Evolution of the Initially Recruited SHARE Panel Sample Over the First Six Waves

Sabine Friedel 1  and Tim Birkenbach 2
  • 1 University of Mannheim, , SFB 884 “Political Economy of Reforms”, B6, 30-32, 68131, Mannheim, Germany
  • 2 Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA), , Amalienstrasse 33, 80799, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Attrition is a frequently observed phenomenon in panel studies. The loss of panel members over time can hamper the analysis of panel survey data. Based on data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), this study investigates changes in the composition of the initially recruited first-wave sample in a multi-national face-to-face panel survey of an older population over waves. By inspecting retention rates and R-indicators, we found that, despite declining retention rates, the composition of the initially recruited panel sample in Wave 1 remained stable after the second wave. Thus, after the second wave there is no further large decline in representativeness with regard to the first wave sample. Changes in the composition of the sample after the second wave over time were due mainly to mortality-related attrition. Non-mortality-related attrition had a slight effect on the changes in sample composition with regard to birth in survey country, area of residence, education, and social activities. Our study encourages researchers to investigate further the impact of mortality- and non-mortality-related attrition in multi-national surveys of older populations.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research). 2016. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (9th ed.). AAPOR. Available at: https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf (accessed August 2018).

  • Banks, J., M. Alastair, and J.P. Smith. 2011. “Attrition and Health in Ageing Studies: Evidence from ELSA and HRS.” Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 2: 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v2i2.115.

  • Bergmann, M., T. Kneip, G. De Luca, and A. Scherpenzeel. 2019. Survey Participation in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), Wave 1–7. SHARE Working Paper Series 31-2017. Munich, Germany: Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA), Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy. Available at: http://www.share-project.org/uploads/tx_sharepublications/WP_Series_41_2019_Bergmann_et_al.pdf (accessed February 2019).

  • Bianchi, A. and S. Biffignandi. 2017. “Representativeness in Panel Surveys.” Mathematical Population Studies 24: 126 – 143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2016.1271650.

  • Bianchi, A. and S. Biffignandi. 2019. “Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies.” Social Indicators Research 141: 931–957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1874-7.

  • Binder, D. 1998. “Longitudinal Surveys: Why Are These Surveys Different from All Other Surveys?” Survey Methodology 24: 101–108. Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/12-001-X19980024347 (accessed June 2020).

  • Börsch-Supan, A., M. Brandt, C. Hunkler, T. Kneip, J. Korbmacher, F. Malter, B. Schaan, S. Stuck, and S. Zuber. 2013. “Data Resource Profile: The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).” International Journal of Epidemiology 42: 992–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt088.

  • Börsch-Supan, A. 2017. Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) Wave 1. Release version: 6.0.0. SHARE-ERIC. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6103/SHARE.w1.600.

  • Bristle, J., M. Celidoni, C. Dal Bianco, and G. Weber. 2019. “The Contributions of Paradata and Features of Respondents, Interviewers and Survey Agencies to Panel Co-Operation in the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 182: 3–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12391.

  • Buck, N., J. Burton, H. Laurie, P. Lynn, and S.C.N. Uhrig. 2006. Quality Profile: British Household Panel. Survey Version 2.0: Waves 1 to 13: 1991–2003. Colchester, UK: University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

  • De Luca, G., C. Rossetti, and F. Malter. 2013. “Sample Design and Weighting Strategies in SHARE Wave 5.” In SHARE Wave 5: Innovations & Methodology, edited by F. Malter and A. Börsch-Supan, 75–84. Munich, Germany: Munich Center for the Economics of Aging, Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.

  • Fitzgerald, J., P. Gottschalk, and R. Moffitt. 1998. “An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics.” The Journal of Human Resources 33: 251–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/146433.

  • Leon, D.A. 2011. “Trends in European life expectancy: a salutary view.” International Journal of Epidemiology 40: 271–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr061.

