Getting it Right: Estimating the Share of Volunteers in Denmark
Abraham, Helms and Presser (2009) demonstrated that people who volunteer are more likely to participate in surveys. The apparent consequence of such a pattern among respondents is that estimates of volunteering could be biased. Surveys with voluntary work as the main topic could be further biased due to the volunteers’ interest on this issue compared with non-volunteers. The article uses panel data from Denmark in order to examine the bias due to panel attrition as a special kind of nonresponse bias and its consequences for estimates of volunteering. The results show that panel attrition leads to an overestimation of the share of people who volunteer.
Abraham, K. G., Maitland, A., & Bianchi, S. M. (2006). Nonresponse in the American time use survey: Who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 676-703.
Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104(2), 226-242.
Callegaro, M., & DiSogra, C. (2008). Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 1008-1032.
Campanelli, P., & O'Muircheartaigh, C. (1999). Interviewers, interviewer continuity, and panel survey nonresponse. Quality and Quantity, 33(1), 59-76.
Cnaan, R. A., Jones, K. H., Dickin, A., & Salomon, M. (2011). Estimating giving and volunteering: New ways to measure the phenomena. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 497-525.
Couper, M. P., Singer, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1998). Participation in the 1990 decennial census: Politics, privacy, pressures. American Politics Research, 26(1), 59-80.
Freese, J. (2006). Cognitive skills and survey nonresponse evidence from two longitudinal studies. CDE Working Papers (No. 2006-10). Madison, WI.: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Fridberg, T. (2014a). Hvem er de frivillige? In L. S. Henriksen & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde 2004-2012 (Vol. 14:09, pp. 47-68). Copenhagen: SFI.
Fridberg, T. (2014b). Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde 2004-2012. In L. S. Henriksen & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde 2004-2012 (Vol. 14:09, pp. 29-46). Copenhagen: SFI.
Fridberg, T. (2014c). Design, Metode og Data. In L. S. Henriksen & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde 2004-2012 (Vol. 14:09, pp. 23-28). Copenhagen: SFI.
Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2-31.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299-308.
Hauser, R. M. (2005). Survey response in the long run: The Wisconsin longitudinal study. Field Methods, 17(1), 3-29.
Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43(4), 447-462.
Helgeson, J. G., Voss, K. E., & Terpening, W. D. (2002). Determinants of mail-survey response: Survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3), 303-328.
Johnson, T. P., O'Rourke, D., Burris, J., & Owens, L. (2002). Culture and survey nonresponse. Survey Nonresponse, 55-69.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(2), 125-148.
Lugtig, P. (2014). Panel attrition separating stayers, fast attriters, gradual attriters, and lurkers. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(4), 699-723.
Pääkkönen, H. (1998). Are busy people under- or over-represented in national time budget surveys? Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 21(2), 573-582.
Peytchev, A. (2013). Consequences of survey nonresponse. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 88-111.
Qvist, H. P. (2014). Ikke-vestlige indvandreres frivillige arbejde. In L. S. Henriksen & T. Fridberg (Eds.), Udviklingen i frivilligt arbejde 2004-2012 (Vol. 14:09, pp. 161-181). Copenhagen: SFI.
Ryu, E., Couper, M. P., & Marans, R. W. (2006). Survey incentives: Cash vs. in-kind; face-to-face vs. mail; response rate vs. nonresponse error. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(1), 89-106.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432.
Schoeni, R. F., Stafford, F., Mcgonagle, K. A., & Andreski, P. (2013). Response rates in national panel surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 60-87.
Sharp, L. M., & Frankel, J. (1983). Respondent burden: A test of some common assumptions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 36.
Sheehan, K. B., & McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45-54.
Tourangeau, R. (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(1), 3-7.
Uhrig, S. C. (2008). The nature and causes of attrition in the British household panel study. ISER Working Paper Series. Retrieved from: http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/92025
van Ingen, E., Stoop, I., & Breedveld, K. (2009). Nonresponse in the Dutch time use survey: Strategies for response enhancement and bias reduction. Field Methods, 21(1), 69-90.
Voogt, R. J. J., & Saris, W. E. (2003). To participate or not to participate: The link between survey participation, electoral participation, and political interest. Political Analysis, 11(2), 164-179.
Copyright (c) 2018 Jonathan Hermansen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).