Search

Big data has been fruitfully leveraged as a supplement for survey data—and sometimes as its replacement—and in the best of worlds, as a "force multiplier" to improve survey analytics and insight. We detail a use case, the big data classifier (BDC), as a replacement to the more traditional methods of targeting households in survey sampling for given specific household and personal attributes. Much like geographic targeting and the use of commercial vendor flags, we detail the ability of BDCs to predict the likelihood that any given household is, for example, one that contains a child or someone who is Hispanic. We specifically build 15 BDCs with the combined data from a large nationally representative probability-based panel and a range of big data from public and private sources, and then assess the effectiveness of these BDCs to successfully predict their range of predicted attributes across three large survey datasets. For each BDC and each data application, we compare the relative effectiveness of the BDCs against historical sample targeting techniques of geographic clustering and vendor flags. Overall, BDCs offer a modest improvement in their ability to target subpopulations. We find classes of predictions that are consistently more effective, and others where the BDCs are on par with vendor flagging, though always superior to geographic clustering. We present some of the relative strengths and weaknesses of BDCs as a new method to identify and subsequently sample low incidence and other populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a correction to: David Dutwin and others, Leveraging Predictive Modelling from Multiple Sources of Big Data to Improve Sample Efficiency and Reduce Survey Nonresponse Error, Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 2023, smad016, https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smad016In the originally published version of this manuscript, the author Joshua Lerner was inadvertently omitted from the author byline.This error has been corrected.By David Dutwin; Patrick Coyle; Joshua Lerner; Ipek Bilgen and Ned EnglishReported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: We investigate the impact of data collection mode on responses to variables in NSHAP Round 4 and discuss how potential mode differences should (and should not) be addressed in substantive analyses., Methods: Among the set of respondents who were eligible to be contacted remotely in Round 4, we randomly selected 398 to be contacted instead for an in-person interview. We compare response rates and the distributions of selected key outcomes among those 398 respondents to those among the control group who were initially approached remotely. As a contrast, we compare all R4 respondents according to the mode in which they completed the interview, including those not part of the randomized experiment., Results: Among those included in the experiment, there was no evidence of systematic differences in responses to physical and mental health questions between remote and in-person modes, nor in responses to number recall measures. In-person respondents scored moderately lower on cognitive function measures requiring careful attention to a figure and/or task, though this difference became less with each similar item. Remote respondents named fewer social network members. Comparing all respondents according to their final mode yielded substantially different results in all cases., Discussion: Mode did not appear to affect reports of physical and mental health based on a randomized comparison, though it did moderately affect other items in predictable ways. Naïve estimates of mode effects based on comparing all respondents according to mode yielded misleading results, and should not be used to adjust for mode differences in analyses., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)