1,720,965 research outputs found
Using multilevel multinomial models to analyse household and interviewer effects in survey nonresponse
No full text
Linking census, interviewer observation data and interviewer information to surveys: an investigation of unit nonresponse in UK surveys
No full text
An exploration of the role of interviewers on survey nonresponse using a multilevel modelling approach
Full text linkAlternative approaches to multilevel modelling of survey non-contact and refusal
Full text linkWe review three alternative approaches to modelling survey non-contact and refusal: multinomial, sequential, and sample selection (bivariate probit) models. We then propose a multilevel extension of the sample selection model to allow for both interviewer effects and dependency between non-contact and refusal rates at the household and interviewer level. All methods are applied and compared in an analysis of household non-response in the United Kingdom, using a data set with unusually rich information on both respondents and non-respondents from six major surveys. After controlling for household characteristics, there is little evidence of residual correlation between the unobserved characteristics affecting non-contact and refusal propensities at either the household or the interviewer level. We also find that the estimated coefficients of the multinomial and sequential models are surprisingly similar, which further investigation via a simulation study suggests is due to non-contact and refusal having largely different predictor
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
