Ζητήματα της μη-απόκρισης: Μεγαλύτερη «κάλυψη» του δείγματος ή ικανοποίηση των κριτηρίων συγκρισιμότητας στη συλλογή των δεδομένων;

PDF
Δημοσιευμένα: Jan 27, 2023
Ενημερώθηκε: 2023-01-27
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.33164
Λέξεις-κλειδιά:
μη-απόκριση, συγκρισιμότητα, αρνήσεις, επαναληπτικές επισκέψεις, Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινωνική Έρευνα
Εύα Τσουπαροπούλου
Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο Κοινωνικών και Πολιτικών Επιστημών
Περίληψη

Το ζήτημα της μη-απόκρισης θα απασχολεί τους κοινωνικούς επιστήμονες όσο οι δείκτες απόκρισης μειώνονται ραγδαία. Η αύξηση του αριθμού των επαναληπτικών επισκέψεων χρησιμοποιείται ως πρακτική αντιμετώπισης αυτού του ζητήματος. Η παρούσα μελέτη εξετάζει την αποτελεσματικότητα των επαναληπτικών επισκέψεων μετά από άρνηση του ερωτώμενου για τις 36 συμμετέχουσες χώρες στην Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινωνική Έρευνα (European Social Survey, ESS) και τους οκτώ γύρους διεξαγωγής της (2002-2016). Επίσης, ελέγχεται η εναρμόνιση (ή μη) όλων των χωρών με τους εκάστοτε σχετικούς μεθοδολογικούς κανόνες για τη θεμελίωση της συγκρισιμότητας των δεδομένων διαχρονικά. Τα αποτελέσματα της μελέτης επιβεβαιώνουν το μέγεθος του προβλήματος της μη-απόκρισης στην κοινωνική έρευνα και την αδυναμία των χωρών που συμμετέχουν στην ESS να εφαρμόσουν τις αυστηρές μεθοδολογικές προδιαγραφές.

Λεπτομέρειες άρθρου
  • Ενότητα
  • Άρθρα
Creative Commons License

Αυτή η εργασία είναι αδειοδοτημένη υπό το CC Αναφορά Δημιουργού – Μη Εμπορική Χρήση 4.0.

Οι συγγραφείς των άρθρων που δημοσιεύονται στην Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών διατηρούν τα δικαιώματα πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας επί των άρθρων τους, δίνοντας στο περιοδικό το δικαίωμα της πρώτης δημοσίευσης. Άρθρα που δημοσιεύονται στην Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών διατίθενται με άδεια  Creative Commons 4.0 και σύμφωνα με την άδεια μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούνται ελεύθερα, με αναφορά στο/στη συγγραφέα και στην πρώτη δημοσίευση για μη κερδοσκοπικούς σκοπούς.

Το Εθνικό Κέντρο Κοινωνικών Ερευνών διατηρεί το δικαίωμα να δημοσιεύει, να αναπαραγάγει, να παρουσιάζει στο κοινό, να διανέμει και χρησιμοποιεί άρθρα που δημοσιεύονται στην Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών σε οποιοδήποτε μέσο και μορφή είτε μεμονωμένα είτε ως μέρη συλλογικών έργων, για όλο τον χρόνο διάρκειας προστασίας της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας και για όλες τις χώρες του κόσμου. Αυτό περιλαμβάνει ενδεικτικά και όχι αποκλειστικά το δικαίωμα δημοσίευσης των άρθρων σε τεύχη της Επιθεώρησης Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, αναπαραγωγής και διανομής μεμονωμένων αντιγράφων των άρθρων, αναπαραγωγής ολόκληρων των άρθρων σε άλλη έκδοση του Εθνικού Κέντρου Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, καθώς και αναπαραγωγής και διανομής των άρθρων ή περίληψης αυτών με χρήση πληροφορικού συστήματος αποθετηρίου.

