 Attrition Bias in Panel Data: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing? A Case Study Based on the Mabel SurveyTerence Cheng () and Pravin Trivedi Health Economics, 2015, vol. 24, issue 9, 1101-1117 Abstract: This paper investigates the nature and consequences of sample attrition in a unique longitudinal survey of medical doctors. We describe the patterns of non‐response and examine if attrition affects the econometric analysis of medical labour market outcomes using the estimation of physician earnings equations as a case study. We compare the econometric gestimates obtained from a number of different modelling strategies, which are as follows: balanced versus unbalanced samples; an attrition model for panel data based on the classic sample selection model; and a recently developed copula‐based selection model. Descriptive evidence shows that doctors who work longer hours, have lower years of experience, are overseas trained and have changed their work location are more likely to drop out. Our analysis suggests that the impact of attrition on inference about the earnings of general practitioners is small. For specialists, there appears to be some evidence for an economically significant bias. Finally, we discuss how the top‐up samples in the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life survey can be used to address the problem of panel attrition. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Date: 2015 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:24:y:2015:i:9:p:1101-1117 Access Statistics for this article Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.