JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MCG Archives


MCG Archives

MCG Archives


MCG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MCG Home

MCG Home

MCG  July 2016

MCG July 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Statistical method for managing missing data without bias risk

From:

Bob Clark <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Museums Computer Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:16:54 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (147 lines)

This is an interesting strand.  Our museum has for several years run a self-completion survey to gather data on visitor demographics and reactions, the effectiveness of marketing, and so on.  The survey is in English only, and we have always been aware that those who do not complete it consists of disproportionate levels of overseas visitors and English-speakers who do not fit a survey matrix of white, educated, middle-class and willing to fill in a post-visit form.

We know we can't correct the data, so when each year's survey is written up we overtly acknowledge that it almost certainly under-represents the numbers of overseas and C2DE visitors.

Another statistical issue we have with the survey is where an otherwise-useful form gives no response to one or two questions, for reasons we don't know.  What we have done with this is to disregard forms that are substantially incomplete, but to cover the gaps in those that are mainly complete by ascribing them values which reflect the proportional split of other respondents.  Thus, we ask "Are away from home on holiday, for at least one night?".  If there is no answer to this question but 78% of respondents said yes, in "yes" we fill in a value of 0.78 for each person covered by the form (group size and makeup is questioned elsewhere), and 22% in "no".  This enables us to sustain totals that balance without skewing the results, we feel.  But I would be really interested in what others do in respect of that type of missing data.
 
 
 
 Bob Clark
 mailto:[log in to unmask]:
 
 ----
 
 Jensen, Eric <[log in to unmask]>
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Friday, July 22, 2016, 1:48:59 PM
 Subject: Statistical method for managing missing data without bias risk
 
 ===8<==============Original message text===============
 Hi Stephen,

I am a social scientist, and I teach social statistics and quantitative research methods at the University of Warwick (I also conduct a lot of quantitative research with museum audiences). I largely agree with Tom’s diagnosis here. No amount of fancy statistical tests are going to allow you to magically reverse engineer your data to identify what systematic biases might have been introduced in the non-response to demographic survey items.

For face-to-face surveys, best practice dictates the use of a ‘refusal log’, where you track any visible characteristics of the respondent (e.g. ‘white’ or ‘non-white’, ‘apparent gender’) to identify systematic biases that may have affected the data. If your survey is purely online and does not afford these options, you may be stuck just acknowledging this as a limitation of your data.

I am not aware of any robust evidence in the UK showing that there is a persistent pattern of non-response to demographic questions affecting one type of respondent more than another.

I would strongly advise against one of the possible solutions suggested by Tom below:
Could you re-run the survey without PNTA as option

This would be poor practice and could result in people exiting your survey altogether at this point, or putting down false information if they would in fact prefer not to answer.

His second suggestion of indicating how important this data is (and I would also stress what you are going to do with it) does sound like a promising approach:
preface it with a statement about how ticking the PNTA box might lead to skewed results

If you are getting high levels of non-response to demographic questions, it is worth reviewing the quality of the question and response options to ensure they are a good fit with your respondents and easy for them to answer (some pilot testing may be in order).

I also agree with Mia that your concern for the quality of your data is very admirable!

Best wishes,
Eric


---------------
Dr Eric Jensen, Fellow Higher Education Academy
Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer), Department of Sociology, University of Warwick
http://warwick.academia.edu/EricJensen
Latest book: - Doing Real Research (SAGE): https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/doing-real-research/book241193
Check out a sample chapter here - https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/73894_Jensen_Chapter_6.pdf

Sociology at the University of Warwick ranked:
The Guardian, Complete University Guide and The Times Good University Guide – 3rd
QS World University Ranking - 23rd




On 22 Jul 2016, at 13:28, Bilson, Tom <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi Stephen

I know this problem well, and am familiar with the ways of correcting for non ignorable non responses, but the inevitable question that comes to mind is why would you wish to? Surely if you’ve offered PNTA as a choice, then it too is a result. Personally, I don’t think it's possible to reverse engineer the scientific method to let results compensate for experimental design without introducing conditions and assumptions which, in many respects, undermine the purity of the data: otherwise you’re results are based partly on measurement and partly on speculation.

I take your point that removing PNTAs might introduce bias, but unless you have a crystal ball then you’ll never know whether this is accurate or misleading. I’m sure there’s existing research which shows how gender, age, race, sexuality, ethnicity, location plays a role in PNTA, but how to move from the general to the specific of the survey you’ve just run might be a problem.

I tend to be a PNTA sort of person if the survey starts to feel a bit intrusive, or looks like it has an agenda that makes me feel uneasy (and always assume that in doing so I’m ruling myself out of the prize draw at the end :) Could you re-run the survey without PNTA as option, or perhaps preface it with a statement about how ticking the PNTA box might lead to skewed results. I’m sure this never crosses peoples’ minds when they choose this as an option?

Best, Tom

The Courtauld Institute of Art, Somerset House, Strand, London, WC2R 0RN
www.courtauld.ac.uk<http://www.courtauld.ac.uk>

Now Open at The Courtauld Gallery – Georgiana Houghton: Spirit Drawings
Until 11 September 2016


On 22 Jul 2016, at 10:03, Mia <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

I really appreciate your attention to these questions, but personally it's way beyond the realms of my knowledge! Are there others on the list who could suggest R or Python libraries?

Failing that, the Association of Internet Researchers list at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> might have some suggestions.

Cheers, Mia

Sent from my handheld computing device

On 22 Jul 2016, at 08:28, Stephen McConnachie <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Hi everyone,

I have a statistical methodology question - what could be more exciting for a damp warm Friday? I realise it's not entirely in the comfort zone of this group, but I thought I'd try before exploring it with statistician contacts and broader research online.

It's about managing missing data in survey response, where the missing data is Missing Not At Random (MNAR) aka nonignorable nonresponse. I'm interested in any established models to correct for bias. Maybe those of you who have conducted surveys have come across this and found a good, understandable solution?

I'll explain the problem. Imagine you're conducting a survey where some of the questions are within the 'sensitive data' realm: race, gender, sexuality, disability. Imagine you're getting high 'prefer not to answer' levels , eg 50%. One flawed approach is listwise deletion, meaning that the 50% PNTA is simply excluded from analysis. This introduces a bias risk, because it's unlikely that the nonresponse is random, it's more likely to be meaningful - eg you might argue that over-represented cases - white, heterosexual males without disability - are slightly more likely to PNTA than under-represented cases. So deleting the PNTA is likely to introduce bias in your analysis, even if that nonrandomness is low level. A concrete example: removing 50% PNTA from the gender question might bias your analysis towards misleadingly high % female.

There are complex statistical methodologies for approaching the management of this problem - multiple imputation, maximum likelihood estimation, etc - but the complexity is daunting to a non-statistician without a software package like Stata. So I wonder if any of you have done this and either found a simple solution or developed a complex solution which is transferable - in other words, does anyone have some Python they can give me / direct me to??

All the best,
Stephen

****************************************************************
    website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
    Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
   Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************

****************************************************************
     website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
     Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
    Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************




The Courtauld Institute of Art is a company limited by guarantee (registered in England and Wales, number 04464432) and an exempt charity. SCT Enterprises Limited is a limited company (registered in England and Wales, number 3137515). Their registered offices are at Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 0RN. The sale of items related to The Courtauld Gallery and its collections is managed by SCT Enterprises Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Courtauld Institute of Art.




****************************************************************
      website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
      Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
     Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************


****************************************************************
       website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
 [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************

 ===8<===========End of original message text=========== 

****************************************************************
       website:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
       Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
      Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
 [un]subscribe:  http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager