Folie 1

1
Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment
Research Gerrit Müller (IAB) joint with Frauke
Kreuter (JPSM U Maryland), Mark Trappmann (IAB)
2
Research Questions

• Do survey respondents recruited with extra
  effort, provide answers of lower quality?
• Are cooperators more motivated to provide
  accurate data?
• Or, are late respondents hampered by recall
  deficits?
• How does extra effort affect total bias?

3
Survey Data

• Panel Study Labor Market and Social Security
  (PASS)
• Dual frame survey (benefit recipients /
  residential population)
• Wave1 12,000 HH
• 20,000 P
• RR1 30.5 (within HH 85)
• Mixed mode survey (sequential CATI -gt CAPI)

4
Record Linkage I

• Individual survey data linked with individual
  administrative data (80 of all Rs agreed 72
  successfully matched)
• Administrative records on employment, earnings,
  unemployment, labor market programs
• ,
• Contact data on HH-level only

5
Record Linkage II

• Administrative data linked with paradata for the
  gross sample of recipients (from unemployment
  register)
• Contact data on HH-level only
• Indicator for Respondents / Nonrespondents on
  HH-level only
• ,

6
Hypotheses about Measurement Error(response
process model, Tourangeau 84)

• Unemployment benefit (UBII)
• July 2006
• Nov 2006
• at time of interview
• Income in month prior to interview
• Occupation
• Educational degree

Relationship between ME and response propensity
(number of contact attempts)
7
Contact Quintiles and Follow-Up Efforts
of contacts _min _max
Q1 (high contactability) 1 2
Q2 3 4
Q3 5 7
Q4 8 14
Q5 (low contactability) 15

• Transfer CATI to CAPI
• CATI NR follow-up of soft refusals

8
Measurement Error (in percent) by Contact
Quintiles and Follow-up Efforts
UB IIJuly 2006 UB IIInterview Date
Q1 (high contactability) 12 11
Q2 13 12
Q3 14 13
Q4 16 17
Q5 20 15
To CAPI 18 14
CATI NR follow-up 21 14
9
Measurement Error by Contact Quintiles and
Follow-up Efforts
Income(abs. dev.) Years of Edu.( mismatch)
Q1 (high contactability) 311 25
Q2 343 28
Q3 370 27
Q4 335 26
Q5 380 24
To CAPI 451 25
CATI NR follow-up 407 27
10
(No Transcript)
11
5. NR-ME Bias Decomposition

• for Recipient sample only
• HH-level variables only (!)
• UBII in Jul06 not feasible for bias decomposition
  
• UBII in Nov
• UBII at date of interview

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Pick your brains

• ME-Model for UBII in July06 (handout)
• Puzzle high ME for the young? HH-interview by
  target head?
• Administrative data not always Gold Standard
  (error-free)
• Assumption ME in register data unrelated to ME
  in survey reports and response propensity

15
Pick your brains

• Decomposition findings statistic-specific
• Extend analyses to P-level variables (e.g.
  employment, income)
• Problem unknown on individual
  level
• How to go ahead?