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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

15. The count of the number of spouse-spouse pairs might not agree because the pair were siblings, and one sibling did not consider a stepparent or parent's partner as a "parent." The maximum count was selected if the following conditions were met: • The pair members were siblings, • The pair member associated with the maximum count had two parents, • The pair member associated with the minimum count had one parent, and • The roster associated with the pair member with the maximum count had more immediate family members (children, parents, siblings, spouses, partners, grandchildren, grandparents) than the roster associated with the other pair member. 16. The count of the number of spouse-spouse pairs might not agree because the household changed after screening, which was not accounted for by previous conditions. In general, the count with a household composition closest to the screener was selected. The age composition was defined by looking at age classes. The count for a given pair member was selected if the following properties held: • The number of roster members between the ages of 26 and 44 for that pair member matched the screener count within the same age range, which differed from the corresponding count for the other pair member. • The number of roster members between the ages of 30 and 49 for that pair member matched the screener count within the same age range, which differed from the corresponding count for the other pair member. • The number of roster members between the ages of 35 and 54 for that pair member matched the screener count within the same age range, which differed from the corresponding count for the other pair member. • The number of roster members between the ages of 40 and 59 for that pair member matched the screener count within the same age range, which differed from the corresponding count for the other pair member. 17. In some cases, neither pair member's household composition matched that of the screener. In that case, the household roster closest to that of the screener was selected. The maximum was selected if the number of screener roster members aged 12 or older exceeded the corresponding count from the questionnaire rosters of both pair members, which also differed from each other. 18. The counts might not agree because, on the rare occasion, one pair member in a spouse-spouse pair identified two grandparents of a different gender. Since there is no code for grandparents-in-law, they could not be identified, so the maximum count was selected. The following conditions were required: • The pair was a spouse-spouse pair. S-22
• The pair member with the maximum count had two grandparents of a different gender, and the pair member with the minimum count did not have any. The assumption here, of course, is that the grandparents of a different gender were in fact a spouse-spouse pair. There was no way to check whether a grandfather was the father's father and the grandmother was the mother's mother, for example. 19. Even though the household composition may match in terms of ages across the screener roster and the two pair members' rosters, the counts may disagree where two spouse-spouse pairs were clearly identified by one pair member but not the other. This may be because one of the in-laws was incorrectly identified on one side, or because a partner was not considered an in-law by a responding pair member, or because a partner did not consider other family members as "in-laws." The following conditions were required for the maximum count to be selected: • The number of screener roster members aged 12 or older matched the corresponding count from the questionnaire rosters of both pair members. • The pair member with the maximum number of spouse-spouse pairs had a spouse or partner and also had two parents. • There were no bad relationship codes among roster members aged 15 or older on either pair member's roster. 20. If the counts for each pair member were not equal but the number of roster members aged 12 or older was the same between the two pair members, and the count for one pair member was the maximum possible in the household, then that number was selected as the final count. This condition was applied only after all other conditions, including conditions where the final count was ambiguous, had already been applied. 21. After accounting for all other rules, if the number of spouse-spouse pairs was still missing, but the lower and upper bounds for imputation were equal to each other, then the final household-level person count was set to one of those bounds. S.4 Spouse-Spouse Counts (with Children) The household counts for spouse-spouse counts with children obviously depended upon the counts obtained for spouse-spouse counts with or without children. The first two rules described in this section were determined directly from the spouse-spouse counts or from the household size, and no reconciliation of counts was necessary: 1. For a sizable proportion of cases, clearly no couples with children could be in the household, either because the spouse-spouse count was 0 or the household size was two or less. In these cases, the final spouse-spouse-with-children count was set to 0. 2. An additional small number of cases also could be readily determined by looking at the spouse-spouse count. If one pair member had a spouse-spouse-with-children count that equalled or exceeded the final spouse-spouse count, but the other pair S-23
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:
Page 268 and 269:
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 280 and 281:
P-12 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
Page 282 and 283: P-14 Table P.2 Priority Condition,
Page 284 and 285: P-16 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 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?