FARKLI CEVAPLAYICI SEÇİM YÖNTEMLERİ FARKLI ARAŞTIRMA TAHMİNLERİ ÜRETİR Mİ? 2013 TNSA İÇİN CEVAPLAYICI SEÇİM YÖNTEMLERİNİN BİR SİMÜLASYONU

Abstract

Cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemleri hanehalkı araştırmalarında görüşülmesi gereken cevaplayıcıyı seçmek için kullanılmaktadır. 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması (2013 TNSA)’da, Uluslararası DHS Programı standartlarına göre görüşmeye uygun olan tüm kadınlar ile görüşülmüştür. Bu çalışma cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin simüle edilmesiyle, temel olarak “2013 TNSA’da üretilen temel göstergeler farklı cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin uygulanmasıyla nasıl değişirdi?” sorusunu sormaktadır. Cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemleri iki olasılıklı, iki yarı-olasılıklı ve dört olasılıklı olmayan yöntemi kapsamaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, 2013 TNSA’da tüm kadınlarla görüşme yapılmasının uygun olduğunu, ancak farklı cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin uygulanmasıyla da araştırma sonuçlarına yakın tahminler üretilebileceğini göstermektedir. Seçilen değişkenler için ortalama sapma büyükleri güven aralıkları ile beraber düşünüldüğünde, olasılıklı ve yarı-olasılıklı seçim yöntemlerinin nüfus değerlerinin güven aralıklarından göz ardı edilebilir sapmalar ile daha iyi tahminler ürettiği görülmektedir.

Keywords

• cevaplayıcı seçimi
• Kish yöntemi
• olasılıklı yöntemler
• simülasyon çalışması
• hanehalkı araştırması
• TNSA

DO DIFFERENT RESPONDENT SELECTION METHODS PRODUCE DIFFERENT SURVEY ESTIMATES? A SIMULATION OF WITHIN-HOUSEHOLD SELECTION METHODS FOR 2013 TURKEY DHS

Abstract

Respondent selection procedures are utilized to choose a particular respondent in surveys. In the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (2013 Turkey DHS), all women who meet the eligibility criteria were interviewed according to standard regulations of the International DHS Program. Simulating the application of different methods, this study mainly asks “How would main indicators produced in 2013 Turkey DHS differ with the implementation of various respondent choice strategies?”. The selection procedures include two probabilistic methods, two quasi-probabilistic methods, and four non-probabilistic methods. This study advanced that although interviewing all eligible women in 2013 Turkey DHS appears to be reasonable, providing estimates that are close to survey results, is also conceivable through the execution of selection methods. When the mean of total deviations is considered with their confidence intervals, probabilistic and quasi-probabilistic selection techniques have produced much better estimates with minimal deviations from the confidence intervals of the population values.

Keywords

• respondent selection
• Kish method
• probabilistic methods
• simulation study
• household survey
• Turkey DHS

References

1. 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey Data. (2014). The DHS Program. Retrieved from http://www.tnsaveri_tdhsdata.hacettepe.edu.tr/request.php.
2. Alves, M.C.G.P., Escuder, M.M.L., Claro, R.M., & N.N.D. Silva (2014). “Selection within Households in Health Surveys”, Revista de Saude Publica, 48/1, pp: 86-93.
3. Battaglia, M. P., Link, M. W., Frankel, M. R., Osborn, L., & A. H. Mokdad (2008). “An Evaluation of Respondent Selection Methods for Household Mail Surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72/3, pp: 459-469.
4. Beebe, T. J., Davern, M. E., McAlpine, D. D., & J. K. Ziegenfuss (2007). “Comparison of Two within-Household Selection Methods in a Telephone Survey of Substance Abuse and Dependence”, Annals of Epidemiology, 17/6, pp: 458-463.
5. Binson, D., & J. A. Catania (2000). “Random Selection in a National Telephone Survey: A Comparison of the Kish, Next-birthday, and Last-birthday Methods”, Journal of Official Statistics, 16/1, pp: 53-60.
6. Clark, R. G., & D. G. Steel (2007). “Sampling within Households in Household Surveys”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170/1, pp: 63-82.
7. Dillman, D. A. (2021). Adapting Push-to-Web Survey Designs for Use in Different Countries and Situations. Retrieved March 6, 2021, from https://wapor.org/wp-content/uploads/WAPOR-2021-Dillman-webinar-Adapting-Push-to-Web-Survey-Designs-March-5-2021.pdf.
8. Elder, S. (2009). “The Sampling Methodology”, ILO School-To-Work Transition Survey, Geneva, International Labour Organization.

