1 / 17

An Indicator of Nonresponse Bias Derived from Call-back Analysis

An Indicator of Nonresponse Bias Derived from Call-back Analysis. Paul P. Biemer RTI International and UNC. Outline. Ignorable vs. non-ignorable nonresponse Bias in the nonresponse adjusted estimator Call-back model for estimating non-ignorable nonresponse

haracha
Download Presentation

An Indicator of Nonresponse Bias Derived from Call-back Analysis

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. An Indicator of Nonresponse Bias Derived from Call-back Analysis Paul P. Biemer RTI International and UNC

  2. Outline • Ignorable vs. non-ignorable nonresponse • Bias in the nonresponse adjusted estimator • Call-back model for estimating non-ignorable nonresponse • Application for estimating drug use prevalence • Future research

  3. Estimation for Population Proportions • Consider a SRS of size n • Want to estimate some proportion, • Letdenote the observed dichotomous variable • Let

  4. Nonresponse Adjusted Estimator Estimator of is which is unbiased if nonresponse is ignorable w.r.t. i.e., if the error in is uncorrelated with

  5. Bias in the Adjusted Estimator if nonresponse is ignorable

  6. Call-back Model Analysis • Goal is to estimate when nonresponse is non-ignorable • Uses and call-back patterns to predict ; note, are only observed for respondents. • For example, suppose • Using data on call outcomes at each call-back for users and nonusers, we can estimate response propensity as a function of • Then

  7. Call-outcomes by LOE for Alcohol Interviewed positives Interviewed negatives

  8. Call-outcomes by LOE for Marijuana Interviewed negatives Interviewed positives

  9. Call-outcomes by LOE for Cocaine Interviewed negatives Interviewed positives

  10. Call-back Notation 1 = interview 2 = non-interview 3 = noncontact Call pattern 31111 => noncontact followed by interview Once interviewed, stays interviewed (absorbing state) Once non-interviewed, stays non-interviewed (absorbing state)

  11. Call-Back Data for LOE=5

  12. Simple Call-back Model for NI-NRLOE-5 Log-Likelihood Likelihood of interview after l calls Likelihood of non-interview after l calls Likelihood of no contact after 5 calls Obtain parameter estimates by maximum likelihood

  13. Simple LOE-5 Model Parameters 11 parameters and 10 degrees of freedom Over-parameterized; requires constraints These constraints reduces parameters to 7:

  14. Application – Drug Use Survey • Compared estimates of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine past year use prevalence for • unadjusted • current (traditional) adjustment • call-back model adjustment • Current adjustment incorporates 13 grouping variables and their interactions including a number of state specific components • Call-back model incorporated call-back data (for up to 15 call-backs) and the drug use variable of interest

  15. Estimated Response Propensities for Simple LOE-15 Model

  16. Prevalence Estimatesfor Simple LOE-15 Model

  17. Future Work • Test feasibility of incorporating call-back data in the nonresponse adjustment process • Enter # call-backs into the current logistic regression model (does not adjust for NI-NR) • Apply the simple call-back model to the drug use data after traditional adjustment to provide second adjustment factor for NI-NR • Use the simple call-back model to assess NI-NR bias following traditional adjustment approach

More Related