The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Analysis of Gini (ANOGI) for Detecting Whether Two Subsamples Represent the Same Universe: The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) Experience
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
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.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Analysis With Missing Data
Lahiff, M., Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2289883 · Cited by 17,385
Statistical Analysis with Missing Data
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119013563 · Cited by 8,473
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Schafer, J. L. (1997) · doi:10.1201/9781439821862 · Cited by 6,012 · cited 1×
“For a detailed description of missing data within surveys, see, for example, Little and Rubin (2002) or Schafer (1997).”
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Booth, D. E., & Schafer, J. L. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271466 · Cited by 5,627
Shao, J., & Tu, D. (1995) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0795-5 · Cited by 1,985
A Class of Statistics with Asymptotically Normal Distribution
Hoeffding, W. (1948) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730196 · Cited by 1,944
Relative Deprivation and Social Justice
Runciman, W. G. (2026) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781042033027 · Cited by 1,813
Inequality Decomposition by Population Subgroups
Shorrocks, A. F. (1984) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913511 · Cited by 943
Introduction to the theory of nonparametric statistics
Randles, R. H., & Wolfe, D. A. (1979) · Krieger eBooks · Cited by 750
Introduction to the Theory of Nonparametric Statistics.
Haigh, J., Randles, R. H., & Wolfe, D. A. (1980) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2982149 · Cited by 739
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Canberra Group, 2001, Expert Group on Household Income Statistics: Final Report and Recommendations
- de Leeuw, Edith D., 2002, Social Science Methodology in the New Millennium
- Fuchs, Marek, 2000, Developments in Survey Methodology, 149
- Grabka, Markus M., 2003, “Imputation of Item-Non-Response on Income Questions in the SOEP 1984-2002.”
- Haisken-DeNew, John P., 2003, Desktop Companion to the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (GSOEP), Version 7.0—Update to Wave 19
- Heller, Joseph, 2003, “Classifying Fossils: When the Distribution Is Not Normal.”
- Laurie, Heather, Fifth International Conference on Logic and Methodology
- Little, Roderick J. A., 1989, Panel Surveys, 400
- Schräpler, Jörg-Peter, 2005, “Changing From PAPI to CAPI: A Longitudinal Study Dealing with Mode-Effects in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) Using an Experimental Design.”
- 10.1007/s101820100047 · DOI
- Schwarze, Johannes, 1995, “Simulating German Income and Social Security Tax Payments Using the GSOEP.”
- Spiess, Martin, 2004, Harmonisation of Panel Surveys and Data Quality, 293
- Wagner, Gert G., 1993, Journal of Human Resources, 28, 429
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - Scope, Evolution and Enhancements
Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007) · Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch · doi:10.3790/schm.127.1.139 · Cited by 2,394
Self-citationThe German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - Evolution, Scope and EnhancementsPreprint
Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1028709 · Cited by 941
Self-citationMeasuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments
DOLAN, P., & METCALFE, R. (2012) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279411000833 · Cited by 404
The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - Scope, Evolution and Enhancements
Wagner, J. (2007) · Cited by 357
Global Inequality of Opportunity: How Much of Our Income Is Determined by Where We Live?
Milanović, B. (2014) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00432 · Cited by 207
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
- green
- smr.sagepub.com
- 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
