180 likes | 269 Views
A generic tool to assess impact of changing edit rules in a business survey – SNOWDON-X. Pedro Luis do Nascimento Silva Robert Bucknall Ping Zong Alaa Al-Hamad. Business survey editing in the ONS. Uses complex sets of edit rules to: Check returned questionnaires (records)
E N D
A generic tool to assess impact of changing edit rules in a business survey – SNOWDON-X Pedro Luis do Nascimento Silva Robert Bucknall Ping Zong Alaa Al-Hamad
Business survey editing in the ONS • Uses complex sets of edit rules to: • Check returned questionnaires (records) • Locate suspicious or unacceptable responses • Support data cleaning operations • Edit sets are complex because they may: • Involve a large number of survey forms and variables • Contain a large number of edits • Define complex acceptance / rejection regions • Depend on a large number of tolerance parameters
Editing costs are high • The estimated cost of editing is over 40% of the survey process budget • Edits cause large numbers of record failures • Edit failures are mainly dealt with by means of manual follow-up, re-contacting respondents
Aim of paper • Describe a generic tool developed to assess the potential impact of changing the edits in any specified business survey • Present example of application of the tool (SNOWDON-X) to large scale annual business survey
Edit revision strategies for efficiency saving • Filtering or sub-setting • Comprises introducing a record filter which selects the records to be submitted to the full set of edits • Gate widening • Consists of revising the tolerance parameters (gates) in individual edit rules, such that flagging of suspicious records for revision is less frequent than with previously used values • Edit deletion • Consists of simply discarding some of the edits previously used to flag suspicious records
SNOWDON tool • A SAS program developed first by Al-Hamad, Martín and Brown 2006 • Developed to enable informed decision making when revising business survey edits • Aims to “… help survey managers evaluate what savings can be achieved, at what cost to output quality, across many alternative permutations of editing rule parameters.” • Limited to single variable survey, where only ‘gate-widening’ was considered
SNOWDON-X tool • Extended funcionality when compared to SNOWDON • Uses SAS IML language for increased performance • Can handle all three edit revision strategies • Can handle multivariate surveys • Provides a wealth of summary indicators relating to: • Expected savings achievable by edit revision • Expected bias to survey results, both overall and per variable • Information on performance of individual edit rules / variables • Simple to run, once data have been properly organised
Basic scenario • Previous survey data available in two versions • Unedited (raw) – at point of capture or prior to any editing • Edited (clean) – at point of publication or after all editing • Edit rules used to clean previous survey data are known • Key idea of SNOWDON-X tool • Increase tolerance of some edits (or delete or introduce filter if necessary) • Calculate indicators of impact of changes to edits • Repeat 1. and 2. until expected savings achieve specified level or quality measures reveal unacceptable bias
Key assumptions behind approach • Future survey edition will behave similarly to previous survey • Edited data from previous survey edition are ‘clean’ or error free • Changes to ‘raw’ data in previous survey edition were due to error correction, i.e., any values changed between capture and final were ‘wrong’ • Once a record is flagged for clerical revision, all errors it contains will be located and corrected
How to target edits for revision • Select most commonly used form type • Select edit failing largest proportion of records within each form type • Relax edit parameters to reduce proportion of failed records while keeping bias low • Repeat 2. and 3. for each form type until further savings are minimal or bias increases above specified threshold • Repeat for all relevant form types
ABI/2 (Retail questionnaire) – Number of failing records on original and revised edits
Results - applying SNOWDON-X to ABI/2 (Retail questionnaire)
Results summary • Overall expected saving for ABI/2 ≈ 6% of previously edited records • Largest expected bias occurs in Catering sector (0.65%) where a saving of 58 (9.6%) records was made • Highest expected saving was made in Motor Trades sector (11.1%), with an expected bias of 0.31%
Conclusions • Generic tool developed to assist edit revision • Successfully applied to ABI2 • Currently being applied to two monthly surveys • SNOWDON-X tool enables focus on edit revision, not programming for calculating quality and savings indicators • Further development required for: • Impact on standard error estimates • Improved usability