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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Both had counts of children with parent(s) in the household pointing to two or fewer parents, meaning that the two family units were not identifiable on a side; • The number of identified parents was not equal to the total number of household members older than 25 in the household on either side, meaning that parents could correspond to roster members identified by other relationship codes; • The number of identified children was not equal to the total number within the relevant age range in the household on either side, meaning that children with parents could correspond to roster members identified by other relationship codes; and • There were not three generations in the household with first and second generation parents both having children in the appropriate age range. This was already accounted for by the counts for one or both sides. If the pair was a parent-child pair, the final count was determined using imputation. 7. Two family units might be in the household but the conditions given in item #6 were not met. If there were no bad ages or relationship codes within the relevant age ranges (for both children and parents), the two families in the household might have been already accounted for when the counts of children with parent(s) in the household were determined for each side. The maximum of the two counts was used as the final count if the household members in the roster older than 25 (of parental age) were either both equal to the number of household members older than 25 in the screener roster or both different than the number of members older than 25 in the screener roster. However, if the number of household members older than 25 in the screener roster was equal to the number of members older than 25 in one of the pair member's rosters but not the other, then the count of children with parent(s) in the household corresponding to the pair member with a roster matching the screener roster (among household members of potential parental age) was used as the final count of children with parent(s) in the household. 8. If one pair member did not have a valid roster and the pair member with a valid roster was within the valid age range and was a sibling to the other pair member, but the count of children with parent(s) in the household from his roster was only 1, then the final count was set to 2. 9. If the pair relationship was not parent-child nor was it sibling-sibling, but one side had nonzero counts of children with parent(s) in the household and the other did not, it was necessary to decide who to believe. This occurred often because one of the respondents was a relative outside the nuclear family unit––like a cousin or aunt/uncle––whose own parents did not live in the household, or the respondent was a S-6
oarder. 37 Selecting either the zero count or nonzero count in this instance required that the following conditions were met: • The respondent with a zero count of children with parent(s) in the household did not identify parents in the roster or he or she identified parents but was older than 20 and had no bad relationship codes within the relevant age ranges, and • Either the respondent with a nonzero count of children with parent(s) in the household had siblings or children within the relevant age range, or the respondent himself or herself was within that age range (with a count of 1). When one count of children with parent(s) in the household was zero and the other was nonzero, the nonzero count was used under the following conditions: • The respondent pair member with a nonzero count also did not have bad relationship codes within the relevant age ranges, and • Either: − − − − The count of children within the relevant age range in the household for the nonzero count pair member matched that of the zero count pair member, and the count of children with parent(s) in the household did not exceed the screener count of children within the relevant age range; The count of children in the household within the relevant age range for the nonzero count pair member matched that of the screener; The count of children in the household within the relevant age range for the zero count pair member matched that of the screener because a child was (or children were) listed as 11 years old in the nonzero count pair member's roster, when he or she (they) should have been 12 (according to the nonzero count pair member's and the screener roster) so that the final count was the nonzero count with this child (these children) added; The respondent with a zero count had no household members with a familytype relationship code where the reported household sizes of the two pair members were equal (indicating that it was unlikely that anyone had entered or left the household between interviews); The respondent with a nonzero count showed a parent-child relationship existed in the household, but the respondent with a zero count did not because he was not related to the other household members. However, the count of children within the relevant age range in the household for the zero count was closer to the screener age count. Nevertheless, the nonzero count was equal to or less than the screener age count; or 37 Even if there was disagreement between the respondents about whether a boarder or other family member was in fact a sibling, parent, or child, this would had been resolved at the pair relationship stage where we would had determined whether this was in a domain of interest. S-7
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 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 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 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?