Now, later, or never? Using response-time patterns to predict panel attrition

References

• Alwin, D. F. (2007). Margins of error: A study of reliability in survey measurement Bd. 547. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Armenakis, A. A., & Lett, W. L. (1982). Sponsorship and follow-up effects on response quality of mail surveys. Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-29638290031-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boehmke, B., & Greenwell, B. (2019). Hands-on machine learning with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
   Google Scholar
• Bosnjak, M., Dannwolf, T., Enderle, T., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Tanner, A., & Weyandt, K. W. (2018). Establishing an open probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS panel. Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317697949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. B., Machlin, S. R., & Branscome, J. M. (2000). Patterns of survey attrition and reluctant response in the 1996 medical expenditure panel survey. Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 1(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012543121850
   Google Scholar
• Diaz de Rada, V. (2005). The effect of follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Quality & Quantity, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-5950-5
   Google Scholar
• Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2016). Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method, John Wiley & Sons. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en&publication_year=2009b&author=D.+A.+Dillman&author=J.+D.+Smyth&author=L.+M.+Christin&title=Internet%2C+Mail+and+Mixed%E2%80%90Mode+Surveys%3A+The+Tailored+Design+Method
   Google Scholar
• Donald, M. N. (1960). Implications of nonresponse for the interpretation of mail questionnaire data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.1086/266934
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckland, B. K. (1965). Effects of prodding to increase mail-back returns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisnecker, P. S., & Kroh, M. (2016). The informed consent to record linkage in panel studies: Optimal starting wave, consent refusals, and subsequent panel attrition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esser, H. (1986). Über die Teilnahme an Befragungen. Zuma Nachrichten, 10 (18), 38–47. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-210300
   Google Scholar
• Esser, H. (2011). Das Modell der Frame-Selektion. Eine allgemeine Handlungstheorie für die Sozialwissenschaften? Albert, Gert. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie/Sonderhefte, 50, 45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, E. M., Clusen, N. A., & Hartzell, M. (2003). Better Late? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, 992–98. https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/5b036c2fea4745a4b941073c30ad8f23.html
   Google Scholar
• GESIS . (2018). GESIS Panel - Extended Edition GESIS, Cologne. ZA5664 Datenfile Version 26.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13157
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, G. H., Longmate, J., & Branch, L. G. (o. J.). (1992). Factors influencing the effectiveness of mailed health surveys. Public Health Reports, 9(5), 576. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403701/
   Google Scholar
• Göritz, A. S. (2008). The long-term effect of material incentives on participation in online panels. Field Methods, 20(3), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, K. E. (1991). Reluctant respondents: Differences between early, late, and nonresponders to a mail survey. The Journal of Experimental Education, 59(3), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1991.10806566
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and an illustration. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1086/317990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2011). Survey methodology. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Gummer, Tobias , & Struminskaya, Bella . (2020). Early and late participation during the field period: response timing in a mixed-mode probability-based panel survey. Sociological Methods & Research, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haunberger, S. (2011). Explaining unit nonresponse in online panel surveys: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12), 2999–3025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00856.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helasoja, V. (2002). Late response and item nonresponse in the finbalt health monitor survey. The European Journal of Public Health, 12(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/12.2.117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzing, J. M., & Blom, A. G. (2019). The influence of a person’s digital affinity on unit nonresponse and attrition in an online panel. Social Science Computer Review, 37(3), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318774758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreuter, F., & Casas-Cordero, C. (2010). Paradata. RatSWD Working Paper Series. Working paper Berlin, Germany: German Council for Social and Economic Data (RatSWD).
   Google Scholar
• Kreuter, F., Muller, G., & Trappmann, M. (2010). Nonresponse and measurement error in employment research: making use of administrative data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(5), 880–906. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreuter, F., Müller, G., & Trappmann, M. (2014). A note on mechanisms leading to lower data quality of late or reluctant respondents. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(3), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113508094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroneberg, C. (2014). Frames, scripts, and variable rationality: An integrative theory of action. In G. Manzo, Analytical Sociology: Actions and Networks, pp. 95–123. John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kunz, F. (2010). Follow-ups in mail surveys: Empirical findings on the effects on the response rate, the responses and the sample composition. Methods, Data, Analyses, 30, 127–155. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-210146
   Google Scholar
• Lugtig, P. (2014). Panel attrition: Separating stayers, fast attriters, gradual attriters, and lurkers. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(4), 699–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113520305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, P. (2009). Methodology of longitudinal surveys. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Nicoletti, C., & Peracchi, F. (2005). Survey response and survey characteristics: microlevel evidence from the European community household panel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00369.x
   Google Scholar
• Olson, K. (2006). Survey participation, nonresponse bias, measurement error bias, and total bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 737–758. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, K. (2013). Do non-response follow-ups improve or reduce data quality?: A review of the existing literature: Do non-response follow-ups improve or reduce data quality? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01042.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preisendörfer, P., & Wolter, F. (2014). Who is telling the truth? A Validation Study on determinants of response behavior in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nft079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roßmann, J., & Gummer, T. (2016). Using paradata to predict and correct for panel attrition. Social Science Computer Review, 34(3), 312–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315587258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnell, R. (2013). Nonresponse in Bevölkerungsumfragen: Ausmaß, Entwicklung und Ursachen. Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Schouten, B., Peytchev, A., & Wagner, J. (2018). Adaptive survey design. CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skarbek-Kozietulska, A., Preisendörfer, P., & Wolter, F. (2012). Leugnen oder gestehen? Bestimmungsfaktoren wahrer antworten in Befragungen / to deny or to confess? Determinants of truthful answers in surveys. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 41(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2012-0103
   Google Scholar
• Smith, T. W. (2011). Refining the total survey error perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(4), 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Struminskaya, B. (2014). Data quality in probability-based online panels: Nonresponse, attrition, and panel conditioning [ Doctoral thesis]. Utrecht University. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/301751
   Google Scholar
• Tancreto, J. G., & Bentley, M. (2005). Determining the Effectiveness of Multiple Nonresponse Followup Contact Attempts on Response and Data Quality. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, 3626–3632 http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2005/files/JSM2005-000340.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Voigt, L. F., Koepsell, T. D., & Daling, J. R. (2003). Characteristics of telephone survey respondents according to willingness to participate. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwf185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, N., & Wooden, M. (2009). Identifying factors affecting longitudinal survey response. Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, 1, 157–182.
   Google Scholar