Upload
bridget-casey
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Household Finances 2006 (HF)
Design: Stratified network sample (18 years and older from RTP all household members are included)
Sample size: 17013 households
Mode: telephone (approx. 1/2 hour interview)
Response rate: 69.6%
Auxiliary variables are matched from external registers
3
HF: Estimated Mean Income Divided by Consumption Units
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20165000
170000
175000
180000
185000
190000
195000
WD-event
95% upper limit
Estimate sample
Estimate responding units
95% lower limit
From Westling (2008)
4
HF: Comparison Between HT and GREG-estimators
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
WD-events
%
Employed HT-estimator
Employed GREG-estimator
Not in labour force HT-estimator
Not in labour force GREG-estimator
From Westling (2008)
5
Living Condition Survey 2007 (LCS)Design: srs, 16 years and older from RTP
Sample size: 7694
Mode: telephone (approx. 1 hour interview)
Response rate: 73.4%
Auxiliariy variables are matched from external registers
Missing telephone-number for 3.7% of the sample
6
LCS: Response Rate
Outcome Rate No. in Sample
%
Respondents 5651 73.4
Noncontacts 664 8.6
Refusals 1194 15.5
Other nonresponse 185 2.4
All 7694 100.0
7
LCS: Auxiliary Variables
Age Gender Country of Birth Marital Status Employment status Region Social allowance Type of housing estate Income Education Telephone (Sample based)
8
LCS: Major Reasons for Nonresponse Age [Refusal: 35-64 years, Noncont: -34 years, Other:74+ years] Gender Country of Birth [Noncont and Other: born outside Sweden] Marital Status [Noncont: unmarried ] Employment status [Other: unemployed] Region [Noncont: living in big cities] Social allowance [Noncont and Other: if having allowance] Type of housing estate [Noncont: rented housing] Income [Noncont: no income Other: low income] Education [Nocont and Other: education code is missing] Telephone (Sample based) [Noncont: no phone]
9
LCS: Logit Model Response as Dependent Parameter Estimates Before and After Nonresponse Follow-up
Resp5w PCT100
Parameter
Estimate Std. Error sign Estimate Std. Error sign
Intercept -0.7815 0.1267 *** -0.5269 0.1315 *** AGE_24 0.7416 0.1002 *** 0.8342 0.1088 *** AGE35_64 -0.0050 0.0760 -0.0466 0.0813 AGE65_74 0.3254 0.1113 *** 0.3102 0.1201 *** AGE75_ 0.3423 0.1237 *** 0.2417 0.1309 * Sw.born 0.1450 0.0730 ** 0.1471 0.0771 * Female 0.1962 0.0510 *** 0.2488 0.0549 *** Employed 0.0967 0.0727 0.1908 0.0782 ** Married 0.2500 0.0571 *** 0.2558 0.0615 *** Big City -0.1367 0.0540 ** -0.2374 0.0576 *** Soc. Allowance -0.3381 0.1553 ** -0.2342 0.1588 Owned housing 0.1383 0.0587 ** 0.1633 0.0634 *** No income -0.2147 0.1099 * -0.2527 0.1151 ** High income 0.2050 0.0666 *** 0.1542 0.0719 ** No edu. code -0.3985 0.2310 * -0.5524 0.2353 ** Low edu. -0.1311 0.0683 * -0.1691 0.0729 ** High edu. 0.3443 0.0777 *** 0.3878 0.0859 *** Telephone 0.9154 0.0829 *** 1.0337 0.0837 ***
*) sign. level 10% **) sign. level 5% ***) sign. level 1%
10
LCS: Indicators
Based on estimated response probabilities under srs the following R-indicator (Schouten and Cobben 2007, 2008) is used
s ks n
R 2)ˆˆ(1
121ˆ
and under srs the q2-indicator (Särndal and Lundström 2008) is
kr
Tkk
T
s kks k
I mmnm
mq xxxx 122 )()(where)/(ˆ
11
LCS: Indicators
A measure of the estimated relative bias (in per cent) is
computed by
1100)(
s
EXPEXP y
yyRB
As variables yk Sickness and activity allowance (yes/no), Income, Sickness pay (yes/no) and Employed (yes/no) are used to estimate the relative bias.
