Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging www.mea.uni-mannheim.de

Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel

Ulrich Krieger, SHARE MEA University of Mannheim

22

Outline

Motivation

The pairfam Panel

Overview of cooperation and response in partner survey

Model of cooperation in wave 2

3

Motivation

Attempt to include alteri respondents in surveys like partners, parents or siblings raises questions on the selection process of these additional survey members.

Reviewers continue to criticize the selectivity. The processes need to be better understood. Weighting Limitations of research

Recent analysis with the Netherlands Kindship Panel Study show no bias in models using data of children (Kalmijn & Liefbroer 2011). But how to model the error in the sample?

3

4

The pairfam Panel

First two waves of the German family panel study pairfam.

Design: Register based sample of resident population. Three age cohorts: 14-17, 24-27, 34-37 CAPI study administered by Infratest

Partner survey All respondents in a partnership are asked for

consent to approach their partners for an interview. within or outside of the household PAPI questionnaire handed out, left behind with main

respondent or mailed to partner. collected by the interviewer or returned by mail 4

5

The Role of the Interviewer Interviewers are encouraged

to administer the partner survey the way preferred by respondents

to occupy the partner with the partner survey during the main respondents CAPI questionnaire.

to collect the questionnaire in person Request the partners to participate in person

whenever possible

5

6

the pairfam panel - wave two

Anchor: monotonous design, only respondents re-approached.

Partners: Same design as in wave one. Consent request to Anchor, then partners are

contacted. Partners can be the same as in wave one if the

relationship did hold. Partners who refused to answer in wave one are

contacted again.

6

7

Cooperation and Response - Wave one

7

N %

Anchor 12402

with partners 7234 100

consent to partner interview 5281 73

returned partner quest. 3743 52

lost for W2 due to anchor NR 877 12

8

Cooperation and Response - Wave one

8

Wave 2 N %

Anchor interview 9069

with partners 5408

100

same partner as in W1 4273

95

Consent to partner interview 3882

73

Consent in both waves 3009

56

returned partner questionnaire 2688

50

returned partner quest. in both waves

2081

38

9

Two error sources: Selection of main respondent and Nonresponse of Partner

Both processes are probably not independent of each other

Unsure about how to model the Data

Here: logistic Regression on wave 2 cooperation, concentrating on main respondents keeping the same partner over the 2 waves.

9

10

Descriptive Statistic

10

Variables mean sd min max

W2 Part. cooperation .58   0 1

W1 Part. cooperation .64   0 1

W2 Main Resp: Consent .20   0 1

W2 Survey handed out .38   0 1

Part. fulltime empl. .55   0 1

Part. parttime empl. .09   0 1

Part. self empl. .06   0 1

Part. Years of educ. 12.92 3.08 7 20

Partner female? .42   0 1

Partner born in Germany? .85   0 1

Main: Satisf. Relationship 7.99 2.15 0 10

W2 Main: Satisf. Relationship 6.80 2.50 0 10

N: 3748        

11

Variables OR (se)  

W1 Part cooperation 11.26*** (1.28)  

W2 Main Resp: Consent 0.95 (0.13)  

W2 Survey handed out 4.85*** (0.46)  

Part. fulltime empl. 1.01 (0.11)  

Part. parttime empl. 1.42* (0.25)  

Part. self empl. 0.64* (0.13)  

Part. Years of educ. 1.07*** (0.02)  

Partner female? 1.18 (0.12)  

Partner born in Germany? 1.40** (0.17)  

Main: Satisf. Relationship 1.06** (0.02)  

W2 Main: Satisf. Relationship 0.94** (0.02)  

N:3748, Pseudo-R²:0.32, BIC: 3538  

Log. Regression on W2 Partner Coop (only ‘stable’ Rel.)

12

Conclusion

Cooperation and Consent in Wave 1 do influence cooperation in wave 2

How to better describe the selection process?

Here I focused on stable relationships. How to include all relationships, new partners?

12