Errors in Surveys • Views of the Components of Error • Types of Error

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Errors in Surveys • Views of the Components of Error • Types of Error Errors in survey: Overview • Models of survey error: What, why, different perspectives • Total survey error and mean square error Errors in Surveys • Views of the components of error • Types of error What are models of survey error? Why models of survey error? These models serve at least two functions: • Models of survey error are statements in mathematical notation about the factors that influence a survey answer • Descriptive • All models make assumptions and simplifications • Identify and label components of error • Models from different traditions use different formulations • Indicate where in the process of survey measurement and have different conceptualizations of validity and errors originate reliability • Theoretical and statistical • Imply conditions or designs under which errors can be estimated • Make assumptions about error explicit Three questions about models of error Why models of survey error (continued) (Groves, 1991, pp. 3-5) When we have designs that allow us to measure the impact of errors on survey estimates, then we can: • What is the statistic of interest? • Will constant errors affect the statistic of interest? • Explore ways of reducing errors and test success of results • Errors can affect means and regression coefficients differently • Evaluate trade-offs between errors and costs Three questions about models of error (continued) Perspectives on error (Groves 1991) • Which features of data collection are fixed and which are • Disciplines variable? • Sampling statistics • Affects which components can be estimated and • Population means and totals interpretation of observations • Total survey error • Example: Sampling statistician is concerned with variation • Psychometrics over samples from same population with same design. • Econometrics Analyst may be concerned with values of a specific sample. • Orientation • Example: Psychometric notions of reliability consider • Reduce or measure response error over repeated applications of same item to • Collect or analyze same sample, not over different samples. • Describe or model • What assumptions are made about persons not measured or the properties of observational errors--are errors eliminated by model assumptions? Example: Sampling distribution (Kish 1965, p. 12) Example: Sampling distribution (Kish 1965) (continued) Y is the population quantity estimated by y under a set of essential survey conditions. The diagram shows the sampling distribution of y . Each of the "." represents a specific sample estimate, y . If there is bias in the estimator of Y provided by the sample design (sampling bias), E () y will differ from Y true . We will ignore the possibility of sampling bias. We will consider only the total distance between the E () y and , and we will think of the distance as total bias. Y Y true Mean square error (continued) Mean square error MSE=+var iance bias2 The mean square error of an estimator includes both • Deviations are taken from the population value, Y . variable error and bias: • Variable errors are those that vary over replications. MSEy()=+− Vary () [ Ey ( Y )]2 • For example, we imagine conducting replications of the survey under the same essential survey conditions, The variable component can be generalized to include drawing different respondents each time. variable errors in addition to sampling error. • Each trial gives a different estimate, and the distribution of estimates is the sampling distribution of the statistic. We cannot usually estimate the bias component of MSE • Bias includes sources of error that are constant over because we do not have information about Y , which we repeated replications of the survey design, that is,Y may can think of here as equivalent to . Y true not be equal to . Y true Sometimes we can ask about something for which there • Models differ in what is considered fixed and what is is an external criterion, that can be used as an estimate considered variable of Y true , even if it is not a perfect estimate. • Which components of error can be estimated depends on the survey design. Mean square error: Variability and bias Mean square error: Variability and bias (Biemer and Lyberg 2003) • Consider two estimators with different properties • One has high variance and low bias • One has low variance and high bias • What is the total MSE of each? Mean square error (continued): Variance and Composition of the MSE (Biemer and Lyberg 2003, p. 58) bias (Biemer and Lyberg 2003) Left Target: