21.06.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• The pair member with the maximum count had two gr<strong>and</strong>parents of a different<br />

gender, <strong>and</strong> the pair member with the minimum count did not have any.<br />

The assumption here, of course, is that the gr<strong>and</strong>parents of a different gender were in<br />

fact a spouse-spouse pair. There was no way to check whether a gr<strong>and</strong>father was the<br />

father's father <strong>and</strong> the gr<strong>and</strong>mother was the mother's mother, for example.<br />

19. Even though the household composition may match in terms of ages across the<br />

screener roster <strong>and</strong> the two pair members' rosters, the counts may disagree where two<br />

spouse-spouse pairs were clearly identified by one pair member but not the other.<br />

This may be because one of the in-laws was incorrectly identified on one side, or<br />

because a partner was not considered an in-law by a responding pair member, or<br />

because a partner did not consider other family members as "in-laws." The following<br />

conditions were required for the maximum count to be selected:<br />

• The number of screener roster members aged 12 or older matched the<br />

corresponding count from the questionnaire rosters of both pair members.<br />

• The pair member with the maximum number of spouse-spouse pairs had a spouse<br />

or partner <strong>and</strong> also had two parents.<br />

• There were no bad relationship codes among roster members aged 15 or older on<br />

either pair member's roster.<br />

20. If the counts for each pair member were not equal but the number of roster members<br />

aged 12 or older was the same between the two pair members, <strong>and</strong> the count for one<br />

pair member was the maximum possible in the household, then that number was<br />

selected as the final count. This condition was applied only after all other conditions,<br />

including conditions where the final count was ambiguous, had already been applied.<br />

21. After accounting for all other rules, if the number of spouse-spouse pairs was still<br />

missing, but the lower <strong>and</strong> upper bounds for imputation were equal to each other, then<br />

the final household-level person count was set to one of those bounds.<br />

S.4 Spouse-Spouse Counts (with Children)<br />

The household counts for spouse-spouse counts with children obviously depended upon<br />

the counts obtained for spouse-spouse counts with or without children. The first two rules<br />

described in this section were determined directly from the spouse-spouse counts or from the<br />

household size, <strong>and</strong> no reconciliation of counts was necessary:<br />

1. For a sizable proportion of cases, clearly no couples with children could be in the<br />

household, either because the spouse-spouse count was 0 or the household size was<br />

two or less. In these cases, the final spouse-spouse-with-children count was set to 0.<br />

2. An additional small number of cases also could be readily determined by looking at<br />

the spouse-spouse count. If one pair member had a spouse-spouse-with-children<br />

count that equalled or exceeded the final spouse-spouse count, but the other pair<br />

S-23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!