{"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":"25 1-2","pages":"41-55"},"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\":\"25 1-2\",\"pages\":\"41-55\"},\"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}
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.
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.