### Full text

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Tables TABLE 1: Sample Development in the East German Life History Study 20 2: Reasons for Loss of Target Persons per Cohort - Initial Sampling 1991/92 26 TABLE 3: TABLE Reasons for Loss of Target Persons per Cohort - Wave 2 1996/97 28 Reasons for Loss of Target Persons per Cohort - Nonresponse Study 1996/97 30 TABLE 4: TABLE 5: Topics and Variables for NRS Data Examination 37 TABLE 6: Working Hypotheses on Profile of Nonresponse Study 40 TABLE Inspection of Significance Patterns - Chi-Square and t-Tests 41 7: TABLE 8: Logit Models Predicting Being in the Nonresponse Study for Cohort 1930 56 Predicted Probabilities for Nonresponse in Cohort 1930/Initial Sampling 199158 TABLE 9: TABLE 10: Predicted Probabilities for Nonresponse in Cohort 1930/ Wave 2 1996 59 TABLE Logit Models Predicting Being in the Nonresponse Study for Cohort 1960 61 11: Predicted Probabilities for Nonresponse in Cohort 1960/ Wave 1 199 62 TABLE 12: TABLE 13: Predicted Probabilities for Nonresponse in Cohort 1960/ Wave 2 1996 63 TABLE 14: Logit-Model to Predict Selection for the Biased Samp 70 Linear Regression Model for Household Income 1996/Three Different Calculations. 71 TABLE 15: Logit-Model to Predict Panel Participation against Nonresponse Study 75 TABLE 16: TABLE 17: Heckman Sample Selection Model Using Panel and Nonresponse Study 76 Figures FIGURE 1: The Sampling Process and Possible Erro FIGURE 2: Trend of Refusal Rates in German Survey FIGURE 3: Example of Nonresponse Bias in Linear Regression 13 FIGURE 4: Sample Development in the East German Life History Study 23 FIGURE 5: Cohort Composition of Wave 1 and 2 and Nonresponse Study 24 FIGURE 6: Percentage of Successful Interviews after Low and High Number of Contacts 27 FIGURE Reasons for Loss of Target Persons before Field Beginning3 7: FIGURE Reason for Systematic Loss after Field Beginning - Comparison of Cohorts per Study.. 31 8: FIGURE 9: Gender Proportions 32 FIGURE 10: Gender Proportions per Cohort and Study 33 FIGURE 11: Cohorts 1930 and 1960: Percentage of Men in EGLHS and Census Data 33 CAPICATI Differences for Percentages of Neutral Loss per Cohort and Study 34 FIGURE 12: FIGURE 13: CAPICATI Differences of Refusal Rates per Cohort and Study 35 FIGURE 14: Percentage of Higher School Degrees in CATI and CAPI Interviews 36 FIGURE 15: Percentage of Unmarried Persons 199 per Cohort and Gender44 FIGURE 16: Percentage of Never Married Persons 1991 per Cohort and Gender 45 FIGURE 17: Educational Degree in School for Cohort 1930 - Nonresponse versus Main Study 46 FIGURE 18: Level of Vocational Training for Cohort 193047 FIGURE 19: Average Number of Jobs until 1991 per Cohort and Gender 48 FIGURE 20: Average Number of Jobs 1989-1996 per Cohort and Gender 49 Percentage of Unemployed Persons 1991 per Cohort and Gender 49 FIGURE 21: Party Membership in the SED per Cohort and Gende 50 FIGURE 22: Percentage of Persons Not Members of Any Party 1989 - Cohorts 1930 and 1960 51 FIGURE 23: FIGURE 24: Percentage of "Don't know" and "Refused" in the Party Attitude Scales 52 FIGURE 25: Histogram of Household Income in the Original and in the Biased Sample 69 FIGURE 26: Position of Estimated Regression Coefficients within Confidence Intervals 73 Bias Correction of Coefficient Estimate for Educational Variable 74 FIGURE 27: FIGURE 28: Pattern of Regression Results in Panel Study, Heckman Model, and Panel + Nonresponse......77 2