Λήψεις
Τα δεδομένα λήψης δεν είναι ακόμη διαθέσιμα.
Αναφορές
Κοκολάκης, Γ. και Χρυσαφίνου, Ο. (1988). Λεξικό αγγλο-ελληνικό και ελληνο-αγγλικό στατιστικών όρων με βάση το «Dictionary of Statistical Terms» των M.G. Kendall and W.R. Buckland.
Μιχαλοπούλου, Κ. (2004). Στην αυτοκρατορία των ενδείξεων: Η ιστορία της δειγματοληπτικής πρακτικής στην Ελλάδα. Παπαζήσης.
Μιχαλοπούλου, Κ. (2012). Οι περιπέτειες της απόδοσης των όρων της δειγματοληπτικής θεωρίας και πρακτικής στις κοινωνικές διερευνήσεις και το ανύπαρκτο «στατιστικό σφάλμα»: Ένα σχολιασμένο αγγλοελληνικό γλωσσάριο, Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, 137-138 (Α-B), σελ. 3-49. https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.5
Τσουπαροπούλου, Ε. (2021). Η μη-απόκριση στις δειγματοληπτικές έρευνες μεγάλης-κλίμακας (Διδακτορική Διατριβή). Αθήνα: Πάντειον Πανεπιστήμιο Κοινωνικών και Πολιτικών Επιστημών. Ανάκτηση από http://pandemos.
panteion.gr/index.phpop=record&type=0&q=%CE%A4%CF%83%CE%B%CF%85%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85&page=1&scope=0&lang=el&pid=iid:20808
Chtouris, S. (2019). H δυναμική αμφίδρομη σχέση εμπειρικών δεδομένων και θεωρητικών εννοιών. Ένα πλαίσιο για την καταγραφή και κατανόηση των κοινωνικών φαινομένων. Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, 151, σελ. 137-170. https://doi.org/10.12681/grsr.19859
Bernhardt, R., Munro, D., and Wolcott, E. (2021). How does the dramatic rise of CPS non-response impact labor market indicators? GLO Discussion Paper, No. 781, pp. 1-42. Essen: Global Labor Organization (GLO). https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/229653/1/GLO-DP-0781.pdf
Bethlehem, J. G., Cobben, F., and Schouten, B. (2011). Handbook of nonresponse in household surveys. John Wiley.
Beullens, K., Billiet, J., and Loosveldt, G. (2010). The effect of the elapsed time between the initial refusal and conversion contact on conversion success: Evidence from the 2nd round of the European Social Survey. Quality & Quantity, 44 (6), pp. 1053-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9257-4
Beullens, K., Loosveldt, G., Vandenplas, C., and Stoop, I. (2018). Response rates in the European Social Survey: Increasing, decreasing, or a matter of fieldwork efforts? Survey methods: Insights from the field. https://surveyinsights.org/?p=9673
Beullens, K., Vandecasteele, L., and Billiet, J. (2007). Refusal conversion in the second round of the European Social Survey (Working paper). K.U.Leuven, Centrum voor Sociologisch Onderzoek (CeSO).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293781720_Refusal_Conversion_in_the_Second_Round_of_the_European_Social_Survey
Billiet, J., Matsuo, H., Beullens, K., and Vehovar, V. (2009). Non-response bias in cross-national surveys: Designs for detection and adjustment in the ESS. Ask: Research and Methods, 18(1), pp. 3-43. https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/69563
Billiet, J., Philippens, M., Fitzgerald, R., and Stoop, I. (2007). Estimation of nonresponse bias in the European Social Survey: Using information from reluctant respondents. Journal of Official Statistics, 23 (2), pp. 135-162.
Billiet, J., and Pleysier, S. (2007). Response based quality assessment in the ESS – Round 2: An Update for 26 Countries. K.U. Leuven: Center of Sociological Research (CeSO). https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round2/methods/ESS2_response_based_quality_assessment.pdf
Blasius, J. (2006). Assessing data quality and construct comparability in cross-national surveys. European Sociological Review, 22 (3), pp. 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci054
Brick, J. M., and Williams, D. (2013). Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,645 (1), pp. 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212456834
Cai, Y., and Baker, D. (2021). Masking real unemployment: The overall and racial impact of survey non-response on measured labor market outcomes. Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series, No. 150, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.36687/inetwp150
Cochran, W. C. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd edition). John Wiley.
Curtin, R., Presser, S., and Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, pp. 413-428.
Deming, W. Ε. (1944). Οn errors in surveys. American Sociological Review, 9, pp. 359-369. https://doi.org/10.2307/2085979
Deming, W. Ε. (1950). Some theory of sampling. Dover Publication Inc.
Deming, E. (1953). On a probability mechanism to attain an economic balance between the error of response and the bias of nonresponse. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48, pp. 743-772. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281069
Durbin, J., and Stuart, A. (1951). Differences in response rates of experienced and inexperienced interviewers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 114 (2), pp. 163-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/2980975
Durbin, J., and Stuart, A. (1954). Callbacks and clustering in sample surveys: An experimental study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 117 (4), pp. 387-428. https://doi.org/10.2307/2342679
