Filtern
Survey Research Methods (2)
- Europapolitik (1)
- Forschungsarten der Sozialforschung (1)
- soziale Probleme (1)
Erhebungstechniken und Analysetechniken der Sozialwissenschaften (2)
Zeitschriftenaufsatz (2)
Filtern
Anzeige der Dokumente 1-2 von 2
"This study was set up to examine whether personalizing advance letters by adding names and appropriate salutation, affects the survey cooperation of subgroups in the general population differently, in analogy to findings that subgroups react differently to advance letters. Differential reactions could be an explanation for the mixed findings in the literature on personalization of advance or cover letters. In a large scale study (N=39,518), information in communal registries was used to study (non)response patterns in subgroups, as a result of personalization. Advance letters of the Dutch CAPI Labor Force Survey were randomly assigned to addresses. In the non-personalized version (N=30,899), letters were addressed to 'the inhabitants of '. In the personalized version (N=8,619), the name or names of the household core were derived from municipal registries and used for addressing the letter. A re-interview addressed the issue whether the advance letter was read by more households when the household was addressed by name. By linking the sample to registries, it was possible to study response behavior of subgroups. The study focused on groups the literature indicates as differentially reacting to advance letters, i.e., different age, ethnic, gender, household composition and income groups, and groups with or without a listed telephone number. Hardly any difference in the overall level of cooperation was found if either a personalized or non-personalized letter was used. However, differential reactions were found for listed versus unlisted telephone owners, where only listed households reacted positively to personalization. In the other subgroups studied, no firm evidence of differential reactions were found. The paper discusses what these results signify for sample composition and the risk of bias." (author's abstract)"The paper presents the Eurostat experience in calculating measures of precision, including standard errors, confidence intervals and design effect coefficients - the ratio of the variance of a statistic with the actual sample design to the variance of that statistic with a simple random sample of same size - for the 'Laeken' indicators, that is, a set of complex indicators of poverty and inequality which had been set out in the framework of the EU-SILC project (European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions). The Taylor linearization method (Tepping, 1968; Woodru, 1971; Wolter, 1985; Tillé, 2000) is actually a well-established method to obtain variance estimators for nonlinear statistics such as ratios, correlation or regression coefficients. It consists of approximating a nonlinear statistic with a linear function of the observations by using first-order Taylor Series expansions. Then, an easily found variance estimator of the linear approximation is used as an estimator of the variance of the nonlinear statistic. Although the Taylor linearization method handles all the nonlinear statistics which can be expressed as a smooth function of estimated totals, the approach fails to encompass the 'Laeken' indicators since the latter are having more complex mathematical expressions. Consequently, a generalized linearization method (Deville, 1999), which relies on the concept of influence function (Hampel, Ronchetti, Rousseeuw and Stahel, 1986), has been implemented. After presenting the EU-SILC instrument and the main target indicators for which variance estimates are needed, the paper elaborates on the main features of the linearization approach based on influence functions. Ultimately, estimated standard errors, confidence intervals and design effect coefficients obtained from this approach are presented and discussed." (author's abstract)