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

• The pair relationship was not one of interest.
• One count was 0 and the other count was 1.
• The pair member with the zero count had a spouse or partner.
• The pair member with the nonzero count had parents.
• The spouse-spouse final count was nonmissing.
13. The counts might have been unequal because children younger than 18 left, entered,
or otherwise materialized or disappeared in the household after screening and
between the time of the interviews. In general, the count was selected that
corresponded to the pair member with a household composition closest to the
screener household composition. If one pair member did not have children in the
household and the other pair member did, the following conditions were required for
the count corresponding to the pair member with a household composition closest to
the screener:
• One pair member had a nonzero count of children younger than 18 and the other
pair member had a zero count of children younger than 18.
• Either:
−
−
The screener composition indicated that children younger than 18 were in the
household, whereupon the nonzero count was selected, or
The screener composition indicated that no children younger than 18 were in
the household, whereupon the zero count was selected.
14. The counts might have been unequal with a count of 0 and a count of 1 because a pair
member with a count of 0 was not part of the immediate family unit. The nonzero
count was used under the following conditions:
• The pair relationship was not a parent-child, sibling-sibling, spouse-spouse, or
grandparent-grandchild relationship.
• Both pair members had relationship codes that were not parent, child, sibling,
spouse, partner, grandparent, or grandchild codes among roster members who
were aged 12 or older.
The following additional requirement was included, which restricted the cases that
could have been included within this general condition:
• The pair member with a nonzero count was younger than 21 and had two parents.
15. The counts might have been unequal because of bad relationship codes among roster
members younger than 18. The following rules were used to determine if the count
associated with the pair member did not have bad relationship codes:
S-27