Investigating the Determinants that Influence Consent Behavior for Linking Survey Data with Administrative Records

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 495 - 516, 24.05.2024

Türknur Brand Ahmet Sinan Türkyılmaz

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1412153

Öz

This research investigates the determinants of consent behavior in linking survey and administrative data, filling a notable gap in existing studies. It conducts a thorough systematic review of a wide variety of surveys from multiple countries, examining survey and consent design characteristics to assess their influence on consent rates. Through statistical analysis, the study evaluates numerous factors such as survey response rate, topic, country, year, type, mode, age of target population, sponsor, and various aspects related to the consent request process. The findings suggest that higher consent rates are more likely in computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) compared to self-administered surveys, in surveys sponsored by governments, in panel surveys as opposed to cross-sectional ones, and where explicit consent is sought, especially when the consent request is made at the start of the survey. This research makes a significant contribution to academic literature by empirically demonstrating the effect of various survey and consent design features on consent behavior, providing essential insights for crafting surveys to maximize consent rates for data linkage. It closes an important research gap in survey methodology and the behavior on data linkage consent, offering a unique, extensive analysis across a broad range of international surveys.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Data Collection, Survey Methods, Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods

Anket Verilerin İdari Kayıtlarla Birleştirilmesi İçin Onay Verme Davranışını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Araştırılması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, anket katılımcı verilerinin idari kayıtlar benzeri diğer verilerle birleştirilme aşamasında verdikleri onay davranışına etki eden tüm faktörleri araştırmaktır. Çalışma verisi, bu onayı verme oranı hesaplanmış ya da hesaplanabilen, uluslararası literatürde İngilizce olarak kaleme alınmış farklı alanlardaki anketlerin gözden geçirilmesi ve sistematik bir biçimde incelenmesi sonucu oluşturulmuştur. Diğer verilerle birleştirme onay verme oranı, o dönemin onay verenlerinin tüm anket katılımcılarına bölünmesiyle elde edilir. Bağımlı değişken onay verme oranı ve bağımsız değişkenler, anket ve onay verme süreci karakteristikleridir. Sistematik derlemenin sonrasında tüm değişkenlerin (anket cevaplama oranı, anket konusu, anket yılı, anket veri toplama metodu ve anket veri birleştirme onay isteme metodu gibi ilişkili degişkenler) değerlendirildiği istatistiksel modellerle onay verme davranışının belirleyicileri tartışılmıştır. Anketörle, bilgisayar destekli telefon anketlerinin, anketörün olmadığı anketlere göre; devlet sponsorlu anketlerin, özel anketlere göre; panel anketlerin, yatay kesit anketlere göre ve onay verme sorusunun basta sorulduğu anketlerin, diğer bölümlerde sorulanlara göre daha yüksek oranda verilerinin birleştirilmesine onay verdikleri bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın sonucu, diğer verilerle birleştirme konusunda yüksek oranlı onaya ulaşmanın anket katılımcılarının güven oluşturma süreçleri ile paralel davranış sergilediklerini düşündürmektedir. Araştırmanın bulgularının bundan sonraki onay verme süreci incelemelerine de bir perspektif kazandırabileceği görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Veri Toplama, Anket Metotları, Yarı Parametrik ve Parametrik Olmayan Metotlar

