Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/244419 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2005
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
Working Paper No. 9/2005
Verlag: 
Örebro University School of Business, Örebro
Zusammenfassung: 
In most surveys, the risk of nonresponse is a factor taken into account at the planning stage. Commonly, resources are set aside for a follow-up procedure which aims at reducing the nonresponse rate. However, we should pay attention to the effect of nonresponse, rather than the nonresponse rate itself. When considering nonresponse error, i.e. bias and variance, it is not obvious that the resources spent on nonresponse rate reduction efforts are time and money well spent. In this paper we address this issue, continuing the work begun in Tångdahl (2004), now focusing on the effect of follow-ups on estimator variance. The components of the variance for some common estimators are derived under a setup that allows us to take into account the data collection process, and follow-up efforts in particular.
Schlagwörter: 
nonresponse variance
response distribution
RHG model
calibration for nonresponse
variance components
resource allocation
JEL: 
C13
C42
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
272.34 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.