Evaluation of Adjustments for Partial Non-Response Bias in the US National Immunization Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Many health surveys conduct an initial household interview to obtain demographic information and then request permission to obtain detailed information on health outcomes from the respondent's health care providers. A ‘complete response’ results when both the demographic information and the detailed health outcome data are obtained. A ‘partial response’ results when the initial interview is complete but, for one reason or another, the detailed health outcome information is not obtained. If ‘complete responders’ differ from ‘partial responders’ and the proportion of partial responders in the sample is at least moderately large, statistics that use only data from complete responders may be severely biased. We refer to bias that is attributable to these differences as ‘partial non-response’ bias. In health surveys it is customary to adjust survey estimates to account for potential differences by employing adjustment cells and weighting to reduce bias from partial response. Before making these adjustments, it is important to ask whether an adjustment is expected to increase or decrease bias from partial non-response. After making these adjustments, an equally important question is ‘How well does the method of adjustment work to reduce partial non-response bias?’. The paper describes methods for answering these questions. Data from the US National Immunization Survey are used to illustrate the methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.400 | 0.726 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".