Top

Social Indicators Research

Published in:

09-03-2018

Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies

Authors: Annamaria Bianchi, Silvia Biffignandi

Published in: Social Indicators Research | Issue 3/2019

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Economic and social studies use longitudinal panels to estimate change in variables and aggregates of interest. Attrition in such studies may threaten the validity of the estimates from the panels. This study deepens the knowledge on attrition making reference to three waves of the UK Household Longitudinal Study. While traditionally participation behaviour in panel surveys has been mostly studied with reference to socio-demographic variables and not distinguishing different components of the response process, the focus here is on the role of social indicators and personality traits in explaining contact and cooperation, beyond demographic variables. Findings show that some indicators of community attachment affect the likelihood of making contact with members of the panel and indicators of social participation are significant in explaining cooperation given contact. Personality factors and well-being related variables turn out not to be significant factors.

next article Human Assets Index: Insights from a Retrospective Series Analysis

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Constant respondents are defined as panel members who responded at every wave from Time 1 to Time 4, intermittent respondents are those who responded to any two or three waves including Time 1, explicit withdrawals refer to those who actively withdrew from the study at any time following Time 1, and lost respondents are panel members who have not responded following Time 1, but not explicity withdrawn.

Education is coded into the following classes: Degree (that corresponds to tertiary education, Bachelor, Master, or Doctoral degree—ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) 5, 6, 7, or 8), A-level etc. (upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiry education—ISCED 3 or 4), GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) etc. (secondary education—ISCED 2 or 3), other qualifications, and no qualification. See UNESCO (2012).

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2015). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (8th ed.). AAPOR.

Bayliss, D., Olsen, W., & Walthery, P. (2017). Well-being during recession in the UK. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12, 369–387.CrossRef

Beher, A., Bellgardt, E., & Rendtel, U. (2005). Extent and determinants of panel attrition in the European Community Household Panel. European Sociologica Review, 21, 489–512.CrossRef

Bianchi, A., & Biffignandi, S. (2014). Responsive design for economic data in mixed-mode panels. In P. L. Conti, F. Mecatti, & M. G. Ranalli (Eds.), Contribution to sampling statistics. Springer Series Contributions to Statistiscs (pp. 85–102). Cham: Springer.

Bianchi, A., & Biffignandi, S. (2017a). Representativeness in panel surveys. Mathematical Population Studies, 24(2), 126–143.CrossRef

Bianchi, A., & Biffignandi, S. (2017b). Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response. Statistical Journal of the International Association for Official Statistics, 33, 459–467.

Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S., & Lynn, P. (2017). Web-face-to-face mixed-mode design in a longitudinal survey: Effects on participation rates, sample composition, and costs. Journal of Official Statistics, 33(2), 385–408.CrossRef

Buck, N., & McFall, S. (2012). Understanding society: Design overview. Longitudinal and Life Couse Studies, 31, 5–17.

Couper, M. P., & Ofstedal, M. B. (2009). Keeping in contact with mobile sample members. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 183–203). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

De Leeuw, E. D., & De Heer, W. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 41–54). New York: Wiley.

Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web surveys: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 132–139.CrossRef

Farrant, G., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. (1991). Components of nonresponse bias in the British election surveys. In A. Heath, J. Curtice, R. Jowell, S. Evans, J. Field, & S. Witherspoon (Eds.), Understanding political change (pp. 235–249). London: Pergamon Press.CrossRef

Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRef

Gray, R., Campanelli, P., Deepchand, K., & Prescott-Clarke, P. (1996). Exploring survey nonresponse: The effect of attrition on a follow-up of the 1984–85 health and life style survey. The Statistician, 45, 163–183.CrossRef

Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Groves, R. M., & Heeringa, S. G. (2006). Responsive design for household surveys: Tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 169, 439–457.CrossRef

Jäckle, A., Lynn, P., & Burton, J. (2015). Going online with a face-to-face household panel: Effects of a mixed mode design on item and unit non-response. Survey Research Methods, 9(1), 57–70.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In O. P. John & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.

Kalton, G., Lepkowski, J., Montanari, G. E., & Maligalig, D. (1990). Characteristics of second wave nonrespondents in a panel survey. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, survey research methods section (pp. 462–467). Washington, DC: American Statistical Association. https://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1990_076.pdf. Accessed 08 Mar 2018.

Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2009). The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 205–233). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

Laurie, H., Smith, R., & Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for reducing nonresponse in a longitudinal panel survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 269–282.

