What Do You Think? Using Expert Opinion to Improve Predictions of Response Propensity Under a Bayesian Framework.

IF 1.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
Stephanie Coffey, Brady T West, James Wagner, Michael R Elliott
{"title":"What Do You Think? Using Expert Opinion to Improve Predictions of Response Propensity Under a Bayesian Framework.","authors":"Stephanie Coffey,&nbsp;Brady T West,&nbsp;James Wagner,&nbsp;Michael R Elliott","doi":"10.12758/mda.2020.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Responsive survey designs introduce protocol changes to survey operations based on accumulating paradata. Case-level predictions, including response propensity, can be used to tailor data collection features in pursuit of cost or quality goals. Unfortunately, predictions based only on partial data from the current round of data collection can be biased, leading to ineffective tailoring. Bayesian approaches can provide protection against this bias. Prior beliefs, which are generated from data external to the current survey implementation, contribute information that may be lacking from the partial current data. Those priors are then updated with the accumulating paradata. The elicitation of the prior beliefs, then, is an important characteristic of these approaches. While historical data for the same or a similar survey may be the most natural source for generating priors, eliciting prior beliefs from experienced survey managers may be a reasonable choice for new surveys, or when historical data are not available. Here, we fielded a questionnaire to survey managers, asking about expected attempt-level response rates for different subgroups of cases, and developed prior distributions for attempt-level response propensity model coefficients based on the mean and standard error of their responses. Then, using respondent data from a real survey, we compared the predictions of response propensity when the expert knowledge is incorporated into a prior to those based on a standard method that considers accumulating paradata only, as well as a method that incorporates historical survey data.</p>","PeriodicalId":44460,"journal":{"name":"Methods Data Analyses","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8174793/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods Data Analyses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2020.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Responsive survey designs introduce protocol changes to survey operations based on accumulating paradata. Case-level predictions, including response propensity, can be used to tailor data collection features in pursuit of cost or quality goals. Unfortunately, predictions based only on partial data from the current round of data collection can be biased, leading to ineffective tailoring. Bayesian approaches can provide protection against this bias. Prior beliefs, which are generated from data external to the current survey implementation, contribute information that may be lacking from the partial current data. Those priors are then updated with the accumulating paradata. The elicitation of the prior beliefs, then, is an important characteristic of these approaches. While historical data for the same or a similar survey may be the most natural source for generating priors, eliciting prior beliefs from experienced survey managers may be a reasonable choice for new surveys, or when historical data are not available. Here, we fielded a questionnaire to survey managers, asking about expected attempt-level response rates for different subgroups of cases, and developed prior distributions for attempt-level response propensity model coefficients based on the mean and standard error of their responses. Then, using respondent data from a real survey, we compared the predictions of response propensity when the expert knowledge is incorporated into a prior to those based on a standard method that considers accumulating paradata only, as well as a method that incorporates historical survey data.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

你怎么看?利用专家意见改进贝叶斯框架下的反应倾向预测。
响应式调查设计引入了基于累积参数的调查操作的协议变更。病例级预测,包括反应倾向,可用于定制数据收集特征,以追求成本或质量目标。不幸的是,仅基于当前数据收集的部分数据的预测可能存在偏差,从而导致无效的裁剪。贝叶斯方法可以防止这种偏见。先验信念是由当前调查实施之外的数据产生的,它提供了部分当前数据可能缺乏的信息。然后,这些先验被累积的参数所更新。因此,先验信念的引出是这些方法的一个重要特征。虽然相同或类似调查的历史数据可能是产生先验的最自然的来源,但从经验丰富的调查经理那里获得先验信念可能是新调查的合理选择,或者当历史数据不可用时。在这里,我们对管理人员进行问卷调查,询问不同案例子组的期望尝试级响应率,并根据他们的回答的平均值和标准误差得出尝试级响应倾向模型系数的先验分布。然后,使用来自真实调查的受访者数据,我们比较了将专家知识纳入先验的预测结果,与基于仅考虑积累悖论的标准方法的预测结果,以及结合历史调查数据的方法的预测结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methods Data Analyses
Methods Data Analyses SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信