Dutwin, D., Loft, J. D., Darling, J., Holbrook, A., Johnson, T., Langley, R. E.,Lavrakas, P. J., Olson, K., Peytcheva, E., Stec, J., Triplett, T., and Zukerberg, A. (2014). Current knowledge and consideration regarding survey refusals (Report). American Association for Public Opinion Research Task Force on Survey Refusals. https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/MainSiteFiles/RefusalTF_FINAL090814.pdf
Ellis, R. A., Endo, C. H., and Armer, J. M. (1970). The use of potential nonrespondents for studying nonresponse bias. Pacific Sociological Review, 13 (2), pp. 103-109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388313
European Social Survey (2001). Round 1 Specification for Participating Countries. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
European Social Survey (2002a). ESS Round 1 Project Instructions (PAPI). Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
European Social Survey (2002b). Field Procedures in the European Social Survey: Enhancing Response Rates. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
European Social Survey (2014). Round 7 Specification for Participating Countries. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
European Social Survey (2016a). ESS Round 8 Project Instructions (PAPI). ESS ERIC Headquarters, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
European Social Survey (2016b):ESS-1 2002 Documentation Report. Edition 6.5. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016c): ESS-2 2004 Documentation Report. Edition 3.6. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016d): ESS-3 2006 Documentation Report. Edition 3.6. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016e): ESS-4 2008 Documentation Report. Edition 5.4. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016f): ESS-5 2010 Documentation Report. Edition 4.1. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016g): ESS-6 2012 Documentation Report. Edition 2.3. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2016h): ESS-7 2014 Documentation Report. Edition 3.1. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey (2018): ESS-8 2016 Documentation Report. Edition 2.0. European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 1 Data (2002a). Contact form data file edition 1.0. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 2 Data (2004a). Contact form data file edition 3.2. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 3 Data (2006a). Contact form data file edition 1.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 4 Data (2008a). Contact form data file edition 2.0. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 5 Data (2010a). Contact form data file edition 2.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012a). Contact form data file edition 2.0. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 7 Data (2014a). Contact form data file edition 2.1. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Round 8 Data (2016a). Contact form data file edition 2.0. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
European Social Survey Cumulative File, ESS 1-8 (2018). Data file edition 1.0. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.
Goyder, J., Warriner, K., and Miller, S. (2002). Evaluating socio-economic status (SES) bias in survey nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 18 (1), pp. 1-11. Retrieved from https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d2
bbee5bf7be7fb3/evaluating-socio-economic-status-ses-bias-in-survey-nonresponse.pdf
Groves, R. M. (2006). Non response rates and non response bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (5), pp. 646-675. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl033
Groves, R., and Couper M. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. John Wiley.
Groves, R. M., Couper, M. P., Presser, S., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., Piani Acosta, G., and Nelson, L. (2006). Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70 (5), pp. 720-736. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl036
Groves, R.M., and Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (2), pp. 167-189. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn011
Groves, R.M., Presser, S., and Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), pp. 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh002
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., and Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (3), pp. 299-308. https://doi.org/10.1086/317990
Hansen, M. H., and Hurwitz, W. N. (1946). The problem of non-response in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 41 (236), pp. 517–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1946.10501894
Hedlin, D. (2020). Is there a 'safe area' where the nonresponse rate has only a modest effect on bias despite non‐ignorable nonresponse?. International Statistical Review, 88 (3), pp. 642-657.https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12359
Heerwegh, D., Abts, K., and Loosveldt, G. (2007). Minimizing survey refusal and noncontact rates: Do our efforts pay off? Survey Research Methods, 1 (1), pp. 3-10. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2007.v1i1.46
