SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 51

DO DIFFERENT RESPONDENT SELECTION METHODS PRODUCE DIFFERENT SURVEY ESTIMATES? A SIMULATION OF WITHIN-HOUSEHOLD SELECTION METHODS FOR 2013 TURKEY DHS

FARKLI CEVAPLAYICI SEÇİM YÖNTEMLERİ FARKLI ARAŞTIRMA TAHMİNLERİ ÜRETİR Mİ? 2013 TNSA İÇİN CEVAPLAYICI SEÇİM YÖNTEMLERİNİN BİR SİMÜLASYONU

Melike SARAÇ
İsmet KOÇ
Pages
257–274
Publication Date
2022-08-09
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When the mean of total deviations is considered with their confidence intervals, probabilistic and quasi-probabilistic selection techniques have produced much better estimates with minimal deviations from the confidence intervals of the population values.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Respondent selection procedures are utilized to choose a particular respondent in surveys.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (2013 Turkey DHS), all women who meet the eligibility criteria were interviewed according to standard regulations of the International DHS Program.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the mean of total deviations is considered with their confidence intervals, probabilistic and quasi-probabilistic selection techniques have produced much better estimates with minimal deviations from the confidence intervals of the population values.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:cevaplayıcı seçimi · Kish yöntemi · olasılıklı yöntemler

Abstract

Respondent selection procedures are utilized to choose a particular respondent in surveys. In the 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (2013 Turkey DHS), all women who meet the eligibility criteria were interviewed according to standard regulations of the International DHS Program. Simulating the application of different methods, this study mainly asks “How would main indicators produced in 2013 Turkey DHS differ with the implementation of various respondent choice strategies?”. The selection procedures include two probabilistic methods, two quasi-probabilistic methods, and four non-probabilistic methods. This study advanced that although interviewing all eligible women in 2013 Turkey DHS appears to be reasonable, providing estimates that are close to survey results, is also conceivable through the execution of selection methods. When the mean of total deviations is considered with their confidence intervals, probabilistic and quasi-probabilistic selection techniques have produced much better estimates with minimal deviations from the confidence intervals of the population values.

Özet

Cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemleri hanehalkı araştırmalarında görüşülmesi gereken cevaplayıcıyı seçmek için kullanılmaktadır. 2013 Türkiye Nüfus ve Sağlık Araştırması (2013 TNSA)’da, Uluslararası DHS Programı standartlarına göre görüşmeye uygun olan tüm kadınlar ile görüşülmüştür. Bu çalışma cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin simüle edilmesiyle, temel olarak “2013 TNSA’da üretilen temel göstergeler farklı cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin uygulanmasıyla nasıl değişirdi?” sorusunu sormaktadır. Cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemleri iki olasılıklı, iki yarı-olasılıklı ve dört olasılıklı olmayan yöntemi kapsamaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, 2013 TNSA’da tüm kadınlarla görüşme yapılmasının uygun olduğunu, ancak farklı cevaplayıcı seçim yöntemlerinin uygulanmasıyla da araştırma sonuçlarına yakın tahminler üretilebileceğini göstermektedir. Seçilen değişkenler için ortalama sapma büyükleri güven aralıkları ile beraber düşünüldüğünde, olasılıklı ve yarı-olasılıklı seçim yöntemlerinin nüfus değerlerinin güven aralıklarından göz ardı edilebilir sapmalar ile daha iyi tahminler ürettiği görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARAÇ, M., KOÇ, İ. (2022). DO DIFFERENT RESPONDENT SELECTION METHODS PRODUCE DIFFERENT SURVEY ESTIMATES? A SIMULATION OF WITHIN-HOUSEHOLD SELECTION METHODS FOR 2013 TURKEY DHS. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 51, 257–274. https://ajindex.com/articles/696915

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey Data. (2014). The DHS Program. Retrieved from http://www.tnsaveri_tdhsdata.hacettepe.edu.tr/request.php.
  2. Alves, M.C.G.P., Escuder, M.M.L., Claro, R.M., & N.N.D. Silva (2014). “Selection within Households in Health Surveys”, Revista de Saude Publica, 48/1, pp: 86-93.
  3. Battaglia, M. P., Link, M. W., Frankel, M. R., Osborn, L., & A. H. Mokdad (2008). “An Evaluation of Respondent Selection Methods for Household Mail Surveys”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72/3, pp: 459-469.
  4. Beebe, T. J., Davern, M. E., McAlpine, D. D., & J. K. Ziegenfuss (2007). “Comparison of Two within-Household Selection Methods in a Telephone Survey of Substance Abuse and Dependence”, Annals of Epidemiology, 17/6, pp: 458-463.
  5. Binson, D., & J. A. Catania (2000). “Random Selection in a National Telephone Survey: A Comparison of the Kish, Next-birthday, and Last-birthday Methods”, Journal of Official Statistics, 16/1, pp: 53-60.
  6. Clark, R. G., & D. G. Steel (2007). “Sampling within Households in Household Surveys”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170/1, pp: 63-82.
  7. Dillman, D. A. (2021). Adapting Push-to-Web Survey Designs for Use in Different Countries and Situations. Retrieved March 6, 2021, from https://wapor.org/wp-content/uploads/WAPOR-2021-Dillman-webinar-Adapting-Push-to-Web-Survey-Designs-March-5-2021.pdf.
  8. Elder, S. (2009). “The Sampling Methodology”, ILO School-To-Work Transition Survey, Geneva, International Labour Organization. Gaziano, C. (2005). “Comparative Analysis of Within-household Respondent Selection Techniques”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 69/1, pp: 124-157.
  9. HUIPS. (1994). 1993
  10. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Ministry of Health and Macro International Inc., Ankara.
  11. HUIPS. (1999). 1998
  12. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Macro International Inc., Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health/Family Planning, United Nations Population Fund and U.S. Agency for International Development, Ankara.
  13. HUIPS. (2004). 2003
  14. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, Ministry of Health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning, State Planning Organization and European Union, Ankara.
  15. HUIPS. (2014). 2013
  16. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, TR Ministry of Development and TUBITAK, Ankara.
  17. HUIPS. (2019). 2018
  18. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey, TR Presidency of Turkey Directorate of Strategy and Budget and TUBİTAK, Ankara.
  19. Kish, L. (1949). “A Procedure for Object