AAPOR 2016 - Eran Ben-Porath & Kaiser

HABITUAL & NON-HABITUAL RESPONDENTS
IN A LONGITUDINAL TELEPHONE STUDY:
DIFFERENCES & IMPLICATIONS
PRESENTATION FOR AAPOR 2016
1
ERAN BEN-PORATH, SSRS
BIANCA DIJULIO, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION
MOLLYANN BRODIE, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION
JAMIE FIRTH, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION

KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION CALIFORNIA
UNINSURED LONGITUDINAL PANEL SURVEY
• Baseline Survey: July-August 2013 (Prior to Open Enrollment)
• 2001 Randomly Selected California Residents:
− Ages 19-64
− Uninsured for at Least 2 Months at theTime of the Baseline Survey
• RDD Landline and Cell Phone, OversampledAreas with Lower-income Populations
• English and Spanish
• Wave 2: April-June 2014 (After Open Enrollment Period Closed)
• Wave 3: Feb-May 2015 (After 2nd Open Enrollment Closed)
• Wave 4: Feb-June 2016 (After 2nd Open Enrollment Closed)
• Funded in Part by the California Endowment
• AllWaves Fielded by SSRS
© SSRS & Kaiser Family Foundation 2016 2

EFFORTTO MAINTAIN COOPERATION
RATES
Attempts to Recontact Respondents at Waves 2-4
• Collected Multiple Pieces of Contact Information, Emails,Alternate Phone #S
• Incentives to All Respondents, Including Following Up withThose Who Didn’t CashTheir Checks to
Make SureThey Received it
• Waves 2-4: Pre-notification Letters with $2 Pre-incentives to AnyoneWho Gave UsTheir Address
for Incentive
• Up to 30 Callback Attempts
• RemindersVia Email (if Provided An EmailAddress), Postcards,Voicemails
• Look-up For Alternative Phone Numbers For NumbersThat Came Up As Non-working
• Continue Re-dialing Non-working
• Allowing Respondents to Complete Interviews “On Demand” ifThey Call in Directly
• WebVersion of the Survey for PeopleWhen Several Attempts to ContactVia PhoneWere
Unsuccessful

FOURTYPES OF RESPONDENTS (BY
COOPERATIVENESS)
I II III IV
Type Dropouts Casual Committed Habitual
Definition OnlyWave I Any 2 waves Any 3 waves All 4 waves
N

COOPERATIVENESS)
I II III IV
N 560 367 365 709

COOPERATIVENESS)
I II III IV
N 560 367 365 709
• Assumption: Non-random differences between types.
• Systematic non-response

DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
RESPONDENTSTYPES
55.4%
50.7%
45.5%
42.0%
44.6%
49.3%
54.5%
58.0%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
GENDER
m f

RESPONDENTSTYPES
31.4%
23.2%
20.3%
16.4%
23.9%
21.0%
22.2%
18.6%
19.5%
27.2%
22.2%
19.9%
25.2%
28.3%
35.3%
45.1%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
AGE
18-29 30-39 40-49 50+

RESPONDENTSTYPES
32.9%
29.7%
32.9%
22.0%
31.8%
32.2%
26.6%
24.5%
21.1%
27.0%
25.2%
34.6%
12.5%
10.6%
14.2%
18.3%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
EDUCATION
<HS HS Grad Some Coll Coll+

RESPONDENTSTYPES
OTHER SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
HABITUALS:
Significantly More Likely to Have Completed Original
Interview in English than Any OtherType (and
Conversely: Least Likely in Spanish)
HABITUALS:
Significantly More Likely to Have had a Landline inTheir
Homes (AtT1)

W1 ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
RESPONDENTSTYPES
52.0%
50.1%
56.7%
45.8%
21.1%
25.6%
24.9%
33.9%
27.0%
24.3%
18.4%
20.3%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
ACA FAVORABILITY
Favorable Unfavorable DK/Ref

BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
RESPONDENTSTYPES?
47.3%
49.6%
48.2%
48.7%
31.4%
33.0%
31.2%
32.6%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
INTENT TO OBTAIN COVERAGE
Will obtain health insurance Will remain uninsured

RESPONDENTSTYPES?
27.1%
35.1%
35.6%
41.2%
34.8%
29.7%
26.6%
21.2%
DROPOUTS
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
PREVIOUS INSURANCE
Employer Never Insured

RESPONDENTSTYPES?
50.9%
47.9%
53.9%
47.8%
48.9%
41.6%
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
W2 COVERAGE
Covered Not Covered

RESPONDENTSTYPES?
67.3%
65.1%
72.6%
31.7%
34.6%
25.8%
CASUAL
COMMITED
HABITUAL
W3 COVERAGE
Covered Not Covered

ASSESSING IMPACT OF HABITUAL
RESPONSE/NON-RESPONSE
• The share of 4-wave habituals increases
• Wave 4: prevailing majority of respondents are Habitual
• Assessing impact of nonresponse
• UsingW3 data

ASSESSING IMPACT OF HABITUAL
RESPONSE/NON-RESPONSE
• The share of 4-wave habituals increases
• Wave 4: prevailing majority of respondents are Habitual
• Assessing impact of nonresponse
• UsingW3 data
• Propensity Scoring:
− Model includes
 Demos
 Past insurance pattern
− Controlling for demos:
 Past insurance is significant

INCORPORATING PROPENSITY SCORE
INTOWEIGHTING
Mean Propensity Weight
Male 1.137
18 to 29 1.331
50 to 64 0.802
Spanish 1.196
White 0.746
HS or Less 1.138
CPO 1.203
Always Uninsured 1.256
Once Employer 0.872
Inverse of propensity score
included in base-weight

WEIGHTED OUTCOMES
W3 Habitual Adjustment
Without With
Uninsured 34.5% 35.0%
ESI 14.5% 14.2%
Medi-Cal 33.3% 32.9%
Self Purchased 12.9% 12.9%
With inverse of propensity
score included in base-weight

CONCLUSION: NEEDTO ACCOUNT FOR
HABITUAL RESPONDENTS IN PANEL DATA
• Risk posed in these data seems addressed in weighting
• But: Indication of possible association between habitual respondent status and
substantive outcome variables
• Weighting to original sample – an option for minimizing this risk
• Nonresponse reduces statistical power in panel research:
• Smaller N
• Greater Design Effect
• Restricted ability to analysis subgroups
• Findings indicate a concurrent need to take action to minimize bias

ERAN BEN-PORATH, SSRS
@en_bp
BIANCA DIJULIO, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION
@BeeDiJulio
MOLLYANN BRODIE, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION
@Mollybrodie
JAMIE FIRTH, KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION

AAPOR 2016 - Eran Ben-Porath & Kaiser

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to AAPOR 2016 - Eran Ben-Porath & Kaiser

Similar to AAPOR 2016 - Eran Ben-Porath & Kaiser (20)

More from SSRS Market Research

More from SSRS Market Research (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

AAPOR 2016 - Eran Ben-Porath & Kaiser