Low Bias, High Variance Right Target: High Bias, Low Variance Distance from Hit to Squared Distance from Hit Squared Hit Center of Hits Distance from Hit to Center of Hits Distance from Center Center 1 (2.2 - 0.15) = 2.05 4.20 1 (3.1 - 4.5) = -1.40 1.96 2 (-3.6 - 0.15) = -3.75 14.06 2 (3.7 - 4.5) = -0.80 0.64 3 -4.65 21.62 3 0.80 0.64 4 6.65 44.22 4 0.40 0.16 5 4.95 24.50 5 1.60 2.56 6 -7.35 54.02 6 -0.10 0.01 7 -4.05 16.40 7 -1.70 2.89 8 5.15 26.52 8 1.60 2.56 9 -1.95 3.80 9 0.00 0.00 10 2.95 8.70 10 -0.40 0.16 Avg. 0.0 21.81 Avg. 0.0 1.17 (=variance) (=variance) Bias = (0.15-0.0) = 0.15 Bias2 = 0.023 Bias = (4.5-0.0) = 4.5 Bias2 = 20.25 MSE = Bias2+Variance = 21.8 MSE = Bias2+Variance = 21.4 Example: Contribution of bias to total error Example: Contribution of bias to total error (Kish 1965, p. 513) (continued) Homeowners interviewed about home value We can see the relative contributions of variable error and bias to total error by examining RMSE under different sample y = mean in sample = 9,200 sizes: n= standard deviation = 5,700 100 1,000 10,000 2 Y true = appraiser estimate = 8,880 57. n .57 .18 .06 ()57. 22n + 32 .65 .37 .32 if appraiser estimate is true mean, 22 2 57..() 57n + 032 .*76 240 308 bias = 320 = 3.5% of mean 2 * number of observations from unbiased design that would without bias, RMSE= 57. n yield the same total error as n observations from design with 22 with bias, RMSE=+()57.. n 32 a mean bias of .32 = measure of the effect of the bias on the total error for different sample sizes Sampling variance as a component of total MSE, Comparing MSE across designs – bias Comparing MSE across designs (Biemer and (continued) Lyberg 2003, p. 60-61) • Design A - face-to-face • Frame bias: Area frame sample, so all houses will be listed and coverage error should be low • Response bias: Highest response rate, nonresponse bias probably lowest • Measurement bias: Likely to be lowest • Design B - telephone interviewing • Frame bias: RDD frame omits those without phones • Response bias: Moderately low response rate, nonresponse bias probably intermediate • Measurement bias: Likely to be larger than A • Design C - self-administered by mail • Frame bias: Telephone directory-type listing for obtaining addresses omits both nontelephone and unlisted households • Response bias: Lowest response rate, nonresponse bias probably highest • Measurement bias: Likely to be larger than A Comparing MSE across designs - variance (continued) Views of the components of error • Design A - face-to-face • Measurement variance: Largest because of presence of • Error and the steps in a survey (Groves et al. 2004) interviewer • Error in the survey process (Groves et al. 2004) • Sampling variance: largest because budget allows smallest sample size • Sampling and five major sources of nonsampling error • Design B - telephone interviewing (Biemer and Lyberg 2003) • Measurement variance: Intermediate because uses • Total survey error perspective interviewer, but interviewer not in the room • Sampling variance: intermediate because cost of interviews allow intermediate sample size • Design C - self-administered by mail • Measurement variance: Smallest because of absence of interviewer • Sampling variance: smallest because budget allows largest sample size Error and quality in the steps of a survey Error and the survey process (Groves et al. 2004) (Groves et al. 2004, p. 48) Major sources of error (Biemer and Lyberg 2003, p. 39) Major sources of error (continued) • Nonresponse error • Sampling error • Whole unit • Specification error • Within unit • Concepts • Item • Objectives • Incomplete information from open questions • Data elements • Measurement error • Frame error • Information systems or records consulted by respondents • Omissions • Setting • Erroneous inclusions • Mode of data collection • Duplications • Respondent • Interviewer • Instrument Total survey error: Types of error (based on Major sources of error (continued) Groves 1989) • Processing error • Editing • Data entry • Weighting • Tabulation Total Survey Error Errors of Nonobservation Errors of Observation Errors of Processing Coverage Questionnaire, Mode Editing Sampling Interviewer Coding Nonresponse Respondent Imputation Total survey error: Types of error (Groves 1989) Methods of measuring errors Bias Variance P Universe statistics Coverage P Replication of frame construction Sampling P Frame statistics P Randomized, repeated selections Nonresponse P Sample statistics P Randomized, multiple recruiters Measurement P Records, true values P Interpenetration of on R's multiple measurers Processing P Pre-post comparison P Interpenetration of processors.
