Browsing by Author "Bilgen, Ipek"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating Nonresponse Bias for a Hypernetwork Sample Generated from a Probability-Based Household Panel
    (HSM and UMT, 2022-10-20) Fulton, Brad R.; Bilgen, Ipek; Pineau, Vicki; Liebert, Lindsay; King, David P.; Dennis , Michael; Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
    Hypernetwork sampling aims to generate representative samples of populations for which a sample frame does not exist or is too costly to construct. This multi-level sampling method relies on nominations from one sample source (Stage 1 sample) to construct another sample (Stage 2 sample). However, nonresponse from the Stage 1 sample has the potential to produce bias in Stage 2 of the hypernetwork sample if Stage 1 respondents differ from nonrespondents. This paper examines nonresponse in a hypernetwork sample of religious congregations in the U.S. generated from a probability-based household panel that includes background information for all panelists including Stage 1 nonrespondents. This study also illustrates the benefits of constructing a hypernetwork sample by using a sample of already recruited panelists for whom information has already been collected. We find Stage 1 nonrespondents tend to be from rural areas and not from the Midwest, compared to Stage 1 respondents. Results also suggest that the impact of subsequent survey reminders on key Stage 1 estimates decreased after the third reminder during Stage 1 fielding. Additionally, we find that Stage 1 nonresponse impacts the Stage 2 estimates for congregational characteristics. Specifically, the congregations nominated by Stage 1 late respondents tend to have the following characteristics: located in the South, predominantly African American, more likely to be conservative/evangelical Protestant or black Protestant, younger, urban or suburban, helped people register to vote, less likely to have a school, and have fewer child participants. Post-survey weighting adjustment of the Stage 1 sample decreased the risk for nonresponse bias in the Stage 1 hypernetwork sample and in the Stage 2 sample of congregations.