Cited by 129Survey Methodology and NonresponseIncome, Poverty, and InequalitySurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques

Using Analysis of Gini (ANOGI) for Detecting Whether Two Subsamples Represent the Same Universe: The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) Experience

Open access
Frick, Joachim R., Goebel, Jan, Schechtman, Edna, Wagner, Gert G., Yitzhaki, Shlomo·2006·Sociological Methods & Research

Abstract

A wildly discussed shortcoming of panel surveys is a potential bias arising from selective attrition. Based on data of the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), the authors analyze potential artifacts (level, structure, income inequality) by comparing results for two independently drawn panel subsamples started in 1984 and 2000. They apply ANOGI (analysis of Gini) techniques, the equivalent of ANOVA performed with the Gini coefficient. They rearrange, reinterpret, and use the decomposition in the comparison of subpopulations from which the different samples were drawn. Taking into account indicators for income, significant differences between these two samples with respect to income inequality are found in the first year, which start to fade away in Wave 2 and disappear in Wave 3. The authors find credible indication for these differences to be driven by changes in response behavior of short-term panel members rather than by attrition among members of the longer running sample.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0049124105283109

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Respondents in the German Socio-Economic Panel have a tendency to move away from the endpoints of response scales over time.

    “Frick et al. (2006) show that respondents in the German Socio-Economic Panel have a tendency to move away from the endpoints of response scales over time.”

    From Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments (2012) · cites this paper as Frick et al. (2006)

    The Results (pp. 25, 30) say that SOEP respondents were more likely to choose the highest life-satisfaction categories in early waves, and the authors report a narrowing difference over time. That supports movement away from the high end of one satisfaction scale, but not a general tendency to move away from both endpoints of response scales. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Little, Roderick J. A. and Hong-Lin Su. 1989. 'Item Non-Response in Panel Surveys.' Pp. 400-25 in Panel Surveys , edited by D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton, and M. P. Singh. New York: John Wiley.
  2. Rendtel, Ulrich, Gert G. Wagner, and Joachim R. Frick. 1995. 'Eine Strategie zur Kontrolle von L¨ angsschnittgewichtungen in Panelerhebungen-Das Beispiel des Soziooekonomischen Panels (SOEP).' Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 79(3): 252-77.
  3. Spiess, Martin and Jan Goebel. 2004. 'A Comparison of Different Imputation Rules.' Pp. 293-316 in Harmonisation of Panel Surveys and Data Quality , edited by M. Ehling and U. Rendtel. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frick, J. R., Goebel, J., Schechtman, E., Wagner, G. G., & Yitzhaki, S.
Affiliations
  • German Institute for Economic Research (DE)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
Sociological Methods & Research
Published
2006-05
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
427-468
ISSN
  • 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8294
OpenAlex
W2015236479
Cited by
129
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
30.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • EconStor Open Access Articles (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Universität zu Köln
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Keywords
selective attrition, panel survey, German Socio-Economic Panel, income inequality, Gini coefficient decomposition, response behavior, attrition bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review