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

Appendix R: Conditions Used for Reconciling Differing
Multiplicity Counts between Pair Members
R.1 Introduction
In order to determine multiplicity counts, counts were obtained from each pair member.
The count from the pair member who was the focus member of the domain was considered the
direct count, and the count from the other pair member was considered the indirect count.
Typically, these counts were in agreement, and the determination of the final multiplicity count
was straightforward, provided both rosters did not have bad data codes. The strategy also was
usually clear if one pair member had bad data in the household roster, or had a 0 count when the
pair relationship precluded a value of 0. The count from the pair member with good, nonzero
data was usually preferred in those cases. If the bad data was limited to bad relationship codes,
then the member with good data was selected only if substituting the appropriate relationship
codes for the bad data codes would have given a total that was equal to the count from the pair
member with good data. There were instances where bad data codes existed in the roster, and this
condition did not apply. There were other exceptions as well. Finally, there were instances where
neither pair member had bad data in their rosters, yet their counts still disagreed. In this
appendix, the rules that were used to reconcile these disagreeing counts are outlined.
Note that the reconciliation of differing counts was necessary for parent-child and
sibling-sibling pairs but was not necessary for spouse-spouse pairs, since the multiplicity count
for spouse-spouse pairs was always 1. As noted in Section 6.3, it was technically possible for a
respondent to have multiple spouses, but these situations were not accounted for.
R.2 Parent-Child Counts
For parent-child counts, the screener and the FIPE3 variable were used to help reconcile
disagreeing counts. The rules follow below, separated by the member of focus:
Parent-child pairs, child focus. The multiplicity counts in this domain reflected the
selected child's parents and in most cases had values of 1 or 2. If neither side had bad
relationship codes and the direct count exceeded the indirect count, the following rules applied:
1. The direct count might have exceeded the indirect count because one parent had left
or entered the household between interviews. In this case, the ages in the rosters were
matched to the screener roster to determine which count to believe. This was done in
two ways. First, the total number of roster members between ages 30 and 39, 35 and
44, and 40 and 49 were compared between pair members and the screener. The pair
member with age range counts closest to the screener was the one whose parent-child
count was chosen for the final count. If neither side had age range counts equal to the
screener, then the pair member with a parent-child count equal to the total number of
screener roster members between ages 26 and 64 was chosen as the final count.
2. The direct count might have exceeded the indirect count because the selected parent
did not consider the other "parent" a spouse or live-in partner. If the pair relationship
R-3