Search

While Big Data offers a potentially less expensive, less burdensome, and more timely alternative to survey data for producing a variety of statistics, it is not without error. The AAPOR Task Force on Big Data and others have called for researchers to evaluate the quality of Big Data using an approach similar to the total survey error (TSE) framework. However, differences in the construction of, access to, and overall data structure between survey data and Big Data make application of TSE difficult. In this article, we seek to develop the Total Error Framework (TEF), an extension of the TSE framework, to be (1) more inclusive and applicable to many types of Big Data, (2) comprehensive in that it considers “total” error, and (3) unified in that it allows researchers to compare errors in Big Data to errors in survey data. After outlining this framework, we then illustrate an application of TEF by comparing error in housing unit area (square footage) estimates collected in a survey (the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey [RECS]) to those estimates found in three Big Data databases (Zillow.com, Acxiom, and CoreLogic).

This article discusses the critical and complex design decisions associated with transitioning an interviewer-administered survey to a self-administered, postal, web/paper survey. Our approach embeds adaptive, responsive, and tailored (ART) design principles and data visualization during a multi-phased data collection operation to project the outcomes of each phase in preparation for subsequent phases. This requires rapid decision making based upon experimental results using a data visualization system to monitor critical-to-quality (CTQ) metrics and facilitate projections of outcomes from the current phase of data collection to inform the design of the subsequent phase. We describe the objectives of the overall design, the features designed to address these objectives, components of the visual adaptive total design (ATD) system for monitoring quality components and relative costs in real time, and examples of the visualization elements and functionalities that were used in one case study. We also discuss subsequent initiatives to develop an interactive version of the monitoring tool and applications for other studies, including those employing adaptive, responsive, and tailored (ART) designs. Our case study is a series of pilot studies conducted for the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), sponsored by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Sensitive outcomes of surveys are plagued by wave nonresponse and measurement error (classification error for categorical outcomes). These types of error can lead to biased estimates and erroneous conclusions if they are not understood and addressed. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a nationally representative rotating panel survey with seven waves measuring property and violent crime victimization. Because not all crime is reported to the police, there is no gold standard measure of whether a respondent was victimized. For panel data, Markov Latent Class Analysis (MLCA) is a model-based approach that uses response patterns across interview waves to estimate false positive and false negative classification probabilities typically applied to complete data.This article uses Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) to include respondents with partial information in MLCA. The impact of including partial respondents in the MLCA is assessed for reduction of bias in the estimates, model specification differences, and variability in classification error estimates by comparing results from complete case and FIML MLCA models. The goal is to determine the potential of FIML to improve MLCA estimates of classification error. While we apply this process to the NCVS, the approach developed is general and can be applied to any panel survey.

Researchers apply sampling weights to take account of unequal sample selection probabilities and to frame coverage errors and nonresponses. If researchers do not weight when appropriate, they risk having biased estimates. Alternatively, when they unnecessarily apply weights, they can create an inefficient estimator without reducing bias. Yet in practice researchers rarely test the necessity of weighting and are sometimes guided more by the current practice in their field than by scientific evidence. In addition, statistical tests for weighting are not widely known or available. This article reviews empirical tests to determine whether weighted analyses are justified. We focus on regression models, though the review's implications extend beyond regression. We find that nearly all weighting tests fall into two categories: difference in coefficients tests and weight association tests. We describe the distinguishing features of each category, present their properties, and explain the close relationship between them. We review the simulation evidence on their sampling properties in finite samples. Finally, we highlight the unanswered theoretical and practical questions that surround these tests and that deserve further research.