9. Gaziano, C. (2005). “Comparative Analysis of Within-household Respondent Selection Techniques”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 69/1, pp: 124-157.
10. HUIPS. (1994). 1993 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Ministry of Health and Macro International Inc., Ankara.
11. HUIPS. (1999). 1998 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Macro International Inc., Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health/Family Planning, United Nations Population Fund and U.S. Agency for International Development, Ankara.
12. HUIPS. (2004). 2003 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, State Planning Organization and European Union, Ankara.
13. HUIPS. (2014). 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, TR Ministry of Development and TUBITAK, Ankara.
14. HUIPS. (2019). 2018 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, TR Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TUBİTAK, Ankara.
15. Kish, L. (1949). “A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection within the Household”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, pp: 380-387.
16. Kumar, R. V. (2014). “Respondent Selection Methods in Household Surveys”, Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies, 46.
17. Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). Telephone Survey Methods, Volume 7, Sage Applied Social Research Methods Series, Newbury Park, CA.
18. Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Within-household Respondent Selection: How Best to Reduce Total Survey Error. Media Rating Council, Inc. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from http://www.mediaratingcouncil.org/MRC%20Point%20of%20View%20-%20Within%20HH%20Respondent%20Selection%20Methods.pdf.
19. Lavrakas, P. J., & S. L. Bauman. (1993). “The Last Birthday Selection Method and Within Unit Coverage Problems”, American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, 1107-1112.
20. Lavrakas, P. J., Stasny, E. A., & Harpuder, B. (2000). “A Further Investigation of the Last-Birthday Respondent Selection Method and Within Unit Coverage Error,” American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, 890-895.
21. Marlar, J., Chattopadhyay, M., Jones, J., Marken, S., & F. Kreuter. (2018). “Within-Household Selection and Dual-Frame Telephone Surveys: A Comparative Experiment of Eleven Different Selection Methods”, Survey Practice, 11.
22. Moser, C. A., & G. Kalton. (1971). Survey Methods in Social Investigation, Routledge, London.
23. Nemeth, R. (2002). “Respondent Selection within the Household-A Modification of the Kish Grid”, the Sixth Austrian, Hungarian, Italian and Slovenian Meeting of Young Statisticians.
24. O'Rourke, D., & J. Blair (1983). “Improving Random Respondent Selection in Telephone Surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, 20/4, pp: 428-432.
25. Oldendick, R. W., Bishop, G. F., Sorenson, S. B., & A. J. Tuchfarber. (1988). “A Comparison of the Kish and Last Birthday Methods of Respondent Selection in Telephone Surveys”, Journal of Official Statistics, 4/4, pp: 307-318.
26. Olson, K., & J. Smyth. (2013). “Accuracy of Within-household Selection in Web and Mail Surveys of the General Population”, Field Methods, 26/1, pp: 56-69.
27. Rizzo, L., Brick, J. M., & I. Park. (2004). “A Minimally Intrusive Method for Sampling Persons in Random Digit Dial Surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68/2, pp: 267-274.
28. Salmon, C. T., & J. S. Nichols. (1983). “The Next-birthday Method of Respondent Selection”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 47/2, pp: 270-276.
29. Smyth, J. D., Olson, K., & M. Stange. (2019). “Within‐Household Selection Methods: A Critical Review and Experimental Examination”, Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment, (Ed: Lavrakas P. J., Traugott, M, Kennedy, C., Holbrook, A., de Leeuw, E., & B. West), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
30. WHO. (2001). Putting Women First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on Domestic Violence Against Women. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.who.int/gender/violence/womenfirtseng.pdf.
31. Yan, T., Tourangeau, R., & R. McAloon. (2015). “A Meta-analysis of Within-household Respondent Selection Methods”, the 2015 Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) Statistical Policy Seminar.