All indicators computed for Resp5w and PCT100
12
LCS: R and q2 Indicators for Response Before and After Follow-up
)( EXPyRB
Response sR̂ 2ˆ Iq Sick allow. Sick pay Employed Income
Resp5w 0.78 0.089 -8.0 -0.7 3.0 1.6 Refusal 1.8 8.0 1.2 1.5
Noncont+Other 17.2 0.8 -6.6 -3.6 PCT100 0.77 0.062 -8.5 0.7 3.4 1.2
Refusal 4.7 5.2 5.2 6.6 Noncont+Other 50.0 -11.6 -30.1 -16.8
13
LCS: Conclusions
The representativity doesn’t increase with the follow-up
The indicators are estimates e.g. they are subject to variation (not computed)
The same goes for the relative bias Active work with strategies for the group having
social allowance and those with missing telephone
Found auxiliary variables could be used in the creation of a new estimator
14
Labour Force Survey (LFS) Data from March-December 2007
Annual salary 2006 according to the Swedish Tax Register
Process data from WinDati (CATI-system).
Supplemented with:
15
Response Rates for the Reference Weeks in a LFS Month (Means Based on LFS March-December 2007)
.
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Response Rate
Field Days
Mresp W1
Mresp W2
Mresp W3
Mresp W4
Mresp W5
16
Contact Days for the Reference Weeks in a LFS Month (Means Based on LFS March-December 2007)
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mean Contact Days
Field day
MV Week1
MV Week2
MV Week3
MV Week4
MV Week5
17
Total Number Contact Days, Reference Weeks, in a LFS Month (Means Based on LFS March-December 2007)
0,000
0,100
0,200
0,300
0,400
0,500
0,600
0,700
0,800
0,900
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Response Rate
Contact Days
Mresp W1
Mresp W2
Mresp W3
Mresp W4
Mresp W5
18
Relative Bias for Income Accumulated on Contact Days, in a LFS Month (Means Based on LFS March-December 2007)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Relative Bias
Contact Days
Rbias Week1
Rbias Week2
Rbias Week3
Rbias Week4
Rbias Week5
19
LFS: Final Variability in Relative Bias for Income, Reference Weeks (Means Based on LFS March-December 2007)
Number of Observations
Mean Relative Bias in Percent
Low 95-Percent confidence interval
High 95-Percent confidence interval
Week 1 10 4.17 3.75 4.58
Week 2 10 3.90 3.46 4.35
Week 3 10 4.22 3.59 4.84
Week 4 10 3.65 3.00 4.29
Week 5 3 4.91 4.33 5.48
All 10 4.08 3.69 4.46
20
HF 2006, LCS 2007 and LFS 2007: Estimated Relative Bias of mean Income in SEK in Percent and Outcome Rates
HF 2006 LCS 2007 LFS 2007
Outcome Rate % Rel. Bias
% of Sample*
% Rel. Bias
% of Sample
% Rel. Bias
% of Sample**
Respondents 2.7 70.3 1.2 73.4 4.1 81.7
Refusals 5.1 16.8 6.6 15.5 -1.9 7.8
Noncontacts + Other Nonresp.
-19.8 12.9 -16.8 11.0 -32.8 10.5
*) Based on 36,864 individuals **) Based on the average of 10 months LFS (21,500 individual each month)
21
ReferencesCobben, F. and Schouten, B. (2008). An empirical validation of R-indicators. Discussion paper 08006, CBS, Voorburg.
Schouten, B. and Cobben, F. (2007). R-indexes for the comparison of different fieldwork strategies and data collection modes. Discussion paper 07002, CBS, Voorburg.
Särndal, C.E. and Lundström, S. (2008). Assessing auxiliary vectors for control of nonresponse bias in the calibration estimator. Journal of Official Statistics, 24, 167-191.
Westling, S. (2008). “Utveckling för system av kontaktstrategier i intervjuundersökningar med individer och hushåll” Delrapport II, unpublished report, Örebro, Sweden: Statistics Sweden. [In Swedish]