Abstract
The effects of unit non-response on survey errors are of great concern to researchers.However, direct assessment of non-response bias in survey estimates is rarely possible.Attempts are often made to adjust for the effects of non-response by weighting, but thisusually relies on the use of frame data or external population data, which are at bestmodestly correlated with the survey variables. This paper reports the development ofa method to collect limited survey data from non-respondents to personal interviewsurveys and a large-scale field test of the method on the British Crime Survey (BCS).The method is shown to be acceptable and low cost, to provide valid data, and to haveno detrimental effect on the main survey. The use of the resultant data to estimatenon-response bias is illustrated and some substantive conclusions are drawn for the BCS.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brehm, J. (1993). The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bushnell, D. (2000). The impact of coding on data quality. Survey Methods Newsletter 20(1): 16–19.
Collins, J. (1994) ACORN: structure and applications. Marketing Services 12: 9–11.
De Leeuw, E. (2001) Reducing missing data in surveys: an overview of methods. Quality & Quantity 35: 147–160.
Doyle, N. & Farrant, G. (1999). A Description of Non Respondents to the Family Resources Survey 1997–1998. London: National Centre for Social Research.
Durbin, J. (1954). Non-response and call-backs in surveys. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 34: 72–86.
Groves, R. M. & Couper, M. P. (1998). Non-Response in Household Interview Surveys. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L. & Little, R. J. A. (eds) (2002). Survey Nonresponse. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hansen, M. H. & Hurwitz, W. N. (1946). The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association 41: 517–529.
Hansen, M. H., H urwitz, W. N. & Madow, W. G. (1953). Sample Survey Methods and Theory, volume 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kulka, R. A., McNeill, J. J. & Bonito, A. J. (1982). On the manifest designation of key items: a costeffective procedure for improving the collection and processing of survey data. Paper Presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 20–23 1982, Hunt Valley, Maryland USA.
Little, R. & Rubin, D. (1986). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Lynn, P. (1996). Who responds to the British Crime Survey? Paper Presented at the Fourth International ISA Conference on Social Science Methodology, July 1–5 1996, University of Essex, Colchester UK.
Lynn, P. (1997). Sampling frame effects on the British Crime Survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 160: 253–269.
Lynn, P. & Elliot, D. (2000). The British Crime Survey: A Review of Methodology. London: National Centre for Social Research.
Lynn, P., Clarke, P., Martin, J. & Sturgis, P. (2002). The effects of extended interviewer efforts on nonresponse bias. In: R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge & R. J. A. Little (eds), Survey Nonresponse. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 135–147.
Martin, J., Meltzer, H. & Elliot, D. (1988). OPCS Surveys of Disability in Great Britain. Report 1: The Prevalence of Disability among Adults. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
Smith, T. W. (1983). The hidden 25 percent: an analysis of nonresponse on the 1980 General Social Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 87: 386–404.
Steeh, C. G. (1981). Trends in nonresponse rates 1952–1979. Public Opinion Quarterly 45: 40–57.
Whitehead, J. C., Groothuis, P. & Blomquist, G. C. (1993). Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: analysis of a combination phone/mail survey. Economics Letters 41: 215–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lynn, P. PEDAKSI: Methodology for Collecting Data about Survey Non-Respondents. Quality & Quantity 37, 239–261 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024449208633
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024449208633