laura t. ozcoskun and katherine jenny thompson presented by samson adeshiyan

1

Redefining the Unit Nonresponse Adjustment Cells for the Survey of

Residential Alterations and Repairs (SORAR)

Laura T. Ozcoskun and

Katherine Jenny Thompson

Presented By Samson Adeshiyan

2

Outline

• Background

• The Problem

• The Authors’ Recipe for a Solution

• Some Empirical Results Interspersed

3

Survey of Residential Alterations and Repairs (SORAR) Background• Monthly data collection• Low unit response rates• Key item: Total Expenditures

• Maintenance and Repairs• Improvements

• Multi-stage sample of Housing Units (HUs)• Privately-owned vacant HUs (Vacant)• Rental and 5+ unit properties (Rental)

• Modified Half-Sample Variance Estimator

4

The Problem (Motivation)

• SORAR’s three-stage weighting procedure• Duplication control (field subsampling)• Unit non-response adjustment • Post-stratification adjustment

• Suspected that variables used to define unit nonresponse weighting cells not highly related to• Response propensity or• Cell means

5

Response Model

• “Quasi-Randomization” (Oh & Scheuren 1983)• Covariate dependent, missing-at-random (MAR) response

mechanism• Response propensity (p) is a random variable.

• Minimum requirements for weighting cells:1. Heterogeneous response propensities or

2. Heterogeneous cell means

• Optimal adjustment cells satisfy both conditions.

6

The Authors’ Recipe

• Determine Eligible Sets of Classification Variables

• Determine Uncollapsed Cells (Full Model)• Logistic Regression Analysis

• Determine Collapsed Cells (Reduced Model)• General Linear Hypothesis Tests• Relative Efficiency Diagnostic (MSE Ratios)• Time Series Plots of Adjustment Factors

7

Step 1: Find Sets of Classification Variables for Cells

• Respondent requirements per cell:• Actual Cell Size 5

• needed for logistic regression

• Effective “Sample” (cell) Size 5

• Categorical variables

8

Cell Sizes• Effective “Sample” (Cell) Size

• rp is the Actual cell size of cell p

• DEFFp is the design effect for item Y in cell p• indicates efficient design for item Y

p

pp DEFF

rr ~

pp rr ~

9

Candidate Cells (SORAR)• Candidate cell variables (categorical)

• Region (currently used)• Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status

(currently used)• Tenure (Vacant/Rental)• Single-unit vs. Multi-unit

• Candidate cross classifications• Region/MSA Status/Single or Multi-Unit• Region/Tenure/Single or Multi-Unit

10

Step 2: Uncollapsed Cells (Full Model)

• Response Propensity Modeling

• Logistic Regression• Complex survey adaptations of Roberts, Rao,

and Kumar (1987) to test statistics

• Full and reduced (nested) models• Want all effects to be significant in full model• Would like to reject majority of nested models

11

Logistic Regression (SORAR)

• 18 months

• Separate full and reduced models for each month

• Between-cell covariance approximations = 0 (anti-conservative) = -0.25 = -0.50 (conservative)

12

Model 1: Region/MSA/Single or Multi-Unit

Hypothesis = 0 = -0.25 = -0.50

Rejected Not Rejected

Rejected Not Rejected

Rejected Not Rejected

REGION = MSA = HU =0 (Full) 18 0 18 0 18 0

REGION = MSA=0|HU

0 14 4 13 5 10 8

REGION = HU=0|MSA

0 18 0 18 0 18 0

MSA = HU=0|REGION

0 18 0 18 0 18 0

REGION = 0| MSA

0, HU 0 12 6 12 6 9 9

MSA = 0| REGION

0, HU 0 8 10 8 10 8 10

HU = 0| REGION

0, TEN 0 18 0 18 0 18 0

Very sensitive to correlation assumptionsIndicates necessity of including Single/Multi-Unit in

weighting cellsRegion and MSA less necessary given Single/Multi-Unit

13

Model 2: Region/Tenure/Single or Multi-Unit

Insensitive to correlation assumptions (change)Indicates necessity of including Single/Multi-Unit in

weighting cells (unchanged)Region and Tenure often necessary (change)

