The QDU selection probability was defined as ( Ph(00) ) P = 1 − , (2.8) * * h where P * h(00) is the probability of not selecting any person. For the DUs with the sum of agespecific selection probabilities larger than or equal to 2 (Case I), P * h(00) is 0. It follows from Section 2.1, under Case II, P * h(00) can be calculated as P * h(00) ⎛ 1 ⎞ 3 ⎡P′ P′ ⎤⎡ 1 1 = − + + h(0) h(0) ⎜1 ⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ , ⎝ Fs ⎠ Fs ⎣ K′ ⎦⎢⎣ 1−P′ h(0) 1−P′ h(0) ⎥⎦ ⎤ (2.9) where P′ h(0) is the selection probability of a dummy person when person selection probabilities are adjusted by F s . 10
Table 2.1 Distribution of <strong>Pair</strong> Age Groups for the 2002–2006 NSDUH Sample Sizes 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Domain Sel. 1 Resp. 2 % Rate 3 Sel. 1 Resp. 2 % Rate 3 Sel. 1 Resp. 2 % Rate 3 Sel. 1 Resp. 2 % Rate 3 Sel. 1 Resp. 2 % Rate 3 DUs Total DUs Screened 136,349 N/A N/A 130,605 N/A N/A 130,130 N/A N/A 134,055 N/A N/A 137,057 N/A N/A QDUs Total QDUs 55,686 48,088 86.36 56,184 47,753 84.99 56,251 47,651 84.71 57,243 47,893 83.67 58,257 47,909 82.24 <strong>Person</strong>s Total <strong>Person</strong>s 80,581 68,126 84.54 81,631 67,784 83.04 81,973 67,760 82.66 83,805 68,308 81.51 85,034 67,802 79.74 12-17 26,230 23,645 90.14 25,387 22,665 89.28 25,141 22,301 88.70 25,840 22,534 87.21 26,702 22,871 85.65 18-25 27,216 23,066 84.75 27,259 22,738 83.41 27,408 22,829 83.29 27,337 22,511 82.35 27,303 21,948 80.39 26-34 7,672 6,374 83.08 8,060 6,570 81.51 8,052 6,574 81.64 8,573 6,856 79.97 8,554 6,640 77.62 35-49 12,076 9,620 79.66 12,604 9,831 78.00 12,907 9,951 77.10 13,202 10,099 76.50 12,601 9,397 74.57 50+ 7,387 5,421 73.39 8,321 5,980 71.87 8,465 6,105 72.12 8,853 6,308 71.25 9,874 6,946 70.35 <strong>Pair</strong>s Total <strong>Pair</strong>s 4 24,895 20,038 80.49 25,447 20,031 78.72 25,722 20,109 78.18 26,562 20,415 76.86 26,777 19,893 74.29 11 12-17, 12-17 4,667 4,192 89.82 4,302 3,860 89.73 4,292 3,810 88.77 4,476 3,913 87.42 4,569 3,886 85.05 12-17, 18-25 3,245 2,742 84.50 3,206 2,672 83.34 3,206 2,678 83.53 3,283 2,643 80.51 3,381 2,691 79.59 12-17, 26-34 826 694 84.02 927 758 81.77 845 699 82.72 879 724 82.37 939 742 79.02 12-17, 35-49 3,795 3,121 82.24 3,892 3,180 81.71 3,901 3,135 80.36 4,187 3,288 78.53 3,984 3,057 76.73 12-17, 50+ 482 377 78.22 584 446 76.37 603 435 72.14 623 453 72.71 785 584 74.39 18-25, 18-25 5,520 4,419 80.05 5,522 4,285 77.60 5,642 4,426 78.45 5,508 4,255 77.25 5,532 4,112 74.33 18-25, 26-34 975 806 82.67 1,085 848 78.16 1,073 860 80.15 1,206 900 74.63 1,144 832 72.73 18-25, 35-49 1,449 1,042 71.91 1,533 1,079 70.38 1,578 1,072 67.93 1,609 1,119 69.55 1,449 925 63.84 18-25, 50+ 604 418 69.21 695 453 65.18 726 471 64.88 763 509 66.71 879 565 64.28 26-34, 26-34 774 559 72.22 856 623 72.78 849 615 72.44 957 688 71.89 939 634 67.52 26-34, 35-49 450 346 76.89 493 372 75.46 490 356 72.65 563 382 67.85 518 345 66.60 26-34, 50+ 196 123 62.76 195 113 57.95 233 135 57.94 220 138 62.73 257 127 49.42 35-49, 35-49 807 543 67.29 892 579 64.91 954 601 63.00 867 565 65.17 844 492 58.29 35-49, 50+ 350 210 60.00 392 228 58.16 410 228 55.61 447 254 56.82 429 254 59.21 50+, 50+ 755 446 59.07 873 535 61.28 920 588 63.91 974 584 59.96 1,128 647 57.36 DU = dwelling unit; QDU = questionnaire dwelling unit. 1 Selected pairs are based on the screener age. 2 Respondent pairs are based on questionnaire age. 3 These rates are unweighted <strong>and</strong> based only on the total selected <strong>and</strong> total responding counts of pairs. 4 Total pairs excludes dummy person pairs.
- 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 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:
Table 8.3a Percentages of Youths (1
- Page 97 and 98:
Table 8.4 Percentages of Youths (12
- Page 99 and 100:
Table 8.6a Percentages of Youths (1
- Page 101 and 102:
Table 8.7a Percentages of Youths (1
- 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 146 and 147:
Exhibit C.2.3 Covariates for 2006 N
- Page 148 and 149:
C-30
- Page 150 and 151:
Table C.3b 2006 Distribution of Wei
- Page 152 and 153:
Exhibit C.3.1 Covariates for 2006 N
- Page 154 and 155:
Exhibit C.3.3 Covariates for 2006 N
- Page 156 and 157:
C-38
- Page 158 and 159:
Table C.4b 2006 Distribution of Wei
- Page 160 and 161:
Exhibit C.4.1 Covariates for 2006 N
- Page 162 and 163:
Exhibit C.4.3 Covariates for 2006 N
- 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 196 and 197:
Exhibit H.1.3 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 204 and 205:
Exhibit H.2.1 Covariates for 2006 N
- Page 206 and 207:
Exhibit H.2.3 Covariates for 2006 N
- 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:
O-14 Table O.2 Priority Condition 5
- Page 268 and 269:
O-16 Table O.2 Priority Condition 6
- 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:
P-12 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
- Page 282 and 283:
P-14 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
- Page 284 and 285:
P-16 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
- 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