Recommended publications
  • 9Th GESIS Summer School in Survey Methodology August 2020
    9th GESIS Summer School in Survey Methodology August 2020 Syllabus for short course C: “Applied Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” Lecturers: Dr. Jessica Daikeler Sonila Dardha E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Homepage: https://www.gesis.org/en/institute/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sonila_Dard /staff/person/Jessica.wengrzik ha Date: 12-14 August 2020 Time: 10:00-16:00 Time zone: CEST, course starts on Wednesday at 10:00 Venue: Online via Zoom About the Lecturers: Jessica is a survey methodologist and works at GESIS in the Survey Operations and Survey Statistics teams in the Survey Design and Methodology department. Jessica wrote her dissertation on "The Application of Evidence- Based Methods in Survey Methodology" with Prof. Michael Bosnjak (University of Trier & ZPID) and Prof. Florian Keusch (University of Mannheim). At GESIS she is involved in the application of evidence-based methods, in par- ticular experiments, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. She has lots of experience with different systematic review and meta-analysis projects. Her research is currently focused on data quality in web and mobile surveys, link of nonresponse and measurement errors, data linkage and, of course, methods for the accumulation of evi- dence. Sonila is a survey methodologist researching interviewer effects, response patterns, nonresponse error and 3MC surveys, and a survey practitioner coordinating cross-country comparative projects. She is currently pursuing her PhD in Survey Research Methodology at City, University of London, the home institution of the European Social Survey (ESS ERIC). Sonila has previously obtained three Master degrees, one of which in M.Sc in Statistics (Quan- titative Analysis for the Social Sciences) from KU Leuven, Belgium.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Econometrics an Empirical Total Survey Error Decomposition
    Journal of Econometrics xxx (xxxx) xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Econometrics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeconom An empirical total survey error decomposition using data combination ∗ Bruce D. Meyer a,b,c, Nikolas Mittag d, a Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1307 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, United States of America b NBER, United States of America c AEI, United States of America d CERGE-EI, joint workplace of Charles University and the Economics Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Politických v¥z¬· 7, Prague 1, 110 00, Czech Republic article info a b s t r a c t Article history: Survey error is known to be pervasive and to bias even simple, but important, estimates Received 16 July 2019 of means, rates, and totals, such as the poverty and the unemployment rate. In order Received in revised form 16 July 2019 to summarize and analyze the extent, sources, and consequences of survey error, we Accepted 5 March 2020 define empirical counterparts of key components of the Total Survey Error Framework Available online xxxx that can be estimated using data combination. Specifically, we estimate total survey Keywords: error and decompose it into three high level sources of error: generalized coverage Total survey error error, item non-response error and measurement error. We further decompose these Administrative data sources into lower level sources such as failure to report a positive amount and errors Measurement error in amounts conditional on reporting a positive value. For errors in dollars paid by two Linked data large government transfer programs, we use administrative records on the universe Data combination of program payments in New York State linked to three major household surveys to estimate the error components previously defined.
