2021
DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12635
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leveraging Auxiliary Information on Marginal Distributions in Nonignorable Models for Item and Unit Nonresponse

Abstract: Often, government agencies and survey organizations know the population counts or percentages for some of the variables in a survey. These may be available from auxiliary sources, for example administrative databases or other high‐quality surveys. We present and illustrate a model‐based framework for leveraging such auxiliary marginal information when handling unit and item nonresponse. We show how one can use the margins to specify different missingness mechanisms for each type of nonresponse. We use the fram… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 46 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unit non-response or panel attrition (i.e., principals that participated in wave one but not wave two of our study) between waves in our data was 46.2%; item non-response for our measures during wave one was 0.70% and 3.60% during wave two. To handle unit non-response and cross-sectional missing data (item non-response), we followed Akande et al ( 2021 ), Deng et al ( 2013 ), and Hirano et al ( 2001 ) and thus combined refreshment with a multiple imputation approach (i.e., P+R approach, see Deng et al, 2013 ). Consequently, at each stage of analysis we generated a completed data set that included all N = 493 cases from the panel and refreshment sample, imputed the data 100 times, and used these data for estimating our CLPM and all other reported coefficients and statistics (see ‘ Appendix 3 ’ for an exemplary Mplus input).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unit non-response or panel attrition (i.e., principals that participated in wave one but not wave two of our study) between waves in our data was 46.2%; item non-response for our measures during wave one was 0.70% and 3.60% during wave two. To handle unit non-response and cross-sectional missing data (item non-response), we followed Akande et al ( 2021 ), Deng et al ( 2013 ), and Hirano et al ( 2001 ) and thus combined refreshment with a multiple imputation approach (i.e., P+R approach, see Deng et al, 2013 ). Consequently, at each stage of analysis we generated a completed data set that included all N = 493 cases from the panel and refreshment sample, imputed the data 100 times, and used these data for estimating our CLPM and all other reported coefficients and statistics (see ‘ Appendix 3 ’ for an exemplary Mplus input).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%