A Comparison of Alternative Indicators for the Risk of Nonresponse Bias
1James Wagner is an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their very useful editorial comments. This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [5R03HD070012-02 to J.W.]. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Abstract:
The response rate has played a key role in measuring the risk of nonresponse bias. However, recent empirical evidence has called into question the utility of the response rate for predicting nonresponse bias. The search for alternatives to the response rate has begun. The present article offers a typology for these indicators, briefly describes the strengths and weaknesses of each type, and suggests directions for future research. New standards for reporting on the risk of nonresponse bias may be needed. Certainly, any analysis into the risk of nonresponse bias will need to be multifaceted and include sensitivity analyses designed to test the impact of key assumptions about the data that are missing due to nonresponse.
Related Concept Videos
Confirmation Biases
Indicators
Hindsight Biases
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Alternative RNA Splicing
There are five types of alternative RNA splicing that vary in the ways the pre-mRNA segments are removed or retained in the mature mRNA. The first...
Relative Risk


