Wagner James
James Wagner is an assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their very useful editorial comments. This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development [5R03HD070012-02 to J.W.]. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Public Opin Q. 2012 Jan;76(3):555-575. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfs032. Epub 2012 Sep 10.
The response rate has played a key role in measuring the risk of nonresponse bias. However, recent empirical evidence has called into question the utility of the response rate for predicting nonresponse bias. The search for alternatives to the response rate has begun. The present article offers a typology for these indicators, briefly describes the strengths and weaknesses of each type, and suggests directions for future research. New standards for reporting on the risk of nonresponse bias may be needed. Certainly, any analysis into the risk of nonresponse bias will need to be multifaceted and include sensitivity analyses designed to test the impact of key assumptions about the data that are missing due to nonresponse.
回复率在衡量无回应偏差风险方面发挥了关键作用。然而，最近的实证证据对回复率预测无回应偏差的效用提出了质疑。寻找回复率替代指标的工作已经开始。本文提供了这些指标的一种分类，简要描述了每种类型的优缺点，并提出了未来研究的方向。可能需要关于无回应偏差风险报告的新标准。当然，任何对无回应偏差风险的分析都需要多方面进行，包括旨在测试因无回应而缺失的数据的关键假设影响的敏感性分析。
