Analysis of contact forms: results from the HBS in Luxembourg and Slovenia EU Working Group on the Household Budget Surveys (HBS) Eurostat, 12 May 2010

I. Luxembourg

Contact forms Contact form = interviewer report on the attempt to get into contact with an household Information available in contact forms: Date of interview Household respondent status: complete response/refusal/non-contact/out-of-scope (collective households) Household address La division 1: Produits alimentaires et boissons non alcoolisées comprend 62 positions différentes Chaque division est constituée d’un grand nombre de positions ou d’agrégats élémentaires :

Description of the study (1/2) We have collected the contact forms for the HBS operation over the whole period 2005-2009  more than 40,000 households Additional information were merged to the contact form data: Information about the interviewers: age, gender and workload (average number of interviews/month) Information about the interviewees: age, gender and citizenship of the household’s reference person

Description of the study (2/2) We end up with a dataset of more than 40,000 records containing valuable information about the interviewees, the interviewers and the survey process in itself (so-called paradata) The aim of this analysis is mainly to compare interviewer performances with regard to nonresponse Ideally, such an analysis could help better monitor the HBS fieldwork process

Nonresponse by age of the interviewer Complete response Non-contact Refusal Total 15-29 14% 39% 47% 100% 30-49 16% 30% 54% 50-64 21% 32% 65+ 27% 42% 31% 18% 34% 49% Aged interviewers (65+) appear to have less non-response than younger interviewers

Nonresponse by sex of the interviewer Complete response Non-contact Refusal Total F 15% 35% 50% 100% M 19% 33% 48% 18% 34% 49% Female interviewers appear to have more non-response than male interviewers

Nonresponse by workload of the interviewer Complete response Non-contact Refusal Total <50/mois 18% 33% 49% 100% <100/mois 21% 39% 40% <200/mois 32% 50% >200/mois 12% 29% 59% 34% * Average number of interviews per month The higher the workload, the lower the noncontact and the higher the refusal. In fact, HBS interviewers in Lux are freelancers who may plan to maximise their gains: they will make more efforts to contact households but less to get them to cooperate

Logistic regression: non-contact

Logistic regression: refusal

Comparison gross/net samples: sex of the interviewer (1/4) Age of the reference person 0-14 15-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Total F Complete response 1% 10% 45% 28% 16% 100%   Non-contact 3% 13% 46% 22% Refusal 7% 36% 26% 30% F Total 2% 41% 25% 23% M 44% 20% 12% 18% 9% 40% M Total 42%

Comparison gross/net samples: sex of the interviewer (2/4) Gender of the reference person F M Total Complete response 73% 27% 100%   Non-contact 63% 37% Refusal 69% 31% F Total 68% 32% 64% 36% M Total 67% 33%

Comparison gross/net samples: sex of the interviewer (3/4) Citizenship of the reference person Foreigners Nationals Total F Complete response 35% 65% 100%   Non-contact 55% 45% Refusal 41% 59% F Total M 36% 64% 49% 51% 46% 54% M Total

Comparison gross/net samples: sex of the interviewer (4/4) Household size 1 2 3 4+ Total F Complete response 36% 25% 16% 24% 100%   Non-contact 52% 21% 12% 15% Refusal 43% 26% 13% 19% F Total 45% 18% M 35% 51% 22% 11% 48% M Total 46%

Net samples from female interviewers have a deficit in « aged » housholds whose reference person is aged 65 or more: they represent 16% of the net sample, but 23% of the gross sample The problem is similar with male interviewers, but to a lesser extent: « aged » households represent 20% of the final sample and 22% of the initial sample This show a negative interaction between female interviewers and old interviewees

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (1/8) Age of the reference person 0-14 15-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Total Complete response 1% 7% 47% 26% 19% 100%   Non-contact 2% 10% 46% 23% 20% Refusal 39% 25% 27% 15-29 Total 8% 43% 24% 45% 28% 17% 3% 13% 18% 9% 37% 30-49 Total 40%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (2/8) Age of the reference person 0-14 15-29 30-49 50-64 65+ Total Complete response 2% 9% 45% 24% 20% 100%   Non-contact 14% 47% 23% Refusal 10% 41% 50-64 Total 11% 44% 19% 1% 5% 40% 31% 12% 22% 17% 7% 42% 26% 65+ Total 25%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (3/8) Gender of the reference person F M Total 15-29 Complete response 74% 26% 100%   Non-contact 65% 35% Refusal 70% 30% 15-29 Total 69% 31% 30-49 68% 32% 30-49 Total

