Topic (i): Editing nearer the source Work Session on Statistical Data Editing Vienna, Austria April 2008

Topic (i) Papers Invited papers:  Selective Automatic Editing of Mixed Mode Questionnaires for Structural Business Statistics—Netherlands  Data Editing in a Common Internet Data Collection System—U.S. Contributed papers:  First Thoughts on Editing in Mixed Modes in the 2011 England and Wales Census—United Kingdom  Impacts of Online Edits and Internet Features in the 2006 Canadian Census—Canada  Using “Traditional” Control (Editing) Systems to Reveal Changes When Introducing New Data Collection Instruments—Norway  Trying to improve editing tasks through EDR methods— Spain

Overview Two supporting papers addressed population census surveys and other papers deal with business surveys. Similar issues were presented. Common themes:  Respondent burden vs. data quality  Point at which to invoke an edit  Common look and feel  Usability testing  Decrease in edit failures post submission vs other modes; decrease in item non-response  Preserve paper process to reduce mode effects  Some problems solved; new problems introduced New finding (?):  First electronic response has higher error rate but is corrected before submission

Discussion How do we reconcile the differences between the edits and the edit process in electronic collection versus paper collection to reduce mode effects introduced in response and processing?

Discussion Are common/standard edit types available in generalized edit system being implemented in the electronic collection systems?

Discussion How do we tackle the problem that the objectives of improving data quality and improving response rates in electronic collection are in conflict?

Discussion What metrics should be maintained for electronic collection to determine how much editing to perform within the collection instrument to balance data quality with response burden and risk of non-response?

Discussion How should we address the balance between complex coding frames in on- line interfaces which are intended to reduce coding errors and the risk in building/maintaining complex coding frames which often can not be considered exhaustive?

Discussion Do messages, automated skips, and radio buttons allowing only a single response promote a perception of intelligence that can lead to unwanted behavior by the respondent, such as providing an answer that is really unknown and, therefore, is incorrect but “valid” in the sense that it passes the edits?

Discussion How can we best define and make use of paradata gathered in the electronic collections to improve the electronic questionnaire design and the edits in the electronic questionnaire, as well those used for the paper questionnaires?

Discussion Do respondents report less accurately when filling in the non-automatic entries in an electronic questionnaire?