Estimation With Response Error and Nonresponse
存在回答误差与未应答时的估计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:摘要将面板失访与回答误差联合建模,并估计食品券参与的 probit 模型,文本直接支持面板数据与离散选择分类。
存在回答误差与未应答时的估计AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Error in survey data originates from failure to contact the sample and from false answers to verifiable questions. These errors may be systematic and associated with uncooperative or unreliable respondents. Zabel modeled attrition in the Survey of Income and Program Participation and found systematic demographic and design effects. Bollinger and David modeled response error and identified correlations to income per capita. In this analysis, we link missing interviews in a panel and response error through a trivariate probit analysis. Robustness of the correlation between attrition and response error is examined by comparing variants of the model. The joint model of response error and attrition becomes the first stage of a pseudolikelihood estimate of a model of food-stamp participation. The model is significantly different from naive probit on the survey data.