1 / 10

Collection Follow-Up Operation Using Priority Scores for Business Surveys

Collection Follow-Up Operation Using Priority Scores for Business Surveys. UN/ECE Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Topic (iv): Micro Editing – Methods and software. Hansheng Xie, Serge Godbout, Sungjin Youn and Pierre Lavallée Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9 – 11 May 2011. Data Collection.

gwen
Download Presentation

Collection Follow-Up Operation Using Priority Scores for Business Surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collection Follow-Up Operation Using Priority Scores for Business Surveys UN/ECE Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Topic (iv): Micro Editing – Methods and software Hansheng Xie, Serge Godbout, Sungjin Youn and Pierre Lavallée Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9 – 11 May 2011

  2. Data Collection • The most expensive survey process • Direct impact on data quality • The interest for high response rates must be controlled • Follow-up activities must be well thought-out to ensure efficiency • Focus on influential units • Risk of biased estimates Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  3. Follow-up process • Economically weighted response rate (EWRR) • wi is the sampling weight, xi the economic weight • Priority score • Units with the highest scores will be followed-up Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  4. Alternatives • Various economic weights can be considered as part of the priority score: • Last year value: • J commodities (1): • J commodities (2): where Qj is a commodity weight Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  5. Estimator 1 • Estimator based on the initial R1 respondents • Unbiased • Higher variance Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  6. Estimator 2 • Estimator based on R1 + R2respondents • Unbiased • Medium variance Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  7. Estimator 3 • Estimator based on respondents and imputed non-respondents • Unbiased if the imputation method is adequate • Lower variance Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  8. Simulation • The simulation study considered • Populations with various skewness levels • Various matching fields for donor imputation • Various follow-up rates applied at different levels • Impact on cost, bias and mean square error Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  9. Findings • Cost is reduced or quality measures are improved when • Skewed populations offer better donors • Imputation matching fields are correlated with yk • Economic weight xk is correlated with yk • Follow-up is not done at random • Follow-up is managed within smaller groups, especially in a skewed population Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

  10. For more information, Pour plus d’information,please contact: veuillez contacter : Hansheng.Xie@statcan.gc.ca Serge.Godbout@statcan.gc.ca Sungjin.Youn@statcan.gc.ca Pierre.Lavallee@statcan.gc.ca Statistics Canada • Statistique Canada

More Related