The anchoring method: Estimation of interviewer effects in the absence of interpenetrated sample assignment

Methodological studies of the effects that human interviewers have on the quality of survey data have long been limited by a critical assumption: that interviewers in a given survey are assigned random subsets of the larger overall sample (also known as interpenetrated assignment). Absent this type of study design, estimates of interviewer effects on survey measures of interest may reflect differences between interviewers in the characteristics of their assigned sample members, rather than recruitment or measurement effects specifically introduced by the interviewers. Previous attempts to approximate interpenetrated assignment have typically used regression models to condition on factors that might be related to interviewer assignment. We introduce a new approach for overcoming this lack of interpenetrated assignment when estimating interviewer effects. This approach, which we refer to as the "anchoring" method, leverages correlations between observed variables that are unlikely to be affected by interviewers ("anchors") and variables that may be prone to interviewer effects to remove components of within-interviewer correlations that lack of interpenetrated assignment may introduce. We consider both frequentist and Bayesian approaches, where the latter can make use of information about interviewer effect variances in previous waves of a study, if available. We evaluate this new methodology empirically using a simulation study, and then illustrate its application using real survey data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), where interviewer IDs are provided on public-use data files. While our proposed method shares some of the limitations of the traditional approach - namely the need for variables associated with the outcome of interest that are also free of measurement error - it avoids the need for conditional inference and thus has improved inferential qualities when the focus is on marginal estimates, and it shows evidence of further reducing overestimation of larger interviewer effects relative to the traditional approach.