Jones, J. (1996). The effects of non-response on statistical inference. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 8 (1), pp. 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J045v08n01_05
Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Sage.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R.M., and Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, pp. 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/317759
Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley.
Kish, L. (1994). Multipopulation survey designs: Five types with seven shared aspects. International Statistical Review, 62 (2), pp. 167-186. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403507
Kreuter, F. (Ed.) (2013). Improving surveys with paradata: Analytic uses of process information. John Wiley.
Kviz, F. J. (1977). Toward a Standard Definition of Response Rate.The Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(2), pp. 265-267. https://doi.org/10.1086/268382
Lazarsfeld, P. (1941). Repeated interviews as a tool for studying changes in opinion and their causes. American Statistical Association Bulletin, 2 (1), pp. 3-7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42731708
Likert, R. (1947). The sample interview survey: A fundamental research tool of the social sciences. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in psychology (pp. 196–225). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Loosveldt, G., Philippens, M., Stoop, I., and Billiet, J. (2004). Refusal conversion procedures in the European Social Survey. Paper for the International Workshop on Household Nonresponse in Leuven, Belgium, September 22–24.
Lowe, F. E., and McCormick, T. C. (1955). Some survey sampling biases. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19 (3), pp. 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/266574
Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11 (2), pp. 204-209. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177731915
Michalopoulou, C. (2016). Statistical internationalism: From Quetelet's census uniformity to Kish's cross-national sample survey comparability. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 32 (4), pp. 545-554. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-160960
Moser, C. A. (1949). The use of sampling in Great Britain. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44 (246), pp. 231-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280597
Moser, C. A. (1958). Survey methods in social investigation (1st edition). William Heinemann (Heinemann Books on Sociology).
Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation. HeinemannEducational Books.
Osier, G. (2016). Unit non-response in household wealth surveys: Experience from the Eurosystem's Household Finance and Consumption Survey.European Central Bank (ECB), Statistics Paper Series, No 15. https://doi.org/10.2866/84445
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K. and Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), pp. 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870
Schutz, A. (1954). Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. The Journal of Philosophy, 51 (9), pp. 257-273.
Steeh, C. J. (1981). Trends in nonresponse rates 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5(1), pp. 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/268633
Stewart, F. (1948). Some sampling problems in sociometric surveys. Sociometry, 11 (4), pp. 301-307. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785190
Stocké, V., and Langfeldt, B. (2004). Effects of survey experience on respondents’ attitudes towards surveys. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de MéthodologieSociologique, 81 (1), pp. 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910630408100103
Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., and Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Improving survey response: lessons learned from the European Social Survey. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470688335
Stoop, I., Jowell, R., and Mohler, P. (2002). The European Social Survey: One survey in two dozen countries. Paper to be presented at the International Conference on Improving Surveys, Copenhagen. http://www.european
socialsurvey.org/docs/about/ESS_background_one_survey.pdf
The Sampling Expert Panel of the ESS (n.d). Sampling for the European Social Survey Round II: Principles and requirements. European Social Survey, GESIS.
The ESS Sampling Expert Panel (2016). Sampling guidelines: Principles and implementation for the European Social Survey. ESS ERIC Headquarters.
Tuli, F. (2011). The basis of distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in social science: Reflection on ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 6 (1), pp. 97-108. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejesc.v6i1.65384
Viswesvaran, C., Barrick, M. R., and Ones, D. S. (1993). How definitive are conclusions based on survey data: Estimating robustness to nonresponse. Personnel Psychology, 46, pp. 511-567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00884.x
Zillmann, D., Schmitz, A., Skopek, J., and Blossfeld, H. P. (2014). Survey topic and unit nonresponse. Quality & Quantity, 48 (4), pp. 2069-2088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9880-y