    [Show full text]
  • American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Erro
    American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error Version 2.0 January 30, 2014 ACS Design and Methodology (January 2014) – Improving Data Quality Page ii [This page intentionally left blank] Version 2.0 January 30, 2014 ACS Design and Methodology (January 2014) – Improving Data Quality Page iii Table of Contents Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error ............................... 1 15.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1 15.2 Coverage Error ................................................................................................................. 2 15.3 Nonresponse Error............................................................................................................ 3 15.4 Measurement Error ........................................................................................................... 6 15.5 Processing Error ............................................................................................................... 7 15.6 Census Bureau Statistical Quality Standards ................................................................... 8 15.7 References ........................................................................................................................ 9 Version 2.0 January 30, 2014 ACS Design and Methodology (January 2014) – Improving Data Quality Page iv [This page intentionally left
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence from World Values Survey Data
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Tausch, Arno Innsbruck University and Corvinus University 17 November 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/90093/ MPRA Paper No. 90093, posted 18 Nov 2018 03:28 UTC The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Arno Tausch Abstract 1) Background: This paper addresses the return of religious Antisemitism by a multivariate analysis of global opinion data from 28 countries. 2) Methods: For the lack of any available alternative we used the World Values Survey (WVS) Antisemitism study item: rejection of Jewish neighbors. It is closely correlated with the recent ADL-100 Index of Antisemitism for more than 100 countries. To test the combined effects of religion and background variables like gender, age, education, income and life satisfaction on Antisemitism, we applied the full range of multivariate analysis including promax factor analysis and multiple OLS regression. 3) Results: Although religion as such still seems to be connected with the phenomenon of Antisemitism, intervening variables such as restrictive attitudes on gender and the religion-state relationship play an important role. Western Evangelical and Oriental Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are performing badly on this account, and there is also a clear global North-South divide for these phenomena. 4) Conclusions: Challenging patriarchic gender ideologies and fundamentalist conceptions of the relationship between religion and state, which are important drivers of Antisemitism, will be an important task in the future. Multiculturalism must be aware of prejudice, patriarchy and religious fundamentalism in the global South.
    [Show full text]
  • A Total Survey Error Perspective on Comparative Surveys
    A Total Survey Error Perspective on Comparative Surveys October 2nd 2014 – ITSEW – Washington DC Beth-Ellen Pennell, University of Michigan Lars Lyberg, Stockholm University Peter Mohler, University of Mannheim Kristen Cibelli Hibben, University of Michigan (presenting author) Gelaye Worku, Stockholm University © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Presentation Outline 1. Background 2. Integrated Total Survey Error Model Contribution to Errors: Representation: Coverage, Sampling, Nonresponse errors Measurement: Validity, Measurement errors Measurement error – expanded view 3. Conclusion © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Background 1. The scope, scale, and number of multicultural, multiregional or multinational (3M) surveys continues to grow a. Examples: European Social Survey (20+ countries), the World Values Survey (75+ countries), the Gallup World Poll (160 countries) 2. The purpose is comparability – An estimate for one country should be reasonably comparable to another. 3. However, comparability in 3M surveys is affected by various error sources that we are used to considering plus some additional ones. © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Background, continued… 1. 3M surveys have an error typology that differs from monocultural surveys. a. Error sources in 3M surveys are typically amplified b. 3M surveys often require additional operations – i.e. adaptation, translation 2. Few attempts have been made to adapt the TSE framework to 3M surveys (except see: Smith’s (2011) refined TSE model). 3. The proposed TSE typology integrates error sources – and associated methodological and operational challenges that may limit comparability. © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Total Survey Error (Groves et al., 2004) © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan An Integrated TSE Model Some general points: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Measurement Error Estimation Methods in Survey Methodology
