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

4. The respondent had a child and a child-in-law living in the house and had
grandchildren younger than 18.
6.4.2 Determining the Final Household-Level Person Count
For a particular type of household-level person count, there are three types of households
from a sample selection perspective. For the first type, a pair was selected and both pair members
responded, where the pair relationship corresponded directly to the pair domain being counted.
In this case, the household-level person count was usually easy to obtain using the multiplicity
counts, although an adjustment was sometimes required if more than one family unit was in the
household. For example, a parent-child pair was selected where the child was 12 years old, and
the household-level person count for the parent-focus parent-child (12 to 14) domain was
required. In the second type of household, a pair also was selected and both pair members
responded, but in this type the pair relationship did not correspond directly to the pair domain
being counted. In this case, determining the final count was sometimes more difficult,
particularly if one or more of the counts was a count of 0. A count of 0 from a roster with good
data did not necessarily mean that the final count should be 0. For example, suppose a household
consisted of a man, his wife, brother, and two sons, and suppose one of the sons and his uncle
(the man's brother) were selected. If the uncle's roster had a count of 0 for all domains of
interest––since all of the household members were "other relatives" from his perspective––then
no nonzero parent-child count could be obtained. The final count would have to be determined
from imputation. In the third type of household, only one respondent was selected. In this case, it
was not possible to match counts from different pair members, but determining the final count
could still be difficult if the count was 0 for a household where the value was not truly 0.
For situations where a pair was selected and both pair members had good roster data, if
the counts agreed between the pair members and were not 0, then an easy determination of the
final household-level count was possible. Surprisingly, this occurred in a majority of cases. If
one pair member had a bad roster with no information in it and the other had a good roster, this
was treated in the same way as if a single respondent was selected with a good roster. In either of
these cases, the final count could be determined, provided a considerable number of conditions
were satisfied. The conditions used to accept a good roster's count, when either the other pair
member's roster was bad or no pair was selected, are provided in Appendix S. If these conditions
were not met, the final household-level person count was left to imputation. Imputation also was
required if two pair members were selected, both with bad rosters.
For the remainder of cases, some could be reconciled and some could not. In the cases
where reconciliation was possible, some of the disagreements were caused by the pair members'
rosters having different age and gender compositions. In these cases, many of the disagreements
between the pair members were resolved by going to the screener. However, the screener did not
provide much help if the age and gender composition of the pair members' rosters were identical,
yet the counts still disagreed, as was the case with the nephew-uncle pair described above. In that
example, one count was 0 and the other was nonzero. Under conditions set out in Appendix S, it
was possible to determine that the disagreement in this case was due to the uncle not being able
to identify the parent-child domains, and the nonzero count was used. More detailed rules for
reconciling differences between pair members are described in Appendix S.
57