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

• The number of children in the screener roster within the relevant age range was
valid and at least as large as the final count of children with parents in the
household for the next smallest age range.
13. The two counts might have disagreed because one side had bad relationship codes
within the relevant age range and the other did not. If the sum of the number of bad
relationship codes with the smaller count equalled the larger count, the larger count
was chosen.
14. The two counts might have disagreed because they disagreed on the ages of one or
more household members, even though each respondent's count included all the
children in their respective roster. If the roster for one respondent more closely
matched the screener in terms of the distribution of ages within the roster, then that
respondent's count was chosen.
15. The two counts might have disagreed because they disagreed on the ages of one or
more household members and each respondent's count included all the children in
their respective roster, but neither was closer to the screener count. If the screener
count differed from each respondent's count by the same amount, was greater than 1
but less than the other, then the screener count was used as the final count.
16. If the pair relationship was parent-child and the parent-child counts were associated
with the same age range, then the household-level person counts were obtained using
the parent-focus multiplicity counts corresponding to the appropriate age range.
However, this did not occur if the age range for the pair relationship differed from the
age range for the parent-child counts. If the pair relationship was imputed to be
parent-child or it was deemed parent-child even though the child did not consider the
parent a "parent," but the parent answered the FIPE3 question, then the nonzero count
was used as the final count.
17. If, after all the above tests were done to find the final count, the minimum possible
and maximum possible counts––considering both questionnaire rosters and the
screener roster––were the same, then the final count was set to that value.
18. Remaining disagreeing counts were left to imputation, with appropriate bounds set on
the imputed value.
Parent-child pairs, parent focus. For the parent-focus counts, the count is of the number
of parents of at least one child in the household. The child-focus parent-child counts are
processed first, so if the child-focus parent-child counts are 0, it necessarily means that the
parent-focus counts will also be 0. Nonzero child-focus counts also point to nonzero parent-focus
counts. After setting counts to 0 where necessary, the following general rules applied:
1. Among nonparent-child pairs of interest, in most cases, the counts of parents with
children in the household for the two sides agreed. However, both sides had to meet
the following conditions, in order for the final count to be set to one of the sides:
S-10