Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Frey's Scenario F simulation mentioned in account of the Democratic Party's tribulations

U-M Poverty Solutions funds nine projects

Dynarski says NY's Excelsior Scholarship Program could crowd out low-income and minority students

More News

Highlights

Workshops on EndNote, NIH reporting, and publication altmetrics, Jan 26 through Feb 7, ISR

2017 PAA Annual Meeting, April 27-29, Chicago

NIH funding opportunity: Etiology of Health Disparities and Health Advantages among Immigrant Populations (R01 and R21), open Jan 2017

Russell Sage 2017 Summer Institute in Computational Social Science, June 18-July 1. Application deadline Feb 17.

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at noon:
Decline of cash assistance and child well-being, Luke Shaefer

Support for the Survey Sponsor and Nonresponse Bias

Publication Abstract

Groves, Robert M., S. Presser, Roger Tourangeau, Brady T. West, Mick P. Couper, Eleanor Singer, and C. Toppe. 2012. "Support for the Survey Sponsor and Nonresponse Bias." Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3): 512-524.

In an experiment designed to examine nonresponse bias, either the March of Dimes or the University of Michigan was identified as the sponsor of a survey mailed to individuals whose level of support for the March of Dimes was known. The response rate was higher to the university survey, but support for the March of Dimes increased survey participation to the same extent in both conditions. As a result of the overrepresentation of supporters of the organization, both surveys showed nonresponse bias for variables linked to support. The bias was greater, however, when the sponsor was identified as the March of Dimes. Thus, the university sponsor brought in not only more of the sample but also a more representative sample on variables related to support for the March of Dimes. Overall, the magnitude of the relationship between support for the organization and nonresponse was not a strong predictor of the magnitude of the nonresponse bias. The results demonstrate that the simple common cause model of nonresponse will not always apply, and that the model should be extended to incorporate multiple auxiliary variables.

DOI:10.1093/poq/nfs034 (Full Text)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next