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (4/8) Gender of the reference person F M Total 50-64 Complete response 71% 29% 100%   Non-contact 60% 40% Refusal 67% 33% 50-64 Total 65% 35% 65+ 72% 28% 64% 36% 69% 31% 65+ Total 68% 32%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (5/8) Citizenship of the reference person Foreigners Nationals Total 15-29 Complete response 25% 75% 100%   Non-contact 41% 59% Refusal 39% 61% 15-29 Total 38% 62% 30-49 34% 66% 51% 49% 30-49 Total 43% 57%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (6/8) Citizenship of the reference person Foreigners Nationals Total 50-64 Complete response 47% 53% 100%   Non-contact 65% 35% Refusal 59% 41% 50-64 Total 65+ 31% 69% 46% 54% 36% 64% 65+ Total 39% 61%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (7/8) Household size 1 2 3 4+ Total 15-29 Complete response 29% 26% 19% 100%   Non-contact 48% 22% 12% 17% Refusal 41% 27% 13% 15-29 Total 42% 25% 14% 30-49 33% 16% 44% 30-49 Total 24%

Comparison gross/net samples: age of the interviewer (8/8) Household size 1 2 3 4+ Total 50-64 Complete response 42% 24% 14% 20% 100%   Non-contact 62% 19% 8% 11% Refusal 56% 22% 10% 12% 50-64 Total 55% 21% 65+ 32% 28% 26% 47% 23% 18% 44% 25% 13% 65+ Total 46%

It seems that aged interviewers (65+) perform better with « aged » households (65+) than younger interviewers Otherwise, we can notice that the HBS sample has a deficit in foreigners and in single households (harder to get into contact with)

Conclusion This simple analysis shows that the profile of an interviewer might increase non-response bias In the Luxemburgish HBS, the most striking point concerns the interaction between the age and gender of the interviewer and the age of the interviewee: persons aged 65+ seem to be less willing to answer to young and to female interviewers Possible solution: include paradata (e.g., age and gender of the interviewer) in the nonresponse model

II. Slovenia

Variables available Source: HBS 2004-2009, Slovenia # Variable Description 1 id_hh identification of household 2 year sample year 3 quarter sample quarter 4 interviewer identification of interviewer 5 nuts3 6 stratum 6 strata depend on size of settlement and rate of farmer households =1, < 2000 residents, no farmers =2, < 2000 residents, farmers =3, 2000-10000 residents =4, 10000-50000 residents =5, Maribor (about 92000 residents) =6, Ljubljana (260000 residents, capital city) 7 sample =1 8 questionnaire =1 if questionnaire is completed else=0 9 eligibility =1 if eligible =0 if not eligible =-1 if unknown eligibility

10 NR_Reason reason for nonresponse: =1 if refusal because of no time =2 if refusal because of no time =3 if refusal with no reason =4 if refusal because other reasons =5 if absent =6 if unable to respond =7 if nonresponse from other reasons =8 if break off =9 if unkown eligibility 11 hhSize size of household 12 eligible =1 if eligible 13 not_eligible =1 if not eligible 14 unknown_eligibility =1 if unknown eligibility 15 day_conntact1 weekday at last follow-up for 1. visit (1-Sunday,2-Monday …) 16 time_conntact1 time at last follow-up for 1. visit 17 day_conntact2 weekday at last follow-up for 2. visit (1-Sunday,2-Monday …) 18 time_conntact2 time at last follow-up for 2. visit 19 no_of_follow_up1 number of follow-up for 1. visit 20 no_of_follow_up2 number of follow-up for 2. visit 21 weekend =1 if yes 22 diary = 1 if diary is filled out else=0

23 no_ofYears number of years of interviewing 24 ActivityStatusA Main activity status A =1 employed =0 unemployed =. unknown 25 ActivityStatusB Main activity status B =2 registered unemployed =3 others 26 sex =1 male, =2 female 27 yearBirth year of birth interviewer 28 education degree of education =1 primary school =2 secondary school =3 high school =4 university 29 ageInterviewer age of interviewer in sample year

Nonresponse by Education level of the interviewer Non-contact Others Refusal Response Total 1. Primary school 10% 0% 23% 67% 100% 2. Secondary school 7% 19% 74% 3. High school 6% 22% 71% 4. University 28% 66% 21% 72%

Nonresponse by age group of the interviewer Age of the interviewer Non-contact Others Refusal Response Total 15-29 6% 0% 28% 66% 100% 30-49 8% 20% 72% 50-64 21% 73% 65+ 7% 18% 75%

Nonresponse by sex of the interviewer Non-contact Others Refusal Response Total Female 6% 0% 22% 72% 100% Male 7% 21%

Nonresponse by activity status of the interviewer Non-contact Others Refusal Response Total employed 7% 0% 21% 71% 100% unemployed 6% 73% 72%

Nonresponse by interviewing experience of the interviewer Non-contact Others Refusal Response Total 0-2 9% 0% 29% 62% 100% 3-5 6% 20% 74% 6-9 23% 71% 10+ 7% 22% 21% 72% *Number of years of interviewing

Logistic regression: non-contact

Logistic regression: refusal