Questionnaire Dwelling Unit-Level and Person Pair-Level Sampling ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Exhibit H.1 Definitions of Levels for Pair-Level Calibration Modeling Variables Group Quarter Indicator 1: College Dorm, 2: Other Group Quarter, 3: Nongroup Quarter 1 Household Size 2: DU with 2 persons, 1 3: DU with 3 persons, 4: DU with ≥ 4 persons Pair Age (15 Levels) 1: 12-17 and 12-17, 1 2: 12-17 and 18-25, 3: 12-17 and 26-34, 4: 12-17 and 35-49, 5: 12-17 and 50+, 6: 18-25 and 18-25, 7: 18-25 and 26-34, 8: 18-25 and 35-49, 9: 18-25 and 50+, 10: 26-34 and 26-34, 11: 26-34 and 35-49, 12: 26-34 and 50+, 13: 35-49 and 35-49, 14: 35-49 and 50+, 15: 50+ and 50+ Pair Age (6 Levels) 1: 12-17 and 12-17, 1 2: 12-17 and 18-25, 3: 12-17 and 26+, 4: 18-25 and 18-25, 5: 18-25 and 26+, 6: 26+ and 26+ Pair Age (3 Levels) 1: 12-17 and 12-17, 1 2: 12-17 and 18+, 3: 18+ and 18+ Pair Gender 1: Male and Female, 1 2: Female and Female, 3: Male and Male Pair Race/Ethnicity (10 Levels) 1: white and white, 1 2: white and black or African American, 3: white and Hispanic or Latino, 4: white and other, 5: black or African American and black or African American, 6: black or African American and Hispanic or Latino, 7: black or African American and other, 8: Hispanic or Latino and Hispanic or Latino, 9: Hispanic or Latino and other, 10: other and other Pair Race/Ethnicity (5 Levels) 1: Mixed race pair, 2: Hispanic or Latino pair, 3: black or African American pair, 4: white pair, 1 5: other pair Pair Race/Ethnicity (4 Levels) 1: Mixed race pair or other and other, 2: Hispanic or Latino pair, 3: black or African American pair, 4: white pair 1 Percentage of Owner-Occupied Dwelling Units in Segment (% Owner-Occupied) 1: 50-100%, 1 2: 10->50%, 3: 0->10% Percentage of Segments That Are Black or African American (% Black) 1: 50-100%, 2: 10->50%, 3: 0->10% 1 Percentage of Segments That Are Hispanic or Latino (% Hispanic) 1: 50-100%, 2: 10->50%, 3: 0->10% 1 Segment-Combined Median Rent and Housing Value (Rent/Housing) 2 1: First Quintile, 2: Second Quintile, 3: Third Quintile, 4: Fourth Quintile, 5: Fifth Quintile 1 Population Density 1: MSA 1,000,000 or more, 2: MSA less than 1,000,000, 3: Non-MSA urban, 4: Non-MSA rural 1 Quarter 1: Quarter 1, 2: Quarter 2, 3: Quarter 3, 4: Quarter 4 1 Race/Ethnicity of Householder 1: Hispanic or Latino white, 1 2: Hispanic or Latino black or African American, 3: Hispanic or Latino others, 4: Non-Hispanic or Latino white, 5: Non-Hispanic or Latino black or African American, 6: Non-Hispanic or Latino others State/Region Model Group 1: Model Group 2: 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont; 2: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; 1 3: New York; 4: Pennsylvania; 5: Florida; 6: Texas 1: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin; 1 2: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming; 3: Michigan; 4: Illinois; 5: Ohio; 6: California H-4
Exhibit H.1 States 3 Model Group 1: Model Group 2: Definitions of Levels for Pair-Level Calibration Modeling Variables (continued) 1: Alabama, 2: Arkansas, 3: Connecticut, 4: Delaware, 5: District of Columbia, 6: Florida, 7: Georgia, 8: Kentucky, 9: Louisiana, 10: Maine, 11: Maryland, 1 12: Massachusetts, 13: Mississippi, 14: New Hampshire, 15: New Jersey, 16: New York, 17: North Carolina, 18: Oklahoma, 19: Pennsylvania, 20: Rhode Island, 21: South Carolina, 22: Tennessee, 23: Texas, 24: Vermont, 25: Virginia, 26: West Virginia 1: Alaska, 2: Arizona, 1 3: California, 4: Colorado, 5: Idaho, 6: Illinois, 7: Indiana, 8: Iowa, 9: Hawaii, 10: Kansas, 11: Michigan, 12: Minnesota, 13: Missouri, 14: Montana, 15: Nebraska, 16: Nevada, 17: New Mexico, 18: North Dakota, 19: Ohio, 20: Oregon, 21: South Dakota, 22: Utah, 23: Washington, 24: Wisconsin, 25: Wyoming Pair Relationship Associated with Multiplicity 1: Parent-child (12-14)* 2: Parent-child (12-17)* 3: Parent-child (12-10)* 4: Parent*-child (12-14) 5: Parent*-child (12-17) 6: Parent*-child (12-20) 7: Sibling (12-14)-sibling (15-17)* 8: Sibling (12-17)-sibling (18-25)* 9: Spouse-spouse/partner-partner 10: Spouse-spouse/partner-partner with children (younger than 18) DU = dwelling unit, MSA = metropolitan statistical area. 1 The reference level for this variable. This is the level against which effects of other factor levels are measured. 