Are Information Retrieval Approaches Good at Harmonising Longitudinal Surveys in Social Science?
Automated detection of semantically equivalent questions in longitudinal social science surveys is crucial for long-term studies informing empirical research in the social, economic, and health sciences. Retrieving equivalent questions faces dual challenges: inconsistent representation of theoretical constructs (i.e. concept/sub-concept) across studies as well as between question and response options, and the evolution of vocabulary and structure in longitudinal text. To address these challenges, our multi-disciplinary collaboration of computer scientists and survey specialists presents a new information retrieval (IR) task of identifying concept (e.g. Housing, Job, etc.) equivalence across question and response options to harmonise longitudinal population studies. This paper investigates multiple unsupervised approaches on a survey dataset spanning 1946-2020, including probabilistic models, linear probing of language models, and pre-trained neural networks specialised for IR. We show that IR-specialised neural models achieve the highest overall performance with other approaches performing comparably. Additionally, the re-ranking of the probabilistic model's results with neural models only introduces modest improvements of 0.07 at most in F1-score. Qualitative post-hoc evaluation by survey specialists shows that models generally have a low sensitivity to questions with high lexical overlap, particularly in cases where sub-concepts are mismatched. Altogether, our analysis serves to further research on harmonising longitudinal studies in social science.
Authors
- Wing Yan Li (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9042-6034)
- Suparna De (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7439-6077)
- Zeqiang Wang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2935-1812)
- Jon Johnson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8482-1620)
Institutions
- University of Surrey (GB)
- University College London (GB)
Publication Details
- Published
- 2025-07-13
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3726302.3730164
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 4.20