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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

conducted for the multiplicities associated with the four sibling-sibling pair domains. The parentchild domains were hierarchical, however, where the imputations could not have been conducted independently if consistency was to be maintained. Hence, only two models were fitted to the child-parent pairs, using just the domains with children 12 to 20 years old. One set of models was for the number of the parent's children, and the other set was for the number of parents of the child. Using the predicted means from these models, a single donor pair for each focus was selected from which the multiplicity counts were determined for 12-to-14, 12-to-17, 15-to-17, and 12-to-20 child-parent pairs. No imputation was required for the spouse-spouse multiplicity counts, since a selected respondent in a spouse-spouse pair naturally had only one spouse. The first step for these six models was to define respondents, nonrespondents, and the item response mechanism for each model, separately. For a pair to be considered a complete data responding pair with regard to multiplicities, the multiplicity had to be nonmissing for all of the variables being imputed. For the parent-child pairs, this meant that the multiplicity had to be nonmissing for the domains with children 12 to 20 years old. A nonmissing multiplicity for this domain would automatically guarantee nonmissing multiplicities for the subset parent-child domains. Response propensity adjustments were then computed for each of the six models in order to make the respondent pair weights representative of the entire sample of pairs. These adjustments were calculated using an item response propensity model. This model is a special case of GEM, which is described in greater detail in Appendix A. 6.3.3.2 Model Building and Determination of Predicted Means The PMN method is a two-step process. The first step is the modeling step, followed by a hot-deck step where imputed values replace missing multiplicities. The different attributes of the six multiplicity models, corresponding to the six pair domains, are described in this subsection. Response categories. The response categories for the six multiplicity final response models were simply the multiplicity counts for each domain among the complete data cases. Covariates in models. The pool of covariates for the response propensity models was the same pool that was used for the pair relationship response propensity models. By the same token, this pool also was used for the final response multiplicity models when the household composition age count variables were missing. 22 When these variables were not missing, the same pool again was used as with the pair relationship models. Naturally, the final set of covariates differed from the initial pool. The final set of covariates that were used in the models is provided in Appendix Q. Building of models. For the child-focus parent-child domains, the count being modeled was the number of parents. In most cases, since the pair relationship had already been established, only two responses were possible within the parent-child pair relationship: one parent or two parents. There were rare instances where three parents could live in the household, with some combination of biological, step, foster, or adoptive parents. (Usually three parents were present when a stepparent lived in the house with the two biological parents.) For the purposes of modeling, the rare instances with more than two parents in the household were 22 The widowed, divorced, and never married categories for marital status were combined into a single level for the multiplicity models. 48
collapsed with the two-parent households. For these multiplicity counts, the fitted models were binomial logistic regression models. Only respondents who had a nonimputed pair relationship with nonmissing multiplicity counts was eligible for the model-building dataset. The other responses (parent-focus parent-child and sibling-sibling multiplicity counts) were counts, where Poisson regression models were used. However, the data were underdispersed for a Poisson distribution so that the data had to be scaled using the observed variance. Determination of predicted means. Although models were built using respondent pairs where the multiplicity was known definitively, predicted means were required for all pair domains where imputation was required. Once the models were fitted, predicted means were determined for both respondent pairs and nonrespondent pairs, using the parameter estimates from the models. 6.3.3.3 Constraints on Hot-Deck Neighborhoods and Assignment of Imputed Values In the same manner as with the pair relationship imputations, donor pairs in the hot-deck step of PMN for these multiplicity domains were chosen with predicted means, if possible, within delta of the recipient pair's predicted mean. The value of delta varied depending on the value of the predicted mean. The values of delta for predicted probabilities are shown in Table 6.8. Wherever necessary and feasible, logical and likeness constraints (as defined in Section 6.2.4.3) were placed on the membership in the hot-deck neighborhoods. The constraints are described below. The hot-deck steps are described separately for each of the variables in turn. Pair relationship constraint. The pair relationship between the donor pair and the recipient pair had to be the same. A pair could not be a donor if its pair relationship was imputed. This constraint strengthened the requirement of matching pair relationships to include the restrictions on the ages. For example, donor pairs and recipient pairs within the domain involving 12- to 17-year-olds included both 12- to 14-year-olds and 15- to 17-year-olds. This constraint was applied to all multiplicity domains. Number of parents aged 26 or older constraint. This constraint applies to the parent-child child-focus domain. Donor and recipient pairs had to have the same number of individuals in the household aged 26 or older, provided information was available for the recipient pair. Donor pairs had to have complete data on all of the household composition age count variables. If the recipient pair had only one person in the household in the age range, then the total number of parents in the household could still have been two if the other parent was younger than 26 years old. The constraint ensured that donor and recipient pairs had the same household age pattern and was never removed. Number of household members aged 26 or older constraint. Donor and recipient pairs had to have the same number of household members within the age ranges of 26 to 34, 35 to 49, and 50 or older. This constraint was applied for the parent-child, child-focus domain. 49
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: ecause, even though the parent-chil
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?