A Cautionary Tale on Instrumental Calibration for the Treatment of Nonignorable Unit Nonresponse in Surveys
调查中不可忽略单位无应答的工具校准:一则警示AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论调查抽样权重和非随机无应答,未提出因果工具变量或其他所列细分问题,因此不依据工具一词作分类。
反馈分类问题调查中不可忽略单位无应答的工具校准:一则警示AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Response rates have been steadily declining over the last decades, making survey estimates vulnerable to nonresponse bias. To reduce the potential bias, two weighting approaches are commonly used in National Statistical Offices: the one-step and the two-step approaches. In this article, we focus on the one-step approach, whereby the design weights are modified in a single step with two simultaneous goals in mind: reduce the nonresponse bias and ensure the consistency between survey estimates and known population totals. In particular, we examine the properties of instrumental calibration, a special case of the one-step approach that has received a lot of attention in the literature in recent years. Despite the rich literature on the topic, there remain some important gaps that this article aims to fill. First, we give a set of sufficient conditions required for establishing the consistency of instrumental calibration estimators. Also, we show that the latter may suffer from a large bias when some of these conditions are violated. Results from a simulation study support our findings. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.