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

different ways depending upon the age group pair. For age group pairs where the only pair
relationships of interest involved were child-parent pairs, two classes were required: both
respondents never married and one respondent never married. Three classes were required for
age group pairs where the only pair relationships of interest involved were spouse-spouse pairs:
both respondents not currently married, one respondent not currently married, and both
respondents currently married. Finally, six classes were attempted if both the spouse-spouse and
child-parent pair relationships were possible: (1) both respondents never married; (2) one
respondent never married, the other formerly married (widowed or divorced); (3) one respondent
never married, the other currently married; (4) both respondents formerly married (widowed or
divorced); (5) one respondent formerly married, the other currently married; and (6) both
respondents currently married. It should be noted that not all of these classes would need donor
pairs if no recipient pairs were within the class. It also should be noted that marital status could
not have been considered a logical constraint where spouse-spouse pairs were involved, since
many live-in partners (who were considered spouse-spouse pairs) answered the marital status
question as "never married."
Gender makeup of pair constraint. For donors who formed a spouse-spouse pair, the vast
majority were male-female. Hence, in those cases where a spouse-spouse pair was possible, the
gender likeness constraint required that the donor pair and recipient pair be either both of the
same gender or both of a different gender. This meant that the likelihood of same-sex spousespouse
pair relationships were equally likely (more or less, depending upon the model) among
donors and recipients.
Age constraint on 15- to 17-year-old pair members. For the 15-to-17 age group, the
likelihood of being in a spouse-spouse relationship was very small. Nevertheless, the likelihood
that a 17-year-old was married was considerably greater than the likelihood for a 15-year-old.
Hence, for the age group pairs where at least one pair member was between 15 and 17, the
younger pair member of both the donor pair and recipient pair had to be of the exact same age.
Number of children constraints. In Section 6.2.3.2, a covariate was defined for the
number of children in the household younger than 12, AGE011, and one was defined for children
in the household between 12 and 17, AGE1217. If there was disagreement between pair
members on the values of these covariates, the pair member with information agreeing with the
screener was used if possible. For the imputation of spouse-spouse relationships with and
without children, these covariates were used to restrict donor pairs, where AGE011 was used for
potential parents younger than 18, and AGE011+AGE1217 was used for potential parents 18 or
older. If the recipient pair had no children according to the relevant covariate or covariates,
donor pairs also did not have children. If the recipient pair had children, the same was true for
the donor pair. In almost all cases, when there was disagreement between pair members
regarding whether the pair had children in the household or not, the imputation used information
that was closer to the screener. 19
The likeness constraints were loosened in the following order (where applicable): (1) for
the age group pairs where six marital status classes were used, collapse to two classes (the same
19 This will not always be true, because it is not always possible that the screener can be used to determine
the value for AGE011 and AGE1217 when the pair members' information disagrees.
43