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

the random imputation described earlier. Even though two-family households were included in
the model for the child-focus parent-child counts, the resulting predicted means were not used.
This was due to the fact that the parent-focus parent-child counts were in the same multivariate
set as the child-focus parent-child counts, and the predicted means could not be used in the
imputation of the parent-focus parent-child counts when two families were in the household.
6.4.3.3.1 Parent-Child Counts
Since parent-focus and child-focus counts were so closely related, a logical constraint
was placed on donors such that if the parent-focus count was nonmissing and nonzero, then the
child-focus count had to exceed 0. Similarly, a nonzero, nonmissing child-focus count required
that the donor's parent-focus count exceed 0. If the child focus counts were missing, donors and
recipients had to have the same number of household members in the age range corresponding to
the domain of interest. (Donors had to have complete data on all the roster age variables.) The
same constraint was applied if the parent-focus counts were missing but the child-focus counts
were nonmissing, with an additional requirement: It had to be possible that no parent-child pairs
existed in the household. (If it was known that there were parents in the household for the
appropriate domain, it was not necessary to limit donors to have the same child age composition
as the recipient.) These were likeness constraints that were never loosened. In addition, if a
recipient had two family units in the household, a regular hot deck imputation could not be done,
as stated earlier. For all missing counts, the counts from the two pair members (in the case of pair
recipients) and the household composition were used to create upper and lower bounds, provided
valid roster information was available. These bounds acted as additional logical constraints.
Besides delta, additional likeness constraints all involved the household size and additional
constraints on the household composition, which are described in the following paragraph.
An attempt was made to match donors and recipients in each of three age ranges that are
commonly associated with children aged 12 to 20: 26 to 34, 35 to 49, and 50 or older. This
likeness constraint was applied whether the child-focus or the parent-focus count was missing.
However, its application in the case of a missing child-focus count and nonmissing parent-focus
count required an additional condition: It had to be possible that no parent-child pairs existed in
the household. (If it was known that there were children in the household who belonged to
parents, it was not necessary to limit donors according to the parent age ranges.) A looser form
of this constraint was to collapse the 26-to-34 and 35-to-49 age ranges into a single age range
and drop the 50-or-older constraint. Other household composition constraints required donors
and recipients to have the same number of household members younger than 12 years old and
between 18 and 25 (inclusive).
The likeness constraints were loosened in the following order (where applicable): (1)
abandon the neighborhood and choose the donor with the closest predicted mean or means; (2)
remove the requirement that donors and recipients had to have the same household size; (3)
remove the requirement that donors and recipients had to have the same number of household
members younger than 12, between 18 and 25 (inclusive), and 50 or older, and collapse the 26-
to-34 and 35-to-49 age constraints; and (4) remove the 26-to-49 age constraint.
61