Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/10419/20205
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Schraepler, Joerg-Peter | en |
dc.contributor.author | Wagner, Gert G. | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2009-01-28T16:12:24Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-01-28T16:12:24Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2003 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10419/20205 | - |
dc.description.abstract | To the best of our knowledge, most of the few methodological studies which analyze theimpact of faked interviews on survey results are based on ?artificial fakes? generated byproject students in a ?laboratory environment?. In contrast, panel data provide a uniqueopportunity to identify data which are actually faked by interviewers. By comparing data oftwo waves almost all fakes are easily identifiable. So the raw data of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) provide a rich source of faked interviews because it is built onseveral sub-samples. However, because interviewers know that panel respondents will beinterviewed again over the course of time, clever interviewers will not fake panel interviews.In fact, in raw data of SOEP the share is about only 0.5 percent of all records. The fakes areused for an analysis of the potential impact of non detected fakes on survey results. Themajor result is that the faked records have no impact on the mean and the proportions. But invery rare, exceptional cases there may be a bias in estimates of correlations and regressioncoefficients if fakes would not be detected. One should note that – except for some fakes inthe first two waves of sample E – faked data were never disseminated within the widely-usedSOEP. The fakes were detected before the data were released. | en |
dc.language.iso | eng | en |
dc.publisher | |aInstitute for the Study of Labor (IZA) |cBonn | en |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | |aIZA Discussion Papers |x969 | en |
dc.subject.jel | C8 | en |
dc.subject.jel | C4 | en |
dc.subject.ddc | 330 | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Benford?s law | en |
dc.subject.keyword | cheating | en |
dc.subject.keyword | curbstoning | en |
dc.subject.keyword | faked interviews | en |
dc.subject.keyword | quality control | en |
dc.subject.keyword | SOEP | en |
dc.subject.stw | Panel | en |
dc.subject.stw | Interview | en |
dc.subject.stw | Betrug | en |
dc.subject.stw | Qualitätsmanagement | en |
dc.subject.stw | Deutschland | en |
dc.title | Identification, characteristics and impact of faked interviews in surveys : an analysis by means of genuine fakes in the raw data of SOEP | - |
dc.type | Working Paper | en |
dc.identifier.ppn | 377475629 | en |
dc.rights | http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen | en |
Files in This Item:
Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.