    Available at Applications and http://pvamu.edu/aam Applied Mathematics: Appl. Appl. Math. ISSN: 1932-9466 An International Journal (AAM) Vol. 11, Issue 1 (June 2016), pp. 97 - 114 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Measurement Error Estimation Methods in Survey Methodology Alireza Zahedian1 and Roshanak Aliakbari Saba2 1Statistical Centre of Iran Dr. Fatemi Ave. Post code: 14155 – 6133 Tehran, Iran 2Statistical Research and Training Center Dr. Fatemi Ave., BabaTaher St., No. 145 Postal code: 14137 – 17911 Tehran, Iran [email protected] Received: May 7, 2014; Accepted: January 13, 2016 Abstract One of the most important topics that are discussed in survey methodology is the accuracy of statistics or survey errors that may occur in the parameters estimation process. In statistical literature, these errors are grouped into two main categories: sampling errors and non-sampling errors. Measurement error is one of the most important non-sampling errors. Since estimating of measurement error is more complex than other types of survey errors, much more research has been done on ways of preventing or dealing with this error. The main problem associated with measurement error is the difficulty to measure or estimate this error in surveys. Various methods can be used for estimating measurement error in surveys, but the most appropriate method in each survey should be adopted according to the method of calculating statistics and the survey conditions. This paper considering some practical experiences in calculating and evaluating surveys results, intends to help statisticians to adopt an appropriate method for estimating measurement error. So to achieve this aim, after reviewing the concept and sources of measurement error, some methods of estimating the error are revised in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Considerations in the Total Survey Error Context
    Ethical Considerations in the Total Survey Error Context Julie de Jong 3MCII International Conference July 26-29, 2016 Chicago, Illinois © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Acknowledgements • Invited paper in Advances in Comparative Survey Methods: Multicultural, Multinational and Multiregional Contexts (3MC), edited by T.P. Johnson, B.E. Pennell, I.A.L. Stoop, & B. Dorer. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. • Special thanks to Kirsten Alcser, Christopher Antoun, Ashley Bowers, Judi Clemens, Christina Lien, Steve Pennell, and Kristen Cibelli Hibben who contributed substantially to earlier iterations of the chapter “Ethical Considerations” in the Cross-Cultural Survey Guidelines from which this chapter draws material. © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Overview – Legal and professional regulations and socio-political contexts can lead to differences in how ethical protocols are realized across countries. – Differences in the implementation of ethical standards contributes to the sources of total survey error (TSE) • TSE describes statistical properties of survey estimates by incorporating a variety of error sources and is used in the survey design stage, in the data collection process, and evaluation and post survey adjustments (Groves & Lyberg, 2010) • The TSE framework is generally used to design and evaluate a single-country survey – The framework has been extended to 3MC surveys and the impact of TSE on overall comparison error (Smith 2011) 3 © 2014 by the Regents of the University of Michigan Objectives
    [Show full text]
  • The Total Survey Error Paradigm and Challenges to Its Application in the Arab World
    The Total Survey Error Paradigm and Challenges to its Application in the Arab World Kathrin Thomas1 Michael Robbins1,2 1 Princeton University 2University of Michigan 5 June 2018 Where to begin... "Honest discussions about the extent, sources of, an solutions for quality issues [...] are needed. Regionally specific issues [...] raise concerns about social desirability and underscore the need for methodological research. Technological advances [...] oer possibilities for real-time monitoring and [...] research [...]. Yet apart from a handful of studies on interviewer eects, anchoring vignettes, and a few other topics, almost no research systematically assesses the impact of the survey methods used on data quality in the Arab world." (Benstead, 2018) Puzzle Is the Arab survey world just a few decades behind? Surveys and polling fairly new: beginning in 1980s, but real interest since the Arab uprising 2011 (Benstead, 2018) While core principles of Total Survey Error (TSE) are followed, holistic concept not (yet) recognised Survey practice in the Arab world may also make application of TSE more dicult The TSE MEASUREMENT REPRESENTATION Construct Population Validity Coverage Error Measurement Sampling Frame Measurement Sampling Error Error Response Sample Processing Nonresponse Error Error Edited Data Respondents Survey Statistic (Groves & Lyberg, 2010) Representation Potentially poor coverage due to past or ongoing security treats Absence of transparent sampling frames and/or outdated censuses Limited attention given to nonresponse and incomplete
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Issues in Survey Research
    QualityQuality IssuesIssues inin SurveySurvey ResearchResearch DANSDANS SymposiumSymposium onon SurveySurvey DataData QualityQuality Amsterdam, April 9, 2008 Joop J. Hox & Edith D. de Leeuw, Utrecht University WhatWhat isis Quality?Quality? W. Edwards Deming Statistician & quality control expert WW II: Statistical quality control Influential in Japan’s reconstruction after WW II Forgotten in US, picked up around 1980 by Joseph Juran Deming: build quality into the process, do not rely on quality checks Focus on quality, costs will then decrease Focus on costs, quality will decrease but costs will nox 2 WhatWhat isis Quality?Quality? Juran: Quality is “Fitness for Use” Juran started thinking about quality in a wider context Attention to process quality Collect process data to monitor quality Management tools to maintain quality Maintaining quality as a continuous process This has strongly influenced the ISO (International standard setting 3 WhatWhat isis Quality?Quality? Juran: Quality is “Fitness for Use” Multi-dimensional, subjective notion depending on product, production process, and user Construction quality (e.g., IKEA quality) Operational quality (e.g., max. # of defects) Sampling statistics quality (e.g., Mean Square Error) Total Quality Management (e.g., Process quality) 4 QualityQuality inin Surveys:Surveys: FrameworkFramework Data Quality Timeliness Accuracy Accessibility Accuracy Costs = Small Errors 5 TotalTotal SurveySurvey QualityQuality More than just minimizing total survey error Add fitness for use