  • Lepkowski, J.M. and M.P. Couper. 2002. “Nonresponse in the Second Wave of Longitudinal Household Surveys.” In Survey Nonresponse, edited by R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge, and R. J.A. Little, 259–272. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Lugtig, P. 2014. “Panel Attrition.” Sociological Methods & Research 43: 699–723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113520305.

  • Luiten, A. and B. Schouten. 2013. “Tailored fieldwork design to increase representative household survey response: an experiment in the Survey of Consumer Satisfaction.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 176: 169–189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01080.x.

  • Lynn, P. 2009. “Methods for Longitudinal Surveys.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 1–19. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Lynn, P. and P. Lugtig. 2017. “Total Survey Error for Longitudinal Surveys.” In Total Survey Error in Practice, edited by P.P. Biemer, E. De Leeuw, S. Eckman, B. Edwards, F. Kreuter, L.E. Lyberg, N.C. Tucker, and B.T. West, 279–298. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Mood, C. 2010. “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do what We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do about It.” European Sociological Review 26: 67–82.

  • Moore, J.C., G.B. Durrant, and P.W. F. Smith. 2016. “Data Set Representativeness during Data Collection in Three UK Social Surveys: Generalizability and the Effects of Auxiliary Covariate Choice.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society): 229–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12256.

  • Myrskylä, M., J.R. Goldstein, and Y.A. Cheng. 2013. “New Cohort Fertility Forecasts for the Developed World: Rises, Falls, and Reversals.” Population and Development Review 39: 31–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00572.x.

  • Olsen, R.J. 2018. “Respondent Attrition Versus Data Attrition and Their Reduction.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, edited by D.L. Vannette and J.A. Krosnick, 155–158. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

  • RISQ. 2015. Representative Indicators for Survey Quality-Tools. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester. Available at: https://www.cmist.manchester.ac.uk/research/-projects/representative-indicators-for-survey-quality/tools/ (accessed August 2018).

  • Roberts, C., C. Vandenplas, and M.E. Stähli. 2014. “Evaluating the Impact of Response Enhancement Methods on the Risk of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Costs.” Survey Research Methods 8: 67–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5459.

  • Schoeni, R.F., F. Stafford, K.A. McGonagle, and P. Andreski. 2013. “Response Rates in National Panel Surveys.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 645: 60–87.

  • Schouten, B., J. Bethlehem, K. Beullens, Ø. Kleven, G. Loosveldt, A. Luiten, Ka. Rutar, N. Shlomo, and C. Skinner. 2012. “Evaluating, Comparing, Monitoring, and Improving Representativeness of Survey Response through R-Indicators and Partial R-Indicators.” International Statistical Review 80: 382–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2012.00189.x.

  • Schouten, B., F. Cobben, and J. Bethlehem. 2009. “Indicators for the Representativeness of Survey Response.” Survey Methodology 35: 101–113.

  • Schouten, B., N. Shlomo, and C. Skinner. 2011. “Indicators for Monitoring and Improving Representativeness of Response.” Journal of Official Statistics 27: 1–24. Available at: https://www.scb.se/contentassets/ca21efb41fee47d293bbee5bf7be7fb3/indicators-for-monitoring-and-improving-representativeness-of-response.pdf (accessed May 2020).

  • SHARE-ERIC. 2018. SHARE Publications: Journal Articles.Available at: http://www.share-project.org/share-publications/journalarticles00.html (accessed August 2018).

  • Smith, P., P. Lynn, and D. Elliot. 2009. “Sample Design for Longitudinal Surveys.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by M. Groves, G. Kalton, J.N. Rao, N. Schwarz, C. Skinner, and P. Lynn, 21–33. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Watson, D. 2003. “Sample Attrition between Waves 1 and 5 in the European Community Household Panel.” European Sociological Review 19: 361–378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/19.4.361.

  • Watson, N. and M. Wooden. 2009. “Identifying Factors Affecting Longitudinal Survey Response.” In Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys, edited by P. Lynn, 157–181. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Watson, N. and M. Wooden. 2019. “Chasing Hard-to-Get Cases in Panel Surveys: Is it Worth it?” methods, data, analyses 13: 199–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2018.03.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search