Dealing with nonresponse in survey sampling: a latent modeling approach

Alina Matei; M. Giovanna Ranalli

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1207.4385

Dealing with nonresponse in survey sampling: a latent modeling approach

Alina Matei·M. Giovanna Ranalli

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Nonresponse is present in almost all surveys and can severely bias estimates. It is usually distinguished between unit and item nonresponse: in the former, we completely fail to have information from a unit selected in the sample, while in the latter, we observe only part of the information on the selected unit. Unit nonresponse is usually dealt with by reweighting: each unit selected in the sample has associated a sampling weight and an unknown response probability; the initial sampling weight is multiplied by the inverse of estimated response probability. Item nonresponse is usually dealt with by imputation. By noting that for a particular survey variable, we just have observed and unobserved values, in this work we exploit the connection between unit and item nonresponse. In particular, we assume that the factors that drive unit response are the same as those that drive item response on selected variables of interest. Response probabilities are then estimated by using a logistic regression with a latent covariate that measures such will to respond and that can explain part of the unknown behavior of a unit to participate in the survey. The latent covariate is estimated using latent trait models. Such approach is particularly relevant for sensitive items and, therefore, can handle non-ignorable nonresponse. Auxiliary information known for both respondents and nonrespondents can be included either in the latent variable model or in the logistic model. The approach can be also used when auxiliary information is not available, and we focus here on this case. The theoretical properties of the proposed estimators are sketched and simulations studies are conducted to illustrate their finite size sample performance.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Alina Matei, M. Giovanna Ranalli. 2012-07-18. Dealing with nonresponse in survey sampling: a latent modeling approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4385

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