1. Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel
Ulrich Krieger, SHARE MEA University of Mannheim
Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging

2. Outline Motivation The pairfam Panel
Overview of cooperation and response in partner survey
Model of cooperation in wave 2 2

3. Motivation
Attempt to include alteri respondents in surveys like partners, parents or siblings raises questions on the selection process of these additional survey members.
Reviewers continue to criticize the selectivity. The processes need to be better understood.
Weighting
Limitations of research
Recent analysis with the Netherlands Kindship Panel Study show no bias in models using data of children (Kalmijn & Liefbroer 2011). But how to model the error in the sample? 3

4. The pairfam Panel
First two waves of the German family panel study pairfam.
Design:
Register based sample of resident population.
Three age cohorts: 14-17, 24-27, 34-37
CAPI study administered by Infratest
Partner survey
All respondents in a partnership are asked for consent to approach their partners for an interview.
within or outside of the household
PAPI questionnaire handed out, left behind with main respondent or mailed to partner.
collected by the interviewer or returned by mail 4

5. The Role of the Interviewer
Interviewers are encouraged
to administer the partner survey the way preferred by respondents
to occupy the partner with the partner survey during the main respondents CAPI questionnaire.
to collect the questionnaire in person
Request the partners to participate in person whenever possible 5

6. the pairfam panel - wave two
Anchor: monotonous design, only respondents re- approached.
Partners: Same design as in wave one.
Consent request to Anchor, then partners are contacted.
Partners can be the same as in wave one if the relationship did hold.
Partners who refused to answer in wave one are contacted again. 6

7. Cooperation and Response - Wave one%
Anchor
12402
with partners
7234
100
consent to partner interview
5281 73
returned partner quest.
3743 52
lost for W2 due to anchor NR
877 12 7

8. Cooperation and Response - Wave one%
Anchor interview
9069
with partners
5408
100
same partner as in W1
4273 95
Consent to partner interview
3882 73
Consent in both waves
3009 56
returned partner questionnaire
2688 50
returned partner quest. in both waves
2081 38 8

9. Both processes are probably not independent of each other
Two error sources:
Selection of main respondent and
Nonresponse of Partner
Both processes are probably not independent of each other
Unsure about how to model the Data
Here: logistic Regression on wave 2 cooperation, concentrating on main respondents keeping the same partner over the 2 waves. 9

10. Descriptive Statistic
Variables
mean sd
min
max
W2 Part. cooperation
.58 1
W1 Part. cooperation
.64
W2 Main Resp: Consent
.20
W2 Survey handed out
.38
Part. fulltime empl.
.55
Part. parttime empl.
.09
Part. self empl.
.06
Part. Years of educ.
12.92
3.08 7 20
Partner female?
.42
Partner born in Germany?
.85
Main: Satisf. Relationship
7.99
2.15 10
W2 Main: Satisf. Relationship
6.80
2.50
N: 3748 10

11. Log. Regression on W2 Partner Coop (only ‘stable’ Rel.)
Variables
OR (se)
W1 Part cooperation
11.26*** (1.28)
W2 Main Resp: Consent
(0.13)
W2 Survey handed out
4.85*** (0.46)
Part. fulltime empl.
(0.11)
Part. parttime empl.
1.42* (0.25)
Part. self empl.
0.64* (0.13)
Part. Years of educ.
1.07*** (0.02)
Partner female?
(0.12)
Partner born in Germany?
1.40** (0.17)
Main: Satisf. Relationship
1.06** (0.02)
W2 Main: Satisf. Relationship
0.94** (0.02)
N:3748, Pseudo-R²:0.32, BIC: 3538

12. Conclusion
Cooperation and Consent in Wave 1 do influence cooperation in wave 2
How to better describe the selection process?
Here I focused on stable relationships. How to include all relationships, new partners? 12