Kaynakça

• Angus, V. C., Entwistle, V. A., Emslie, M. J., Walker, K. A. & Andrew, J. E. (2003). The Requirement for Prior Consent to Participate on Survey Response Rates: A Population-Based Survey in Grampian. BMC Health Services Research, 3, 21. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/3/21
• Baghal, T. A., Knies, G. & Burton, J. (2014). Linking Administrative Records to Surveys: Differences in the Correlates to Consent Decisions. Understanding Society Technical Report, No. 2014-09. Institute for Social and Economic Research, Essex, UK.
• Baghal T. A., Sloan, L., Jessop, C., Williams, M. L. & Burnap, P. (2019). Linking Twitter and Survey Data: The Impact of Survey Mode and Demographics on Consent Rates Across Three UK Studies. Social Science Computer Review, XX(X), 1-16.
• Bates, N. (2005). Development and Testing of Informed Consent Questions to Link Survey Data with Administrative Records. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association (3786-3793).
• Buckley, B., Murphy, A. W., Byrne, M. & Glynn, L. (2007). Selection Bias Resulting from the Requirement for Prior Consent in Observational Research: Community Cohort of People with Ischemic Heart Disease. Heart, 93, 1116-1120.
• Carter, K., Shaw, C., Hayward, M. & Blakely, T. (2010). Understanding the Determinants of Consent for Linkage of Administrative Health Data with a Longitudinal Survey. New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 53-60.
• Cehovin, G., Bosnjak, M. & Manfreda, K. L. (2018). Meta Analyses in Survey Methodology: A Systematic Review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 641-660.
• Das, M. & Couper, M. P. (2004). Optimizing Opt-Out Consent for Record Linkage. Journal of Official Statistics, 30(3), 479-497.
• Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carre, G., Garcia Marquez, J. R., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitao, P. J., Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P. E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D. & Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with It and a Simulation Study Evaluating Their Performance. Ecograpy, 36(1), 27-46.
• De Leeuw, E. & Heer, W. D. (2002). Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and International Comparison. R. Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge & R. J. A. Little (Ed.), Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley.
• Dunn, K. M., Jordan, K., Lacey, R. J., Shapley, M. & Jinks, C. (2004). Patterns of Consent in Epidemiological Research: Evidence from Over 25000 Respondents. The Practice of Epidemiology, 159(11), 1087-1094.
• Elevelt, A. (2021). Consent to Data Linkage in Surveys: A Descriptive Review and Meta-Analysis. Dissertation on Smart (Phone) Surveys.
• Fobia, A. C., Holzberg, J., Eggleston, C., Childs, J. H., Marlar, J. & Morales, G. (2019). Attitudes Towards Data Linkage for Evidence-Based Policymaking. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(Special Issue), 264-279.
• Fulton, J. A. (2012). Respondent Consent to Use Administrative Data. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland. http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/13601
• Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, Secondary and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
• Gessendorfer, J., Beste, J., Drechsler, J. & Sakshaug, J.W. (2018). Statistical Matching as a Supplement to Record Linkage: A Valuable Method to Tackle Nonconsent Bias. Journal of Official Statistics, 34(4), 909-933.
• Goyder, J. (1985). Face-to-Face Interviews and Mailed Questionnaires: The Net Difference in Response Rate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2), 234-252.
• Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B. & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding the Decision to Participate in a Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495.
• Groves, R. M. & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167-189.
• 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: Description and an Illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299-308.
• Hair, J. F. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (Pearson New International Edition, 7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
• Haraldsen, G., Jones, J., Giesen, D. & Zhang, L. C. (2013). Understanding and Coping with Response Burden. G. Snijkers, G. Haraldsen, J. Jones & D. K. Willimack (Ed.), Designing and Conducting Business Surveys (219-252). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
• Harris, T., Cook, D. G., Victor, C., Beighton, C., Dewilde, S. & Carey, I. (2005). Linking Questionnaires to Primary Care Records: Factors Affecting Consent in Older People. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 59(4), 336-338.
• Heberlein, T. A. & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
• Huang, N., Shih, S.-F., Chang, H.-Y. & Chou, Y.-J. (2007). Record Linkage Research and Informed Consent: Who Consents?. BMC Health Services Research, 7(18).
• Jäckle, A., Beninger, K., Burton, J. & Couper, M. P. (2021). Understanding Data Linkage Consent in Longitudinal Surveys. P. Lynn (Ed.), Advances in Longitudinal Survey Methodology. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.
• Jäckle, A., Sala, E., Jenkins, S. P. & Lynn, P. (2004). Validation of Survey Data on Income and Employment: The ISMIE Experience. ISER Working Paper, No. 2004-14. Colchester: University of Essex. http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/pubs/workpaps/pdf/2004-14.pdf
• Jenkins, S. P., Cappellari, L., Lynn, P., Jäckle, A. & Sala, E. (2006). Patterns of Consent: Evidence from a General Household Survey. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169, 701-722.
• Keusch, F., Struminskaya, B., Antoun, C., Couper, M. P. & Kreuter, F. (2019). Willingness To Participate in Passive Mobile Data Collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 210-235.
