AbstractSince its commencement in 2001, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey has become a much‐used resource by researchers. Over the same time, the Australian population has evolved in a number of ways that the sample, even with 'following rules', cannot emulate. Most notable is the lack of recent immigrants arriving after 2001. A general population‐wide top‐up of the sample was added in 2011 which allows new population sub‐groups to be represented and helps alleviate biases from non‐random attrition. This article describes the methodology of the top‐up sample, the response rates achieved and the representativeness of the combined sample.
"In household panels, typically all household members are surveyed. Because household composition changes over time, so-called following rules are implemented to decide whether to continue surveying household members who leave the household (e.g. former spouses/ partners, grown children) in subsequent waves. Following rules have been largely ignored in the literature leaving panel designers unaware of the breadth of their options and forcing them to make ad hoc decisions. In particular, to what extent various following rules affect sample size over time is unknown. From an operational point of view such knowledge is important because sample size greatly affects costs. Moreover, the decision of whom to follow has irreversible consequences as finding household members who moved out years earlier is very difficult. The authors find that household survey panels implement a wide variety of following rules but their effect on sample size is relatively limited for a couple of decades. Even after 25 years, the rule 'follow only wave 1 respondents' still captures 85% of the respondents of the rule 'follow everyone who can be traced back to a wave 1 household through living arrangements' in the SOEP. Once children of permanent sample members start moving out, following such children greatly affects sample size. This effect is noticeable after 25 years in the PSID. Unless attrition is low, there is no danger of an ever expanding panel because even wide following rules do not typically exceed attrition. Grown children of permanent sample members with their own households have a significantly lower attrition rate than first wave respondents in the PSID. Presence of a spouse or a child in a household does not affect attrition; however, presence of other household members significantly increases attrition." (author's abstract)
In 2001 the first wave of the HILDA Survey, Australia's first large–scale household panel survey, was conducted. This article summarises the key features of that survey.
"Previous research into the correlates and determinants of non-response in longitudinal surveys has focused exclusively on why it is that respondents at one survey wave choose not to participate at future waves. This is very understandable if non-response is always an absorbing state, but in many longitudinal surveys, and certainly most household panels, this is not the case. Indeed, in these surveys it is normal practice to attempt to make contact with many non-respondents at the next wave. This study differs from previous research by examining the process of re-engagement with previous wave non-respondents. Drawing on data from three national household panels it is found that the re-engagement decision is indeed distinctly different from the decision about continued participation. Further, these differences have clear implications for the way panel surveys should be administered given the desire to enhance overall response rates."--Abstract
