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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table H.2b 2006 Pair Weight GEM Modeling Summary (Model Group 2: Midwest and West) SDU Weight Pair Selection 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 20 1.02 27 0.05 13 0.48 13 0.12 8 0.49 7 1% 75 1.06 140 0.28 77 1.00 78 0.47 59 0.79 54 5% 129 1.21 286 0.37 229 1.00 239 0.59 205 0.89 192 10% 175 1.27 535 0.47 407 1.01 410 0.67 359 0.91 346 25% 421 1.46 960 0.70 912 1.04 986 0.82 918 0.96 895 Median 645 4.54 2,633 0.99 2,603 1.14 2,928 0.96 2,794 0.99 2,763 75% 1,139 9.94 7,001 1.33 6,839 1.35 8,057 1.12 8,047 1.02 8,109 H-20 90% 1,760 17.93 15,186 1.71 16,293 1.82 20,953 1.30 21,412 1.06 21,677 95% 2,040 24.50 22,990 2.02 24,950 2.36 36,121 1.46 36,313 1.08 36,537 99% 2,588 46.23 52,539 2.76 61,149 3.95 104,489 1.82 108,451 1.15 108,349 Maximum 6,067 1,223.03 883,704 8.60 1,027,245 5.00 1,454,494 2.53 812,191 1.81 672,456 n 13,430 - 13,430 - 13,430 - 9,980 - 9,980 - 9,980 Mean 826 7.93 6,624 1.07 7,036 1.32 9,468 0.99 9,468 0.99 9,468 Max/Mean 7 - 154 - 146 - 154 - 86 - 71 GEM = generalized exponential model, SDU = screener dwelling unit. 1 For a key to modeling abbreviations, see Chapter 7, Exhibit 7.1.
Selected Pair-Level Poststratification Model Group 2 Overview All 75 proposed main effects were retained in the model. All 125 proposed two-factor effects were retained in the model. For the three-factor interaction, all levels of pair race/ethnicity were collapsed for each pair gender level and pair age level. As a result, out of 12 three-factor effects, 4 were kept in the model. Respondent Pair-Level Nonresponse For main effects, Hispanic or Latino black or African American householder and Hispanic or Latino others householder were collapsed. As a result 74 out of 75 proposed twofactor effects were kept in the model. For the two-factor effects, the interaction of pair race/ethnicity's other pair level and pair age's 26+ and 26+ level was dropped. As a result 124 out of 125 proposed two-factor effects were kept in the model. All 12 proposed three-factor effects were kept in the model. Respondent Pair-Level Poststratification For main effects, Hispanic or Latino black or African American householder and Hispanic or Latino others householder were collapsed. As a result 84 out of 85 proposed twofactor effects were kept in the model. All 125 proposed two-factor effects were kept in the model. None of the 12 three-factor effects were kept in the model due to the problems with convergence. Respondent Pair-Level Extreme Value Adjustment step. This step used exactly the same variables as in the respondent pair-level poststratification H-21
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:
Page 140 and 141:
C-22
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
C-30
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153: Exhibit C.3.1 Covariates for 2006 N
Page 156 and 157: C-38
Page 158 and 159: Table C.4b 2006 Distribution of Wei
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 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 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?