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 12, Survey Design and Implementation Cross-Cutting
    Chapter 12: Survey Design and Implementation Cross-Cutting Protocols for Estimating Gross Savings Robert Baumgartner, Tetra Tech Subcontract Report NREL/SR-7A30-53827 April 2013 Chapter 12 – Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 2 The Total Survey Error Framework ....................................................................................... 4 2.1 TSE Framework for Evaluating Survey and Data Quality .............................................. 4 2.2 Sampling Errors ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Nonresponse Errors .......................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Coverage Errors ............................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Measurement Errors ......................................................................................................... 7 3 Developing Questions .......................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Order of Response Alternatives ..................................................................................... 14 3.2 Rating or Ranking? ........................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Summary of Best Practices for Question Design and Order
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology-2020.Pdf
    From: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf Northeast Region New England Division: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut Middle Atlantic Division: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Midwest Region East North Central Division: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin West North Central Division: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas South Region South Atlantic Division: Delaware, Maryland, D.C., Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida East South Central Division: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi West South Central Division: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas West Region Mountain Division: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada Pacific Division: Washington, Oregon, California Terms and Definitions The following terms and definitions provide a detailed description of specific terms and phrases used in this publication. In addition, items in the publication tables that carry the note “See Appendix” are explained. Census Divisions: groupings of states that are subdivisions of the four census regions. There are nine census divisions, which the U.S. Census Bureau adopted in 1910 for the presentation of data. Also, see previous page with Census Regions and Divisions for the United States. For additional information, see U.S. Census Bureau’s website. Census Regions: groupings of states that subdivide the United States for the presentation of data. There are four census regions- Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Each of the four census regions is divided into two or more census divisions. Before 1984, the Midwest region was named the North Central region. From 1910, when census regions were established, through the 1940s, there were three census regions- North, South, and West.
    [Show full text]
  • The Total Survey Error Paradigm and Comparison Error: a Component-Level Evaluation
    The Total Survey Error Paradigm and Comparison Error: A Component-Level Evaluation Tom W. Smith NORC at the University of Chicago International Workshop on Comparative Survey Design and Implementation Warsaw, March, 2019 Figure 1: TSE Omissions Frame Duplications Errant Inclusions Household Sampling Selection Respondent Drawing Sample Statistical Weighting Inference Coverage Nonobservation Refusals Nonresponse Unavailable Other Total Survey Error Sponsor Medium Data Collector Auspice Omission Content Instrument Other Wording Collection Response Scale Interviewer Context Distractions Setting Nonsampling Confidentiality Respondent Observation Recall Cognitive Data Entry Comprehension Presentational Coding Processing Editing/Cleaning Transferring Documentation Conceptual Weighting Analysis Statistical Tabulation Presentational Figure 2: TSE and Multiple Surveys Frame Frame Household Sampling Selection Respondent Household Sampling Selection Respondent Statistical Refusals Statistical Refusals Coverage Unavailable Coverage Nonobservation Unavailable Nonresponse Nonobservation Other Nonresponse Other Total Survey Error Total Survey Error Medium Medium Content Content Auspice Auspice Wording Wording Instrument Instrument Collection Response Scale Response Scale Collection Context Interviewer Context Nonsampling Interviewer Observation Setting Setting Nonsampling Cognitive Observation Respondent Presentational Cognitive Respondent Data Entry Presentational Data Entry Coding Processing Coding Editing/Cleaning Processing Editing/Cleaning Transferring
    [Show full text]