BibTex RIS Cite

ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS

Year 2005, Volume: 18 Issue: 4, 577 - 589, 11.08.2010

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In survey researches a distinction between two major types of missing data in surveys due to nonresponse had been made. First type is, unit nonresponse; for some sample units no entire data is available. The second type is, item nonresponse; sample unit or units have missing data for one or more questions or variables (1, 2, 3). In this study, item nonresponse and its sources, reasons and what it caused was tried to be investigated. It has seen that, on nonresponse question structure, question content and respondent factors have important effects.

References

  • Sherman, R. P., “Test of certain types of ignorable nonresponse in surveys subject to item nonresponse or attrition”, American Journal Of Political Science, 44(2): 362-377 (2001).
  • Leigh, J. H. and Martin, C. R., ““Don’t know” Item nonresponse in a telephone survey: effects of question form and respondent charecteristics”, Journal Of Marketing Research, 14: 418-24 (November 1987).
  • Darwin, C., “Determinants of item nonresponse”, Survey Research Techniques Seminar, http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/d/r/drj10/Cruz.pdf (22.03.2003).
  • Groves, R. M., Survey errors and survey costs, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 133-236 (1989).
  • Rubin, D. B., Multiple ımputation for nonresponse in surveys, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1-30 (1987).
  • Item Nonresponse, NLSY79 User’s Guide, http://www.bls.gov/nls/79guide/1999/nls79g5.pdf (or http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy79.htm) (25.04.2003)
  • Schuman, H., Presser, S., Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording and context, Academic Press, New York, 120-185 (1995).
  • Churchill, G.A., Marketing research, Dryden Press, Florida, 178-220 (1996)
  • Tourangeau, R., Smith, T., “Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2): 275-304 (1996).
  • Çıngı, H., “Araştırma yöntemleri”, H.Ü. Fen Fakültesi İstatisdtik Bölümü Ders Notları, Ankara, 16-23 (1994).
  • Murata, T. and Gwartney, P.A., 1999, “Question salience, question difficulty and item nonresponse in survey research”, http://www.jpsm.umd.edu/icsn/papers/ MurataGwartney1.htm (18.08.2002).
  • Balcı, A., Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma, Pegem Yayınevi, Ankara, Türkiye, 185-188 (2001).
  • Baş, T., Anket, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, 60-61, (2001)
  • Lehmann, D.R., Gupta, S. and Steckel J. H., Marketing research, Addision-Wesley Inc., United States 183-185 (1998).
  • Stennet B., “Opinion survey rating scales”, http://www.assessmentplus.com/articles/ opinion_survey_rating_scales.pdf. (03.04.2003).
  • Coombs, C. and Coombs, L., “‘Don't know’: item ambiguity or respondent uncertainity?”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4): 497-514 (1976).
  • Sekaran, U., Research methods for business: a skill-building approach, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 176- 222 (1999).
  • Gökçe, B., Toplumsal bilimlerde araştırma, Savaş Yayınevi, Ankara, Türkiye, 114-115 (1999).
  • Koç, İ., “Soru kağıdı hazırlama ve soru sorma teknikleri ders programı”, D.İ.E. Anketör Eğitim Merkezi Temel Eğitim Programı, 22-23, Ankara, Türkiye (2002).
  • Herzog A. and Dielman L., “Age differences in nonresponse accuracy for factual survey question”, Journal Of Gerontology, 40(3): 350-357 (1985).
  • Faulkenberry, G. and Mason, R. “Characteristics of non opinion response groups.”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(4): 533-543 (1978).

SORU YANITLAMAMA NEDENLERİ VE ETKİLERİ

Year 2005, Volume: 18 Issue: 4, 577 - 589, 11.08.2010

Abstract

Anket araştırmalarında yanıtlamamadan dolayı oluşan kayıp verinin iki temel tür ayırımı yapılmıştır. Birinci türü, birim yanıtlamamadır; örneği oluşturan bazı birimlere ilişkin hiçbir veri yoktur. İkinci türü ise, soru yanıtlamamadır; örneği oluşturan birim veya birimlere ilişkin bir veya birden fazla soru veya değişken verisi yoktur (1, 2, 3). Bu çalışmada, soru yanıtlamama kaynakları, nedenleri, nelere yol açtığı incelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Soru yapısı, soru içeriği ve yanıtlayıcı faktörlerinin yanıtlamama üzerindeki önemli etkileri olduğu görülmüştür