2 Segment-Combined Median Rent and Housing Value is a composite measure based on rent, housing value, and percent owneroccupied. 3 The States or district assigned to a particular model is based on combined census regions. * The pair member focused on. H-5
Page 1 and 2:
2006 NATIONAL SURVEY ON DRUG USE AN
Page 3 and 4:
Preface This report documents the m
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Chapter Page Pref
Page 7 and 8:
Table of Contents (continued) Appen
Page 9 and 10:
List of Tables Table Page Table 1.1
Page 11 and 12:
List of Tables (continued) Table Pa
Page 13 and 14:
List of Exhibits Exhibit Page Exhib
Page 15 and 16:
CBSA DU ev GEM Half step Household-
Page 17 and 18:
1. Introduction Traditionally, most
Page 19 and 20:
produced a priori. It was anticipat
Page 21:
to perform some treatment (such as
Page 24 and 25:
P hij ( ) ⎡P P ⎤⎡ 1 1 ⎤ hi
Page 26 and 27:
The QDU selection probability was d
Page 29 and 30:
3. Brief Description of the General
Page 31 and 32:
4. Predictor Variables for the Ques
Page 33 and 34:
Exhibit 4.1 Definitions of Levels f
Page 35:
Exhibit 4.2 Definitions of Levels f
Page 38 and 39:
e. Youth Only; f. Young Adult Only;
Page 41 and 42:
6. Editing and Imputation of Pair R
Page 43 and 44:
from other pair members was sometim
Page 45 and 46:
Table 6.1 Levels of the Variable PA
Page 47 and 48:
Table 6.3 Measures of the Quality o
Page 49 and 50:
identified pair member "A" as "othe
Page 51 and 52:
performed at the household level ra
Page 53 and 54:
pair member's roster and another pa
Page 55 and 56:
Table 6.6 Age Group Pair Number Age
Page 57 and 58:
13. MSA (metropolitan statistical a
Page 59 and 60:
different ways depending upon the a
Page 61 and 62:
5. parent-child (child 12 to 17), p
Page 63 and 64:
ecause, even though the parent-chil
Page 65 and 66:
collapsed with the two-parent house
Page 67 and 68:
Sibling-sibling pairs. The likeness
Page 69 and 70:
with children) lived within the hou
Page 71 and 72:
6.4.1.2 Sibling-Sibling Domains Whe
Page 73 and 74:
4. The respondent had a child and a
Page 75 and 76:
parent-focus and child-focus counts
Page 77 and 78:
the random imputation described ear
Page 79 and 80:
6.4.3.3.3 Spouse-Spouse Counts For
Page 81 and 82:
7. Weight Calibration at Questionna
Page 83 and 84:
Exhibit 7.2 Summary of 2006 NSDUH P
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7.1 Model Group QDU Sample Si
Page 87 and 88:
7.2.5 QDU Weight Component #15: Res
Page 89 and 90:
8. Evaluation of Calibration Weight
Page 91 and 92:
8.5 Sensitivity Analysis of Drug Us
Page 93 and 94:
Table 8.2a Percentages of Youths (1
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Table 8.4 Percentages of Youths (12
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
References Ault, K., Aldworth, J.,
Page 105:
Singh, A., Grau, E., & Folsom, R.,
Page 108 and 109:
A-2
Page 110 and 111:
A.2 GEM Adjustments for Extreme-Val
Page 112 and 113:
A-6
Page 114 and 115:
B-2
Page 116 and 117:
B.1.1 Person Level B.1.1.1 Receivin
Page 118 and 119:
B-6
Page 120 and 121:
C-2
Page 122 and 123:
To help understand what effects wer
Page 124 and 125:
Exhibit C.1 Definitions of Levels f
Page 126 and 127:
C.3 How to Interpret Collapsing and
Page 128 and 129:
The number of respondents in that c
Page 130 and 131:
Exhibit C.2 Covariates for 2006 NSD
Page 132 and 133:
