1 / 12

Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel

Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel. Ulrich Krieger, SHARE MEA University of Mannheim. Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging www.mea.uni-mannheim.de. Outline. Motivation The pairfam Panel

lmeza
Download Presentation

Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel

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. Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel • Ulrich Krieger, SHARE MEA University of Mannheim Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging www.mea.uni-mannheim.de

  2. Outline • Motivation • The pairfam Panel • Overview of cooperation and response in partner survey • Model of cooperation in wave 2 2

  3. Motivation • Attempt to include alteri respondents in surveys like partners, parents or siblings raises questions on the selection process of these additional survey members. • Reviewers continue to criticize the selectivity. The processes need to be better understood. • Weighting • Limitations of research • Recent analysis with the Netherlands Kindship Panel Study show no bias in models using data of children (Kalmijn & Liefbroer 2011). But how to model the error in the sample? 3

  4. The pairfam Panel • First two waves of the German family panel study pairfam. • Design: • Register based sample of resident population. • Three age cohorts: 14-17, 24-27, 34-37 • CAPI study administered by Infratest • Partner survey • All respondents in a partnership are asked for consent to approach their partners for an interview. • within or outside of the household • PAPI questionnaire handed out, left behind with main respondent or mailed to partner. • collected by the interviewer or returned by mail 4

  5. The Role of the Interviewer • Interviewers are encouraged • to administer the partner survey the way preferred by respondents • to occupy the partner with the partner survey during the main respondents CAPI questionnaire. • to collect the questionnaire in person • Request the partners to participate in person whenever possible 5

  6. the pairfam panel - wave two • Anchor: monotonous design, only respondents re-approached. • Partners: Same design as in wave one. • Consent request to Anchor, then partners are contacted. • Partners can be the same as in wave one if the relationship did hold. • Partners who refused to answer in wave one are contacted again. 6

  7. Cooperation and Response - Wave one 7

  8. Cooperation and Response - Wave one 8

  9. Two error sources: • Selection of main respondent and • Nonresponse of Partner • Both processes are probably not independent of each other • Unsure about how to model the Data • Here: logistic Regression on wave 2 cooperation, concentrating on main respondents keeping the same partner over the 2 waves. 9

  10. Descriptive Statistic 10

  11. Log. Regression on W2 Partner Coop (only ‘stable’ Rel.)

  12. Conclusion • Cooperation and Consent in Wave 1 do influence cooperation in wave 2 • How to better describe the selection process? • Here I focused on stable relationships. How to include all relationships, new partners? 12

More Related