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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

almost all cases since only one spouse-spouse pair could have been selected that included that pair member. If the true multiplicity count exceeded 1, then the multiplicity count was set to 1. 20 Note that other spouse-spouse pairs in the household (one spouse's parents, for example) would have been of interest in the household counts discussed in subsequent sections. Table 6.9 Pair Relationship Multiplicity Counts for Each Pair Member Focus Member Direct Count Indirect Count Parent-Child Child From child: number of parents From parent: self + spouse/partner Parent-Child Parent From parent: number of children in appropriate age range Sibling-Sibling Sibling-Sibling Older sibling Younger sibling From older sibling: number of siblings in younger age range From younger sibling: number of siblings in older age range From child: self + number of siblings in the appropriate age range From younger sibling: self + number of siblings in younger age range From older sibling: self + number of siblings in older age range 6.3.2 Determining the Final Multiplicity Count Once the counts were determined for each pair member, it was necessary to resolve differences between these counts across pair members. In most cases, the direct and indirect counts agreed, with no bad relationship codes for either pair member, resulting in an easy determination of the final multiplicity count. An easy determination was usually possible if one pair member had bad relationship codes or had a count of 0, which meant that the final multiplicity count came from the pair member with good data. 21 For some cases, both pair members had bad relationship codes, which meant that the final multiplicity was left to imputation. Some of the remainder of cases could be reconciled and some could not. In the cases where reconciliation was possible, many of the disagreements between the pair members were resolved by going to the screener. The method used to reconcile differing counts depended upon the domain. In addition to the screener, for the parent-child domains, the FIPE3 variable was used to help reconcile differences. Detailed rules for reconciling differences between pair members are provided in Appendix R. If reconciliation between the counts from the two pair members in the household and the screener was not possible, upper and lower bounds within which the imputed value had to reside were determined from the counts for each pair member and the counts for the screener. The amount of imputation required for the multiplicity counts is shown in Table 6.10 for the 2006 survey year. From this table, it is apparent that the greatest degree of uncertainty came with the determination of the number of parents in the child-focus parent-child domains. This occurred 20 In rare cases, it was possible for a respondent to have two or more spouses. Determining the appropriate multiplicity count in these cases required knowledge of which spouse was the focus, which would be arbitrary. Because having multiple spouses was an extremely rare occurrence, and because of the complexity of determining the appropriate multiplicity count, these situations were not accounted for. 21 There were some provisions to this rule. If the bad relationship codes were only within the relevant age ranges, then the count from the good side was used only if the age ranges in the good side matched the screener. 46
ecause, even though the parent-child pair relationship had been established, it often was unclear whether there was a second "parent" in the household. Other domains had very little uncertainty. The counts of the number of children in the parent-focus parent-child domain were almost always definitively determined. Table 6.10 Amount of Imputation Required for Multiplicities in Various Pair Domains: 2006 Pair Domain Multiplicity Missing Cases Parent-Child (12-14), Child Focus Number of parents 74 Parent-Child (12-14), Parent Focus Number of children 0 Parent-Child (15-17), Child Focus Number of parents 70 Parent-Child (15-17), Parent Focus Number of children 0 Parent-Child (12-17), Child Focus Number of parents 144 Parent-Child (12-17), Parent Focus Number of children 0 Parent-Child (12-20), Child Focus Number of parents 166 Parent-Child (12-20), Parent Focus Number of children 4 Sibling (12-14)-Sibling (15-17), Older Sibling Focus Sibling (12-14)-Sibling (15-17), Younger Sibling Focus Sibling (12-17)-Sibling (18-25), Older Sibling Focus Sibling (12-17)-Sibling (18-25), Younger Sibling Focus Number of younger siblings Number of older siblings 8 Number of younger siblings 6.3.3 Creation of Imputation-Revised Multiplicity Variables Number of older siblings 18 In many cases where the pair relationships were not defined, multiplicity counts also were not defined. In addition, there were a handful of cases where multiplicity counts were not determined even when the pair relationship was known. In all of these cases, imputation was required to determine the multiplicity count. As with the pair relationship imputation, missing multiplicities were imputed using the PMN method described in Appendix N. In this section, the application of PMN to the imputation of multiplicities is described. Since only the multiplicity in the second stage was imputed for each pair, the imputation was univariate in the sense that no sequential models were necessary. However, in some cases, several variables were associated with a single model, as described below. 6.3.3.1 Setup for Model Building Multiplicity counts were defined only within the relevant domain, which, in turn, depended upon the pair relationship. For the sibling-sibling pairs, four separate imputations were 4 4 47
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: 5. parent-child (child 12 to 17), p
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 97 and 98: Table 8.4 Percentages of Youths (12
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:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
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 332 and 333:
15. The count of the number of spou
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?