• Kho, M. E. (2009). Written Informed Consent and Selection Bias in Observational Studies Using Medical Records: Systematic Review. BMJ Research. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b866
• Kim, J. K. & Rao, J. N. K. (2012). Combining Data from Two Independent Surveys: A Model-Assisted Approach. Biometrika, 99(1), 85-100.
• Kreuter, F., Muller, G. & Trappmann, M. (2010). Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment Research: Making Use of Administrative Data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 880-906.
• Kreuter, F., Sakshaug, J. W. & Tourangeau, R. (2016). The Framing of the Record Linkage Consent Question. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(1), 142-152.
• Linsky, A. S. (1975). Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101.
• Lugtig, P. (2014). Separating Stayers, Fast Attriters, Gradual Attriters, and Lurkers. Sociological Methods & Research, 43, 699-723.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. (2010). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The Prisma Statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336-341.
• Olson, K. M. (2006). Survey Participation, Nonresponse Bias, Measurement Error Bias, and Total Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 737-758.
• Pascale, J. (2011). Requesting Consent to Link Survey Data to Administrative Records: Results from a Split Ballot Experiment in the Survey of Health Insurance and Program Participation (SHIPP). US Census Bureau Working Paper, 2011(3).
• Sakshaug, J. W. & Antoni, M. (2019). Evaluating the Utility of Indirectly Linked Federal Administrative Records for Nonresponse Bias Adjustment. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 7(2), 227-249.
• Sakshaug, J. W., Couper, M. P., Ofstedal, B. & Weir, D. R. (2012). Linking Survey and Administrative Records Mechanisms of Consent. Sociological Methods and Research, 41, 535-569.
• Sakshaug, J. W. & Huber, M. (2016). An Evaluation of Panel Nonresponse and Linkage Consent Bias in a Survey of Employees in Germany. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 4, 71-93.
• Sakshaug, J. W., Hülle, S., Schmucker, H. & Liebig, S. (2017). Exploring the Effects of Interviewer- and Self-Administered Survey Modes on Record Linkage Consent Rates and Bias. Survey Research Methods, 11(2), 171-188.
• Sakshaug, J, W., Schmucker, A., Kreuter, F., Couper, M. P. & Singer, E. (2019). The Effect of Framing and Placement on Linkage Consent. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(Special Issue), 289-308.
• Sakshaug, J. W. & Vicari, B. J. (2018). Obtaining Record Linkage Consent from Establishments: The Impact of Question Placement on Consent Rates and Bias. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 6, 46-71.
• Sakshaug, J. W. & Kreuter, F. (2014). The Effect of Benefit Wording on Consent to Link Survey and Administrative Records in a Web Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 166-176.
• Sakshaug, J. W. & Kreuter, F. (2012). Assessing the Magnitude of Non-Consent Biases in Linked Survey and Administrative Data. Survey Research Methods, 6, 113-122.
• Sakshaug, J. W., Schmucker, A., Kreuter, F., Couper, M. P. & Singer, E. (2016). Evaluating Active (Opt-In) and Passive (Opt-Out) Consent Bias in the Transfer of Federal Contact Data to a Third-Party Survey Agency. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 4, 382-416.
• Sakshaug, J. W., Tutz, V. & Kreuter, F. (2013). Placement, Wording and Interviewers: Identifying Correlates of Consent to Link Survey and Administrative Data. Survey Research Methods, 7, 133-144.
• Sakshaug, J. W., Yan, T. & Tourangeau, R. (2010b). Nonresponse Error, Measurement Error, and Mode of Data Collection Method: Tradeoffs in a Multi-Mode Survey of Sensitive and Non-Sensitive Items. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 907-933.
• Sala, E., Burton, J. & Knies, G. (2010). Correlates of Obtaining Informed Consent to Data Linkage: Respondent, Interview and Interviewer Characteristics. Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2010-28.
• Sala, E., Knies, G. & Burton, J. (2014). Propensity to Consent to Data Linkage: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Three Survey Design Features in a UK Longitudinal Panel. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(5), 455-473.
• Sala, E., Burton, J. & Knies, G. (2012). Correlates of Obtaining Informed Consent to Data Linkage: Respondent, Interview, and Interviewer Characteristics. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 414-439.
• Shahi, R. & Vousden, C. (2005). Bias from Requiring Explicit Consent from All Participants in Observational Research: Prospective, Population-Based Study. BMJ. Doi: 10.1136/bmj.38624.397569.68
• Singer, E. (1978). Informed Consent: Consequences for Response Rate and Response Quality in Social Surveys. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 144-162.
• Singer, E. (2003). Exploring the Meaning of Consent: Participation in Research and Beliefs About Risks and Benefits. Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 273-285.
• Thornby, M., Calderwood, L., Kotecha, M., Beninger, K. & Gaia, A. (2017). Collecting Multiple Data Linkage Consents in a Mixed Mode Survey: Evidence and Lessons Learnt from Next Steps. Center for Longitudinal Studies Working Paper, 2017/13. doi:10.13094/SMIF-2018-00004
• Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J. & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Webster, C. (1996). Hispanic and Anglo Interviewer and Respondent Ethnicity and Gender: The Impact on Survey Response Quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 62-72.
• Willimack, D. K. & Snijkers, G. (2013). The Business Context and Its Implications for the Survey Response Process. G. Snijkers, G. Haraldsen, J. Jones & D.K. Willimack (Ed.), Designing and Conducting Business Surveys (39-82). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
• Yawn, B. P., Yawn, R. A., Geier, G. R., Xia, Z. & Jacobsen, S. J. (1998). The Impact of Requiring Patient Authorization for Use of Data in Medical Records Research. Journal of Family Practice, 47, 361-365.