Correcting for Survey Nonresponse Using Variable Response Propensity
利用变化的响应倾向校正调查无响应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:摘要研究调查选择和无响应校正,未明确涉及所列因果效应、面板或分位数与分布效应方向。
反馈分类问题利用变化的响应倾向校正调查无响应AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
All surveys with less than full response potentially suffer from nonresponse bias. Poststratification weights can only correct for selection into the sample based on observables whose distribution is known in the population. Variables such as gender, race, income, and region satisfy this requirement because they are available from the U.S. Census Bureau, but poststratification based on these variables may not eliminate nonresponse bias. I develop an approach for correcting for nonignorable nonresponse bias. Survey respondents can be classified by their “response propensity.” Proxies for response propensity include the number of attempted phone calls, indicators of temporary refusal, and interviewer-coded measures of cooperativeness. We can then learn about the population of nonrespondents by extrapolating from the low-propensity respondents. I apply this new estimator to correct for unit nonresponse bias in the American National Election Study and in a CBS / New York Times preelection poll. I find that nonresponse bias can be a serious problem, particularly for items that relate to political participation. I find that my method is successful in substantially reducing nonresponse bias.