Lepkowski, J. M., & Couper, M. P. (2002). Nonresponse in the second wave of longitudinal household surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 259–272). New York: Wiley.

Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861.CrossRef

Lugtig, P. (2014). Panel attrition: Separating stayers, fast attriters, gradual attriters, and lurkers. Sociological Methods & Research, 43, 699–723.CrossRef

Lynn, P. (2009a). Methods for longitudinal surveys. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 1–20). UK: Wiley.CrossRef

Lynn, P. (2009b). Sample design for understanding society. Understanding Society Working Paper 2009-01. Colchester: University of Essex.

Lynn, P. (2015). Targeted response inducement strategies on longitudinal surveys. In U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, & P. Sturgis (Eds.), Improving survey methods: Lessons from recent research (pp. 322–338). New York: Routledge.

Lynn, P. (2016). Targeted appeals for participation in letters to panel survey members. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(3), 771–782.CrossRef

Lynn, P. (2018). Tackling panel attrition. In D. L. Vannette & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of survey research (pp. 143–153). London: Palgrave.CrossRef

Lynn, P., Nandi, A., Parutis, V., & Platt, L. (2017). Design and implementation of a high quality probability sample of immigrants and ethnic minorities: Lessons learnt, Understanding Society Working Paper Series, 2017-11.

Nicoletti, C., & Buck, N. (2004). Explaining interviewee contact and co-operation in the British and German household panels. In M. Ehling & U. Rendtel (Eds.), Harmonisation of panel surveys and data quality (pp. 143–166). Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.

Nicoletti, C., & Peracchi, F. (2005). Survey response and survey characteristics: Microlevel evidence from the European Community Household Panel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 168, 763–781.CrossRef

Radler, B. T., & Ryff, C. D. (2010). Who participates? Accounting for longitudinal retention in the MIDUS National Study of Health and Well-Being. Journal of Aging and Health, 22, 307–331.CrossRef

Richter, D., Körtner, J., & Sassenroth, D. (2014). Personality has minor effects on panel attrition. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 31–35.CrossRef

Sassenroth, D. (2013). The impact of personality on participation decision in surveys: A contribution to the discussion on unit nonresponse. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Satherley, N., Milojev, P., Greaves, L. M., Huang, Y., Osborne, D., Bulbulia, J., et al. (2015). Demographic and psychological predictors of panel attrition: Evidence from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0121950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121950.CrossRef

Schoeni, R., Stafford, F., McGonagle, K., & Andreski, P. (2013). Response rates in National Panel Surveys. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645, 60–87.CrossRef

Schouten, B., Calinescu, M., & Luiten, A. (2013). Optimizing quality of response through adaptive survey designs. Survey Methodology, 39(1), 29–58.

Sikkel, D., & Hoogendoorn, A. (2008). Panel surveys. In E. De Leeuw, J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 479–499). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, S. J., Cigdem, M., Ong, R., & Wood, G. (2017). Wellbeing at the edges of ownership. Environment and Planning A, 49, 1080–1098.CrossRef

Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 862–882.CrossRef

Thomas, D., Frankenberg, E., & Smith, J. P. (2001). Lost but not forgotten: Attrition and follow up in the Indonesia Family Life Survey. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 556–592.CrossRef

Tourangeau, R. (2003). The challenge of rising nonresponserates. In Recurring Surveys: Issues and Opportunities, Report to the National Science Foundation based on a Workshop held on March 28–29.

Uhrig, N. (2008). The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel Survey. ISER Working Paper 5/2008.

UNESCO. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Wagner, J. (2008). Adaptive survey design to reduce non-response bias, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Michigan.

Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2009). Identifying factors affecting longitudinal survey response. In P. Lynn (Ed.), Methodology of longitudinal surveys (pp. 157–182). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

Title: Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies
Authors: Annamaria Bianchi
Silvia Biffignandi
Publication date: 09-03-2018
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Social Indicators Research / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1874-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Unequal Times: Social Structure, Temporal Perspective, and Time Allocation in Poland

Urban Sustainability Indicators from a Regional Perspective: Lessons from the Montreal Metropolitan Area

Human Assets Index: Insights from a Retrospective Series Analysis

Municipal Environmental Management Indicators: A Bottom-Up Approach Applied to the Colombian Context

Social and Institutional Trust in Times of Crisis: Greece, 2002–2011

Why is it So Hard to Reach the EU’s Poverty Target?

Premium Partner