Patterns of item nonresponse behaviour to survey questionnaires are systematic and associated with genetic loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Response to survey questionnaires is vital for social and behavioural research, and most analyses assume full and accurate response by participants. However, nonresponse is common and impedes proper interpretation and generalizability of results. We examined item nonresponse behaviour across 109 questionnaire items in the UK Biobank ( N = 360,628). Phenotypic factor scores for two participant-selected nonresponse answers, ‘Prefer not to answer’ (PNA) and ‘I don’t know’ (IDK), each predicted participant nonresponse in follow-up surveys (incremental pseudo- R 2 = 0.056), even when controlling for education and self-reported health (incremental pseudo- R 2 = 0.046). After performing genome-wide association studies of our factors, PNA and IDK were highly genetically correlated with one another ( r g = 0.73 (s.e. = 0.03)) and with education ( r g,PNA = −0.51 (s.e. = 0.03); r g,IDK = −0.38 (s.e. = 0.02)), health ( r g,PNA = 0.51 (s.e. = 0.03); r g,IDK = 0.49 (s.e. = 0.02)) and income ( r g,PNA = –0.57 (s.e. = 0.04); r g,IDK = −0.46 (s.e. = 0.02)), with additional unique genetic associations observed for both PNA and IDK ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ). We discuss how these associations may bias studies of traits correlated with item nonresponse and demonstrate how this bias may substantially affect genome-wide association studies. While the UK Biobank data are deidentified, we further protected participant privacy by avoiding exploring non-response behaviour to single questions, assuring that no information can be used to associate results with any particular respondents.
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 | 0.060 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".