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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table H.1b 2006 Distribution of Weight Adjustment Factors and Weight Products (Model Group 1: Midwest and West) SDU Weight Pair Selection Prob sel.pr.ps 1 res.pr.nr 1 res.pr.ps 1 res.pr.ev 1 1-10 pairwt11 1-11 pairwt12 1-12 pairwt13 1-13 pairwt14 1-14 pairwt15 1-15 Minimum 31 1.02 42 0.05 15 0.43 24 0.21 17 0.60 16 1% 81 1.02 159 0.27 132 0.97 136 0.36 84 0.91 83 5% 156 1.18 347 0.41 323 1.00 342 0.49 245 0.96 242 10% 230 1.25 696 0.50 547 1.01 574 0.58 441 0.97 435 25% 567 1.44 1,253 0.73 1,220 1.04 1,272 0.80 1,142 0.99 1,135 Median 853 4.81 3,186 1.01 3,217 1.14 3,498 0.97 3,223 1.00 3,232 75% 1,230 10.41 8,502 1.34 8,143 1.38 9,339 1.12 9,437 1.01 9,394 H-10 90% 1,591 19.59 17,322 1.74 18,946 1.86 26,055 1.31 26,490 1.03 26,359 95% 1,867 26.43 26,540 2.08 29,236 2.38 43,933 1.44 47,083 1.03 47,399 99% 2,672 49.55 56,833 2.93 66,132 3.97 109,974 1.70 113,069 1.06 112,929 Maximum 7,441 4,367.96 3,069,164 4.51 1,453,190 5.00 1,662,813 1.86 708,640 1.22 724,204 n 13,347 - 13,347 - 13,347 - 9,913 - 9,913 - 9,913 Mean 918 9.02 8,255 1.09 8,339 1.34 11,228 0.96 11,228 1.00 11,228 Max/Mean 8 - 372 - 174 - 148 - 63 - 64 SDU = screener dwelling unit. 1 For a key to modeling abbreviations, see Chapter 7, Exhibit 7.1.
Selected Pair-Level Poststratification Model Group 1 Overview All 76 proposed main effects were included in the model. In addition, all 125 proposed two-factor effects were included in the model. The three-factor interaction of pair race/ethnicity by pair gender by pair age was dropped due to convergence problem. Respondent Pair-Level Nonresponse In the respondent pair-level nonresponse step, all 76 main effects, 125 two-factor effects, and 12 three-factor effects were retained. Respondent Pair-Level Poststratification All 86 proposed main effects were included in the model. Also, all 125 proposed two-factor effects were retained in the model. The three-factor interaction of pair race/ethnicity by pair gender by pair age was dropped due to convergence problem. Respondent Pair-Level Extreme Value Adjustment step. This step used exactly the same variables as in the respondent pair-level poststratification H-11
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 138 and 139:
Exhibit C.1.3 Covariates for 2006 N
Page 140 and 141:
C-22
Page 142 and 143: Table C.2b 2006 Distribution of Wei
Page 144 and 145: Exhibit C.2.1 Covariates for 2006 N
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 186 and 187: Exhibit H.1 Definitions of Levels f
Page 188 and 189: Exhibit H.2 Covariates for 2006 NSD
Page 190 and 191: H-8
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?