C-14
Page 134 and 135:
Table C.1b 2006 Distribution of Wei
Page 136 and 137: Exhibit C.1.1 Covariates for 2006 N
Page 140 and 141: C-22
Page 142 and 143: Table C.2b 2006 Distribution of Wei
Page 148 and 149: C-30
Page 156 and 157: C-38
Page 164 and 165: D-2
Page 166 and 167: D-4
Page 168 and 169: E-2
Page 170 and 171: E-4 Table E.1 2006 NSDUH Selected Q
Page 172 and 173: E-6 Table E.2 2006 NSDUH Respondent
Page 174 and 175: F-2
Page 176 and 177: Table F.1 2006 NSDUH QDU-Level Slip
Page 178 and 179: G-2
Page 180 and 181: G-4 Table G.1 2006 NSDUH Selected Q
Page 182 and 183: G-6 Table G.2 2006 NSDUH Respondent
Page 184 and 185: H-2
Page 188 and 189: Exhibit H.2 Covariates for 2006 NSD
Page 190 and 191: H-8
Page 192 and 193: Table H.1b 2006 Distribution of Wei
Page 194 and 195: Exhibit H.1.1 Covariates for 2006 N
Page 198 and 199: H-16
Page 200 and 201: H-18
Page 202 and 203: Table H.2b 2006 Pair Weight GEM Mod
Page 208 and 209: H-26
Page 210 and 211: I-2
Page 212 and 213: Table I.1 2006 NSDUH Person Pair-Le
Page 214 and 215: J-2
Page 216 and 217: J-4 Table J.1 Domain 2006 NSDUH Sel
Page 218 and 219: J-6 Table J.2 2006 NSDUH Respondent
Page 220 and 221: J-8 Table J.3 Domain 2006 NSDUH Res
Page 222 and 223: J-10
Page 224 and 225: K-2
Page 226 and 227: Table K.1 2006 NSDUH Respondent Pai
Page 228 and 229: L-2
Page 230 and 231: L-4 Table L.1 2006 NSDUH Selected P
Page 232 and 233: L-6 Table L.2 2006 NSDUH Respondent
Page 234 and 235: L-8 Table L.3 2006 NSDUH Respondent
Page 236 and 237:
L-10 Table L.3 2006 NSDUH Responden
Page 238 and 239:
M-2
Page 240 and 241:
procedures were implemented indepen
Page 242 and 243:
first sorting variables). In genera
Page 244 and 245:
predicted mean(s), the neighborhood
Page 246 and 247:
N-2
Page 248 and 249:
The PMM method is only applicable t
Page 250 and 251:
type of constraint, called a "logic
Page 252 and 253:
N-8
Page 254 and 255:
O-2
Page 256 and 257:
Table O.1 Rules for Determining Mat
Page 258 and 259:
Table O.1 Rules for Determining Mat
Page 260 and 261:
O-8 Table O.2 Priority Condition Ru
Page 262 and 263:
O-10 Table O.2 Priority Condition 2
Page 264 and 265:
Table O.2 Priority Condition Rules
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
P-2
Page 272 and 273:
P-4 Table P.1 Priority Condition, F
Page 274 and 275:
Table P.1 Priority Conditions Used
Page 276 and 277:
P-8 Table P.1 Priority Condition, F
Page 278 and 279:
P-10 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
P-18
Page 288 and 289:
Q-2
Page 290 and 291:
data, which was adjusted to more re
Page 292 and 293:
Table Q.1 Model Group 3 (15-17, 15-
Page 294 and 295:
Table Q.1 Model Group 9 (18-20, 26+
Page 296 and 297:
Table Q.2 Pair Domain Sibling (12-1
Page 298 and 299:
Table Q.3 Model Group Parent- Child
Page 300 and 301:
Table Q.3 Pair Domain Spouse- Spous
Page 302 and 303:
Table Q.4 Pair Domain Sibling (12-1
Page 304 and 305:
Q-18
Page 306 and 307:
R-2
Page 308 and 309:
was not imputed, the indirect count
Page 310 and 311:
1. The counts disagreed if a househ
Page 312 and 313:
S-2
Page 314 and 315:
with parent(s) in the household) fo
Page 316 and 317:
• Both had counts of children wit
Page 318 and 319:
− The other conditions had not al
Page 320 and 321:
• The number of children in the s
Page 322 and 323:
5. Two family units might be in the
Page 324 and 325:
− − No bad relationship codes i
Page 326 and 327:
elationship codes, and the sum of t
Page 328 and 329:
• The pair relationship was not a
Page 330 and 331:
• The screener count of roster me
Page 332 and 333:
15. The count of the number of spou
Page 334 and 335:
member had a spouse-spouse-with-chi
Page 336 and 337:
• If the spouse-spouse counts exc
Page 338:
• The number of roster members yo
show all

Questionnaire Dwelling Unit-Level and Person Pair-Level Sampling ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?