Export to your Reference Manger

Please Copy & Paste



Bookmark and Share

Finding Respondents in the Forest: A Comparison of Logistic Regression and Random Forest Models for Response Propensity Weighting and Stratification

[journal article]

Buskirk, Trent D.; Kolenikov, Stanislav

fulltextDownloadDownload full text

(911 KByte)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-427053

Further Details
Abstract Survey response rates for modern surveys using many different modes are trending downward leaving the potential for nonresponse biases in estimates derived from using only the respondents. The reasons for nonresponse may be complex functions of known auxiliary variables or unknown latent variables not measured by practitioners. The degree to which the propensity to respond is associated with survey outcomes casts light on the overall potential for nonresponse biases for estimates of means and totals. The most common method for nonresponse adjustments to compensate for the potential bias in estimates has been logistic and probit regression models. However, for more complex nonresponse mechanisms that may be nonlinear or involve many interaction effects, these methods may fail to converge and thus fail to generate nonresponse adjustments for the sampling weights. In this paper we compare these traditional techniques to a relatively new data mining technique- random forests – under a simple and complex nonresponse propensity population model using both direct and propensity stratification nonresponse adjustments. Random forests appear to offer marginal improvements for the complex response model over logistic regression in direct propensity adjustment, but have some surprising results for propensity stratification across both response models.
Keywords response behavior; survey research; regression; random sample; weighting; estimation; measurement; regression analysis; model construction; sampling error; social stratification
Classification Methods and Techniques of Data Collection and Data Analysis, Statistical Methods, Computer Methods
Document language English
Publication Year 2015
Page/Pages 17 p.
Journal Survey Methods: Insights from the Field (2015)
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2015-00003
ISSN 2296-4754
Status Published Version; peer reviewed
Licence Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works