Web Survey Bibliography
Title The Low Response Score (LRS): A Metric to Locate, Predict, and Manage Hard-to-Survey Populations
Author Erdman, C.; Bates, N.
Source Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ); 81, 1, pp. 144–156
Year 2016
Database Oxford Journals
Access date 24.08.2017
Abstract In 2012, the US Census Bureau posed a challenge under the
America COMPETES Act, an act designed to improve the competitiveness
of the United States by investing in innovation through research
and development. The Census Bureau contracted Kaggle.com to host
and manage a worldwide competition to develop the best statistical
model to predict 2010 Census mail return rates. The Census Bureau provided
competitors with a block group-level database consisting of housing,
demographic, and socioeconomic variables derived from the 2010
Census, five-year American Community Survey estimates, and 2010
Census operational data. The Census Bureau then challenged teams to
use these data (and other publicly available data) to construct the models.
One goal of the challenge was to leverage winning models as inputs
to a new model-based hard-to-count (HTC) score, a metric to stratify
and target geographic areas according to propensity to self-respond in
sample surveys and censuses. All contest winners employed data-mining
and machine-learning techniques to predict mail-return rates. This
made the models relatively hard to interpret (when compared with the
Census Bureau’s original HTC score) and impossible to directly translate
to a new HTC score. Nonetheless, the winning models contained
insights toward building a new model-based score using variables from
the database. This paper describes the original algorithm-based HTC
score, insights gained from the Census Return Rate Challenge, and the
model underlying a new HTC score.
America COMPETES Act, an act designed to improve the competitiveness
of the United States by investing in innovation through research
and development. The Census Bureau contracted Kaggle.com to host
and manage a worldwide competition to develop the best statistical
model to predict 2010 Census mail return rates. The Census Bureau provided
competitors with a block group-level database consisting of housing,
demographic, and socioeconomic variables derived from the 2010
Census, five-year American Community Survey estimates, and 2010
Census operational data. The Census Bureau then challenged teams to
use these data (and other publicly available data) to construct the models.
One goal of the challenge was to leverage winning models as inputs
to a new model-based hard-to-count (HTC) score, a metric to stratify
and target geographic areas according to propensity to self-respond in
sample surveys and censuses. All contest winners employed data-mining
and machine-learning techniques to predict mail-return rates. This
made the models relatively hard to interpret (when compared with the
Census Bureau’s original HTC score) and impossible to directly translate
to a new HTC score. Nonetheless, the winning models contained
insights toward building a new model-based score using variables from
the database. This paper describes the original algorithm-based HTC
score, insights gained from the Census Return Rate Challenge, and the
model underlying a new HTC score.
Access/Direct link Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Respondent mode choice in a smartphone survey ; 2017; Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F., Antoun, C., Yan, H. Y., Hupp, A., Johnston, M., Ehlen, P., Vickers, L...
- Effects of Mobile versus PC Web on Survey Response Quality: a Crossover Experiment in a Probability...; 2017; Antoun, C.; Couper, M. P.; G. G.Conrad, F. G.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys; 2016; Early, K.; Mankoff, J.; Fienberg, S. E.
- How to use online surveys to understand human behaviour concerning window opening in terms of building...; 2016; Fabbri, K.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers; 2016; Guillory, J.; Kim, A.; Murphy, J.; Bradfield, B.; Nonnemaker, J.; Hsieh, Y. P.
- Influence of Importance Statements and Box Size on Response Rate and Response Quality of Open-Ended...; 2016; Kumar Chaudhary, A.; Israel, G. D.
- Web based health surveys: Using a Two Step Heckman model to examine their potential for population health...; 2016; Morrissey, K.; Kinderman, P.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S.; Schwannauer, M.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamiñska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmañski, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Methods for Evaluating Respondent Attrition in Web-Based Surveys; 2016; Hochheimer, C. J.; Sabo, R. T.; Krist, A. H.; Day, T.; Cyrus, J.; Woolf, S. H.
- The Low Response Score (LRS): A Metric to Locate, Predict, and Manage Hard-to-Survey Populations; 2016; Erdman, C.; Bates, N.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Can we assess representativeness of cross-national surveys using the education variable?; 2016; Ortmanns, V.; Schneider, S.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Mobile-only web survey respondents; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Toepoel, V.; Amin, A.
- Comparison of Face-to-Face and Web Surveys on the Topic of Homosexual Rights; 2016; Liu, M.; Wang, Yic.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.
- Web-Based Statistical Sampling and Analysis; 2016; Quinn, A.; Larson, K.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2016; 2016
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- Development and Pilot Test of a Mobile Application for Field Data Collection; 2016; Chiappetta, L.; Kerr, M. M.
- Statistical Design for Online Experiments Across Desktops, Tablets, Smartphones (and Maybe Wearable...; 2016; Qian, P.; Sadeghi, S.; Arora, N. K.
- A Case Study on the Use of Propensity Score Adjustments with Web Survey Data; 2016; Parsons, V.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Are Initial Respondents Different from the Nonresponse Follow-Up Cases? A Study of Probability-Based...; 2016; Zeng, W.; Dennis, J. M.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Exploration of Methods for Blending Unconventional Samples with Traditional Probability Samples; 2016; Gellar, J.; Zhou, H.; D.; Sinclair, M. D.
- Ratio of Vector Lengths as an Indicator of Sample Representativeness ; 2016; Shin, H. C.
- Design of Sample Surveys That Complement Observational Data to Achieve Population Coverage; 2016; Slud, E.; Ashmead, R.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Effect of a Pre-Paid Incentive on Response Rates to an Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Web-Mail Survey; 2016; Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.; Elkasabi, M.; Liu, Me.; Lepkowski, J. M.; Curtin, R.; McBee, R.
- Response Behavior in a Video-Web Survey: A Mode Comparison Study; 2016; Haan, M.; Ongena, Y. P.; Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A.; de Glopper, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective...; 2016; Bennett, A. V.; Keenoy, K.; Shouery, M.; Basch, E.; Temple, L. K.
- Making use of Internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys; 2016; Erlewine, M. Y.; Kotek, H.
- Du kommst hier nicht rein: Türsteherfragen identifizieren nachlässige Teilnehmer in Online-Umfragen; 2016; Merkle, B.; Kaczmirek, L.; Hellwig, O.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- Mode Effect and Response Rate Issues in Mixed-Mode Survey Research: Implications for Recreational Fisheries...; 2016; Wallen, K. E.; Landon, A. C.; Kyle, G. T.; Schuett, M. A.; Leitz, J.; Kurzawski, K.
- A measure of survey mode differences; 2016; Homola, J.; Jackson, N. M.; Gill, Je.
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems ; 2016; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Smartphones vs PCs: Does the Device Affect the Web Survey Experience and the Measurement Error for...; 2016; Toninelli, D.; Revilla, M.