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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P-10 Table P.2 Priority Condition, Frequency 1 Priority Conditions Used to Create Household-Consistent Age Variables (Using AGE1217) Relationships Involving TOTPEOP, GOODAGE, <strong>and</strong> HHSIZE Relationships Involving AGE1217A, AGE1217B Relationships Involving Other Age Groups (1) 1 GOODAGEA = GOODAGEB, GOODAGEA = AGE1217A < min. (minimum), AGE1217B ≥ min. 2 TOTPEOPA, AGE1217B < min. (0) 2 GOODAGEB = AGE1217A ≥ min. 3 TOTPEOPB AGE1217A < min. (0) GOODAGEB = AGE1217B < min. HHSIZE, 4 all nonmissing, AGE1217A = AGE1217B, Another count except (12) 3 all > 1 both ≥ min. 12-17 < min. 5 AGE1217A not equal to AGE1825A < min., (0) 4 AGE1217B, AGE1825B ≥ min. 6 both ≥ min. AGE1825B < min., (0) 5 AGE1825A ≥ min. 7 Another count except (0) 12-17 < min. 8 (0) 9 Relationships Involving Screener Counts SHHSIZE = HHSIZE, SAGE1217 ≥ min. Quality of Roster Measures Fewer roster entries missing in A than B Fewer roster entries missing in B than A A & B: none missing A has better match measure than B AGE1217 Equals: AGE1217B AGE1217A SAGE1217 AGE1217A AGE1217B AGE1217A AGE1217A AGE1217B AGE1217A
P-11 Table P.2 Priority Condition, Frequency 10 Priority Conditions Used to Create Household-Consistent Age Variables (Using AGE1217) (continued) Relationships Involving TOTPEOP, GOODAGE, <strong>and</strong> Relationships Involving HHSIZE AGE1217A, AGE1217B GOODAGEA = AGE1217A not equal to GOODAGEB, AGE1217B, both ≥ min. GOODAGEA = 11 TOTPEOPA, GOODAGEB = TOTPEOPB, GOODAGEB = 12 HHSIZE, (0) 9 Relationships Involving Other Age Groups Another count except 12-17 < min. Relationships Involving Screener Counts Quality of Roster Measures A & B: none missing (0) 7 B has better match measure than A A & B: none missing (0) 8 Age (A) ≥ Age (B) A & B: none missing Age (B) > Age (A) 13 (18,045) 14 (508) 15-22 (52) 23 (75) all nonmissing, all > 1 AGE1217A = AGE1217B All other counts equal across pair members At least one age group has an unequal count between pair members A: all age counts are equal to their screener counterparts B: all age counts are equal to their screener counterparts No missing roster entries on either side No missing roster entries on either side A & B: none missing A has better match measure than B A & B: none missing B has better match measure than A A & B: none missing Age (A) ≥ Age (B) A & B: none missing Age (B) > Age (A) AGE1217 Equals: AGE1217B AGE1217A AGE1217B missing AGE1217A AGE1217A AGE1217B AGE1217A AGE1217B AGE1217A AGE1217B
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:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
C-38
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
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:
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:
Page 206 and 207:
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 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 280 and 281: P-12 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
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?