PL EN


2010 | 11 | 3 | 112-127
Article title

Models in Survey Sampling

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Models, especially in the form of assumed relationships between study variables and auxiliary variables, have influenced survey sampling theory and practice over the last four decades. Some of the early debates between the design-based school and the model-based school are revisited. In their pure forms, they offer two fundamentally different outlooks and approaches to inference in sample surveys. Complete reconciliation and agreement cannot be expected. But the tendency today is that each of the two approaches recognizes and profits from important elements in the other. We see an often fruitful interaction, as discussed in this article.
Keywords
Year
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
112-127
Physical description
Contributors
  • Statistics Sweden
References
  • ALEXANDER, C.H. (1987). A class of methods for using person controls in household weighting. Survey Methodology, 13, 183–188.
  • BREWER, K.R.W. (1963). Ratio estimation and finite population: some results deductible from the assumption of an underlying stochastic process. Australian Journal of Statistics, 5, 93–105.
  • BREWER, K.R.W. (1995). Combining design-based and model-based inference. In Cox, B.G. et al. (editors), Business Survey Methods. New York: Wiley, 589–606.
  • BREWER, K.R.W. (1999). Design-based or prediction inference? Stratified random vs stratified balanced sampling. International Statistical Review, 67, 35–47.
  • BREWER, K.R.W. (2002) Combined Survey Sampling Inference.Weighing Basu’s Elephants. London: Arnold.
  • BREWER, K.R.W., HANIF, M. and TAM, S.M. (1988). How nearly can modelbased prediction and design-based estimation be reconciled? Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 128–32.
  • CASSEL, C.M, SÄRNDAL, C.E. and WRETMAN, J.H. (1976) Some results on generalized difference estimation and generalized regression estimation for finite populations. Biometrika 63, 615–620.
  • COCHRAN, W.G. (1953, 1963, 1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley; 1st, 2nd, 3rd edition.
  • DEMING, W.E. (1943). Statistical Adjustment of Data. New York: Wiley.
  • DEVILLE, J.C. and SÄRNDAL, C.E. (1992). Calibration estimators in survey sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 376-382.
  • DEVILLE, J.C. and TILLÉ, Y. (2004). Efficient balanced sampling: The Cube Method. Biometrika, 91, 893–912.
  • FOREMAN, E.K. and BREWER, K.R.W. (1971). The efficient use of supplementary information in standard sampling procedures. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series B, 33, 391–400.
  • GEUNA, S. (2000). Appreciating the difference between design-based and model-based sampling strategies in quantitative morphology of the nervous system. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 427, 333–339.
  • GREGOIRE, T.G. (1998). Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: appreciating the difference. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28, 1429–1447.
  • HANSEN, M.H., MADOW, W.G. and TEPPING, B.J. (1983). An evaluation of model-dependent an probability-sampling inferences in sample surveys (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 776-807.
  • KALTON, G. (1981). Models in the practice of survey sampling. Invited paper, 43rd session of the International Statistical Institute, Buenos Aires.
  • KALTON, G. (1983). Models in the practice of survey sampling. International Statistical Review, 51, 175–188.
  • KALTON, G. (2002). Models in the practice of survey sampling (revisited). Journal of Official Statistics, 18, 129–154.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-2413e6e6-1fd4-43ea-b2cd-1c3d20e94ba2
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.