Hypothesis = 0 = -0.25 = -0.50

Rejected Not Rejected

Rejected Not Rejected

Rejected Not Rejected

REGION = TEN = HU =0 (Full) 18 0 18 0 18 0

REGION = TEN=0|HU

0 18 0 18 0 17 1

REGION = HU=0|TEN

0 18 0 18 0 18 0

TEN = HU=0|REGION 0 18 0 18 0 18 0

REGION = 0| TEN

0, HU 0 14 4 14 4 11 7

TEN = 0| REGION

0, HU 0 13 5 13 5 13 5

HU = 0| REGION

0, TEN 0 18 0 18 0 18 0

14

Step 3: Collapsed Cells (Reduced Model)

• General Linear Hypothesis Tests

• Relative Efficiency Diagnostic

• Time Series Plots of Estimated Nonresponse Adjustment Factors

15

General Linear Hypothesis Test

Hypothesis Tests• H0: and (collapse rows) • H0: and (collapse columns)

Not done with SORAR (cell estimates too variable)

2111 yy 2212 yy 1211 yy 2221 yy

Classification variable k

11y (cell 1) 12y (cell 2) Classification variable k’

21y (cell 3) 22y (cell 4)

16

Relative Efficiency DiagnosticMSE Ratios

• Modified from Eltinge and Yanasaneh (1997)• Definitions

approximately model-unbiased estimate under full model

model-biased estimate under a collapsed weighting

procedure

(under model assumption)

• Mean squared error ratio:

FY

CY

)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ(ˆFF YVYESM

)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ(ˆ 2CCC YBYVYESM

)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ(ˆ 2

F

CCC

YV

YBYV

17

SORAR MSE Ratios: Total Expenditures

• Tenure dropped: Median RH = 1.02

• HU Category dropped: Median RT = 0.93

• On average, RH is both greater than one and closer to one than RT

• Not terrifically compelling evidence for either collapsing

• How can values be less than 1?• Function of using empirical data

• Collapsed variances smaller or equivalent to uncollapsed variances

• Estimated bias often “negligible”

18

Time Series Plots of Adjustment Factors

• Visual, less statistical • Fewer assumptions

• Full procedure and collapsed procedure adjustment factors• Within region (SORAR)• Inverse of response propensities (SORAR)

19

Candidate Cells: Region by Single/Multi for Vacant Properties

• Original adjustment factors very different in scale

• Collapsed factors are far from both original factors

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Vacant Single-Unit Property Factors Vacant Multi-Unit Property Factors

Collapsed Vacant Units

20

Candidate Cells: Region by Single/Multi for Rental Properties

• Original adjustment factors very different in scale

• Collapsed factors are far from both original factors (c.f. multi-unit factors)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Rental Single-Unit Property Factors Rental Multi-Unit Property Factors

Collapsed Rental Units

21

Candidate Cells: Region by Tenure for Single-Unit Properties

• Scale of original factors “similar” (compared to earlier slide)

• Collapsed factors different for single units

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Vacant Single-Unit Property Factors Rental Single-Unit Property Factors

Collapsed Single Unit

22

Candidate Cells: Region by Tenure for Multi-Unit Properties

• Scale of original factors similar

• Collapsed factors similar to original factors

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Vacant Multi-Unit Property Factors Rental Multi-Unit Property Factors

Collapsed Multi Unit

23

Final Recommendation (SORAR)

• Full weighting cells• Region/Tenure/Single or Multi-Unit

• Collapsed weighting cells• Region/Single or Multi-Unit• Region

24

Conclusion

• Started with a recipe• Model-development tools• Diagnostic tools

• Modified the recipe for our survey• Considered and dropped diagnostics (data-based)

• Ended up with a new main course• More statistically defensible unit nonresponse

adjustment cells.

25

Any Questions?

• Laura Ozcoskun Laura.T.Ozcoskun@census.gov

• Katherine Jenny Thompson Katherine.J.Thompson@census.gov