The Annals of Applied Statistics

An imputation approach for handling mixed-mode surveys

Seunghwan Park, Jae Kwang Kim, and Sangun Park

Full-text: Open access


Mixed-mode surveys are becoming more popular recently because of their convenience for users, but different mode effects can complicate the comparability of the survey results. Motivated by the Private Education Expenditure Survey (PEES) of Korea, we propose a novel application of fractional imputation to handle mixed-mode survey data. The proposed method is applied to create imputed values of the unobserved counterfactual outcome variables in the mixed-mode surveys. The proposed method is directly applicable when the choice of survey mode is self-selected. Variance estimation using Taylor linearization is developed. Results from a limited simulation study are also presented.

Article information

Ann. Appl. Stat., Volume 10, Number 2 (2016), 1063-1085.

Received: July 2014
Revised: March 2016
First available in Project Euclid: 22 July 2016

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)

Zentralblatt MATH identifier

Counterfactual outcome fractional imputation measurement error model missing data survey sampling


Park, Seunghwan; Kim, Jae Kwang; Park, Sangun. An imputation approach for handling mixed-mode surveys. Ann. Appl. Stat. 10 (2016), no. 2, 1063--1085. doi:10.1214/16-AOAS930.

Export citation


  • Amemiya, T. (1973). Regression analysis when the dependent variable is truncated normal. Econometrica 41 997–1016.
  • Biemer, P. P. (2001). Nonresponse bias and measurement bias in a comparison of face to face and telephone interviewing. J. Off. Stat. 17 295–320.
  • Booth, J. G. and Hobert, J. P. (1999). Maximizing generalized linear mixed model likelihoods with an automated Monte Carlo EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. 61 265–285.
  • Buelens, B. and Van den Brakel, J. (2013). On the necessity to include personal interviewing in mixed-mode surveys. Survey Practice 3 1–7.
  • Burgette, L. F. and Reiter, J. P. (2012). Nonparametric Bayesian multiple imputation for missing data due to mid-study switching of measurement methods. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 107 439–449.
  • Carroll, R. J., Ruppert, D., Stefanski, L. A. and Crainiceanu, C. M. (2006). Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective, 2nd ed. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 105. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
  • Chen, M.-H., Shao, Q.-M. and Ibrahim, J. G. (2000). Monte Carlo Methods in Bayesian Computation. Springer, New York.
  • de Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J. Off. Stat. 21 233–255.
  • Dillman, D. A. and Christian, L. M. (2003). Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods 15 1–22.
  • Dillman, D., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J. and Messer, B. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response and the Internet. Soc. Sci. Res. 39 1–18.
  • Durrant, G. B. and Skinner, C. (2006). Using missing data methods to correct for measurement error in a distribution function. Surv. Methodol. 32 25–36.
  • Kim, J. K. (2011). Parametric fractional imputation for missing data analysis. Biometrika 98 119–132.
  • Klausch, T., Schouten, B. and Hox, J. (2014). The use of within-subject experiments for estimating measurement effects in mixed-mode surveys. Statistics Netherlands Discussion Paper, 201406.
  • Kolenikov, S. and Kennedy, C. (2014). Evaluating three approaches to statistically adjust for mode effects. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2 126–158.
  • Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 5 213–236.
  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50 537–567.
  • Morgan, S. L. and Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
  • Powers, J. R., Mishra, G. and Young, A. F. (2005). Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: Use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 29 149–154.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63 581–592.
  • Schnedler, W. (2005). Likelihood estimation for censored random vectors. Econometric Rev. 24 195–217.
  • Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T., Loosveldt, G. and Molenberghs, G. (2010). A method for evaluating mode effects in mixed-mode surveys. Public Opin. Q. 74 1027–1045.
  • Voogt, R. and Saris, W. (2005). Mixed mode designs: Finding the balance between nonresponse bias and mode effects. J. Off. Stat. 21 367–387.
  • Wei, G. C. and Tanner, M. A. (1990). A Monte Carlo implementation of the EM algorithm and the Poor Man’s data augmentation algorithms. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85 699–704.