survey setting. It considers three questions: (i) are hard-to-get cases that are interviewed different from other interviewed cases? (ii) do cases that require a lot of effort in one survey wave require a lot of effort in all waves? and (iii) can easy-to-get cases be re-weighted to eliminate biases arising from not interviewing hard-to-get cases? Using data from a large nationally representative household panel survey, we find that hard-to-get cases are distinctly different from easy-to-get cases, suggesting that failure to obtain interviews with them would likely introduce biases into the sample. Further, being hard-to-get is mostly not a persistent state, meaning these high cost cases are not high cost every year. Simulations confirm that removing hard-to-get cases introduces biases, and these biases lead to an understatement of the extent of change experienced by the population. However, we also find that under one of five fieldwork curtailment strategies considered, the bias in population estimates that would arise if the hard-to-get cases were not pursued can be corrected by applying weights. Nevertheless, this conclusion only applies to the curtailment strategy involving the smallest decline in sample size. Biases associated with curtailment strategies involving larger sample size reductions, and hence greatest cost savings, are not so easily corrected.en
dc.titleChasing hard-to-get cases in panel surveys: is it worth it?en
dc.typeJournal Articlesen
dc.identifier.doi10.12758/mda.2018.03en
local.contributor.institutionUniversity of Melbourneen
local.contributor.institutionUniversity of Melbourneen
dc.identifier.surveyHILDAen
dc.description.keywordssample representativenessen
dc.description.keywordslongitudinal surveysen
dc.description.keywordsfieldwork curtailment strategiesen
dc.description.keywordsfieldwork efficiencyen
dc.identifier.refereedYesen
dc.identifier.volume13en
dc.description.pages24en
dc.identifier.issue2en
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-9780-0869en
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-2236-4166en
local.identifier.emailm.wooden@unimelb.edu.auen
dc.title.bookMethoden-Daten-Analysenen
dc.subject.dssSurveys and survey methodologyen
dc.relation.surveyHILDAen
dc.old.surveyvalueHILDAen
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Articles-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

64
checked on Mar 29, 2024
Google icon

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.