减少大规模小组调查中的无反应和数据链接同意偏差。

Q3 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Forum for Health Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1515/fhep-2021-0060
Joseph W Sakshaug
{"title":"减少大规模小组调查中的无反应和数据链接同意偏差。","authors":"Joseph W Sakshaug","doi":"10.1515/fhep-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Selection bias is an ongoing concern in large-scale panel surveys where the cumulative effects of unit nonresponse increase at each subsequent wave of data collection. A second source of selection bias in panel studies is the inability to link respondents to supplementary administrative records, either because respondents do not consent to link or the matching algorithm fails to locate their administrative records. Both sources of selection bias can affect the validity of conclusions drawn from these data sources. In this article, I discuss recently proposed methods of reducing both sources of selection bias in panel studies, with a special emphasis on reducing selection bias in the US Health and Retirement Study.</p>","PeriodicalId":38039,"journal":{"name":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing Nonresponse and Data Linkage Consent Bias in Large-Scale Panel Surveys.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph W Sakshaug\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/fhep-2021-0060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Selection bias is an ongoing concern in large-scale panel surveys where the cumulative effects of unit nonresponse increase at each subsequent wave of data collection. A second source of selection bias in panel studies is the inability to link respondents to supplementary administrative records, either because respondents do not consent to link or the matching algorithm fails to locate their administrative records. Both sources of selection bias can affect the validity of conclusions drawn from these data sources. In this article, I discuss recently proposed methods of reducing both sources of selection bias in panel studies, with a special emphasis on reducing selection bias in the US Health and Retirement Study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38039,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forum for Health Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2021-0060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forum for Health Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fhep-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

选择偏差在大规模小组调查中是一个持续关注的问题,其中单位无反应的累积效应在随后的每一波数据收集中都会增加。小组研究中选择偏差的第二个来源是无法将受访者与补充行政记录联系起来,要么是因为受访者不同意联系,要么匹配算法未能找到他们的行政记录。选择偏差的两个来源都会影响从这些数据源得出的结论的有效性。在这篇文章中,我讨论了最近提出的减少小组研究中选择偏差的两种来源的方法,特别强调了减少美国健康和退休研究中的选择偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reducing Nonresponse and Data Linkage Consent Bias in Large-Scale Panel Surveys.

Selection bias is an ongoing concern in large-scale panel surveys where the cumulative effects of unit nonresponse increase at each subsequent wave of data collection. A second source of selection bias in panel studies is the inability to link respondents to supplementary administrative records, either because respondents do not consent to link or the matching algorithm fails to locate their administrative records. Both sources of selection bias can affect the validity of conclusions drawn from these data sources. In this article, I discuss recently proposed methods of reducing both sources of selection bias in panel studies, with a special emphasis on reducing selection bias in the US Health and Retirement Study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forum for Health Economics and Policy
Forum for Health Economics and Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Forum for Health Economics & Policy (FHEP) showcases articles in key substantive areas that lie at the intersection of health economics and health policy. The journal uses an innovative structure of forums to promote discourse on the most pressing and timely subjects in health economics and health policy, such as biomedical research and the economy, and aging and medical care costs. Forums are chosen by the Editorial Board to reflect topics where additional research is needed by economists and where the field is advancing rapidly. The journal is edited by Katherine Baicker, David Cutler and Alan Garber of Harvard University, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Dana Goldman of the University of Southern California and RAND Corporation, Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California, Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson of University of Chicago, Pinar Karaca Mandic of the University of Minnesota, and John Romley of the University of Southern California. FHEP is sponsored by the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California. A subscription to the journal also includes the proceedings from the National Bureau of Economic Research''s annual Frontiers in Health Policy Research Conference. Topics: Economics, Political economics, Biomedical research and the economy, Aging and medical care costs, Nursing, Cancer studies, Medical treatment, Others related.
期刊最新文献
Optimal Taxation of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes: Principles for Taxing Reduced-Harm Tobacco Products. Self-Reported Mental Health and the Demand for Mental Health Care After a Labor Market Shock: Evidence from the Spanish Great Recession. California Hospitals' Rapidly Declining Traditional Medicare Operating Margins. Benefits of Adopting by Reference Portions of Clinical Protocols. Frontmatter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1