References

  • Sherman, R. P., “Test of certain types of ignorable nonresponse in surveys subject to item nonresponse or attrition”, American Journal Of Political Science, 44(2): 362-377 (2001).
  • Leigh, J. H. and Martin, C. R., ““Don’t know” Item nonresponse in a telephone survey: effects of question form and respondent charecteristics”, Journal Of Marketing Research, 14: 418-24 (November 1987).
  • Darwin, C., “Determinants of item nonresponse”, Survey Research Techniques Seminar, http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/d/r/drj10/Cruz.pdf (22.03.2003).
  • Groves, R. M., Survey errors and survey costs, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 133-236 (1989).
  • Rubin, D. B., Multiple ımputation for nonresponse in surveys, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1-30 (1987).
  • Item Nonresponse, NLSY79 User’s Guide, http://www.bls.gov/nls/79guide/1999/nls79g5.pdf (or http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsy79.htm) (25.04.2003)
  • Schuman, H., Presser, S., Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording and context, Academic Press, New York, 120-185 (1995).
  • Churchill, G.A., Marketing research, Dryden Press, Florida, 178-220 (1996)
  • Tourangeau, R., Smith, T., “Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2): 275-304 (1996).
  • Çıngı, H., “Araştırma yöntemleri”, H.Ü. Fen Fakültesi İstatisdtik Bölümü Ders Notları, Ankara, 16-23 (1994).
  • Murata, T. and Gwartney, P.A., 1999, “Question salience, question difficulty and item nonresponse in survey research”, http://www.jpsm.umd.edu/icsn/papers/ MurataGwartney1.htm (18.08.2002).
  • Balcı, A., Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma, Pegem Yayınevi, Ankara, Türkiye, 185-188 (2001).
  • Baş, T., Anket, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, Türkiye, 60-61, (2001)
  • Lehmann, D.R., Gupta, S. and Steckel J. H., Marketing research, Addision-Wesley Inc., United States 183-185 (1998).
  • Stennet B., “Opinion survey rating scales”, http://www.assessmentplus.com/articles/ opinion_survey_rating_scales.pdf. (03.04.2003).
  • Coombs, C. and Coombs, L., “‘Don't know’: item ambiguity or respondent uncertainity?”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4): 497-514 (1976).
  • Sekaran, U., Research methods for business: a skill-building approach, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 176- 222 (1999).
  • Gökçe, B., Toplumsal bilimlerde araştırma, Savaş Yayınevi, Ankara, Türkiye, 114-115 (1999).
  • Koç, İ., “Soru kağıdı hazırlama ve soru sorma teknikleri ders programı”, D.İ.E. Anketör Eğitim Merkezi Temel Eğitim Programı, 22-23, Ankara, Türkiye (2002).
  • Herzog A. and Dielman L., “Age differences in nonresponse accuracy for factual survey question”, Journal Of Gerontology, 40(3): 350-357 (1985).
  • Faulkenberry, G. and Mason, R. “Characteristics of non opinion response groups.”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(4): 533-543 (1978).
There are 21 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Statistics
Authors

Aylin Alkaya

Alptekin Esin This is me

Publication Date August 11, 2010
Published in Issue Year 2005 Volume: 18 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Alkaya, A., & Esin, A. (2010). ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS. Gazi University Journal of Science, 18(4), 577-589.
AMA Alkaya A, Esin A. ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS. Gazi University Journal of Science. August 2010;18(4):577-589.
Chicago Alkaya, Aylin, and Alptekin Esin. “ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS”. Gazi University Journal of Science 18, no. 4 (August 2010): 577-89.
EndNote Alkaya A, Esin A (August 1, 2010) ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS. Gazi University Journal of Science 18 4 577–589.
IEEE A. Alkaya and A. Esin, “ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS”, Gazi University Journal of Science, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 577–589, 2010.
ISNAD Alkaya, Aylin - Esin, Alptekin. “ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS”. Gazi University Journal of Science 18/4 (August 2010), 577-589.
JAMA Alkaya A, Esin A. ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS. Gazi University Journal of Science. 2010;18:577–589.
MLA Alkaya, Aylin and Alptekin Esin. “ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS”. Gazi University Journal of Science, vol. 18, no. 4, 2010, pp. 577-89.
Vancouver Alkaya A, Esin A. ITEM NONRESPONSE REASONS AND EFFECTS. Gazi University Journal of Science. 2010;18(4):577-89.