I have a question to an earlier discussion concerning which RLH values to formally report (academic study).
I did the following observations with data from a real survey:
1.) Utility report file contains the respondent-level RLH values --> Computed their average which is 0.670
2.) Log file: Computed average RLH based on last 20k out of 40k iterations: RLH = 0.663
3.) same as 2.) just with all 40k iterations: RLH = 0.662
4.) RLH reported by the HB estimation monitor: 0.662 (here some expontential flattening is imposed so I wouldn't take this as the avg RLH metric anyhow)
So when it comes to reporting the average RLH value for all respondents, I'd be inclined to take approach number 1, however I do not understand why there is a deviation between approach 1 and 2/3 (the average RLHs in the log file)? Shouldn't it be the same?