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

• Neither pair member had bad ages in their rosters, and
• Each pair member either had no bad relationship codes in his or her roster or had
a nonzero count with no bad relationship codes among respondents aged 26 or
older.
9. The two counts might have disagreed if the bad relationship codes referred to missing
parental codes. If one side had no bad relationship codes, then the sum of the number
of bad relationship codes and the count on the side with the bad codes was equal to
the count on the side with no bad relationship codes.
10. The two counts might have disagreed where one count was 2 and the other was 3.
Since households with two family units had already been considered, the maximum
number of parents possible was two, so the final count was set to 2.
11. 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 child-focus multiplicity counts corresponding to the appropriate age range.
12. 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.
13. Remaining disagreeing counts were left to imputation, with appropriate bounds set on
the imputed value.
S.3 Sibling-Sibling Counts
The logic for the sibling-sibling counts did not depend upon whether the lower age range
was 12 to 14 or 12 to 17 or whether the upper age range was 15 to 17 or 18 to 25. It also did not
depend upon which pair member was the focus, though for the household-level person counts,
the older member focus counts were the only ones considered. Hence, the counts of interest are
of roster members in the upper age range. As with the parent-child pairs, the multiplicity counts
could be used if the pair relationship was a sibling-sibling pair of interest. However, the counts
had to be determined for all other pairs. The rules follow below, separated by the member of
focus:
1. Among pairs that were not sibling-sibling pairs of interest, in most cases, the counts
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:
• The pair could not be a sibling-sibling pair, where both respondents were in the
upper age range, and could not have a younger sibling in the lower age range, and
the count was 1. (This refers to a sibling-sibling pair that would not constitute a
domain of interest.)
• No bad relationship codes in the lower range if the count was 0.
• Either:
S-13