World Library  


Add to Book Shelf
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Book

Meeting 21St Century Demographic Data Needs Implementing the American Community Survey

By Kassinger, Theodore W.

Click here to view

Book Id: WPLBN0000598143
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 2,889,947 KB.
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title: Meeting 21St Century Demographic Data Needs Implementing the American Community Survey  
Author: Kassinger, Theodore W.
Volume:
Language: English
Subject: Government publications, Census., Census report
Collections: U.S. Census Bureau Collection
Historic
Publication Date:
Publisher: U.S. Census Bureau Department

Citation

APA MLA Chicago

Kassinger, T. W. (n.d.). Meeting 21St Century Demographic Data Needs Implementing the American Community Survey. Retrieved from http://www.ebooklibrary.org/


Description
Statistical Reference Document

Excerpt
Excerpt: This is the second report documenting the findings of the American Community Survey (ACS) test of the use of voluntary methods that was implemented in March through June of 2003. U.S. Census Bureau (2003) provides answers to key questions about the impact that a change to voluntary methods was found to have on ACS mail response, survey quality, and costs. That report compared performance and quality measures for the 2003 Standard Voluntary treatment with the 2002 Current Mandatory treatment. This report includes tables which provide greater detail for several of these key questions. In addition, this report examines the effect on respondent cooperation of the wording and placement of mandatory and voluntary messages.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.1 Design of the ACS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.2 Mail Data Collection in the ACS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1 Sample Design and Experimental Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.2 Preparatory Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3 Quality and Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.4 Statistical Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Respondent Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1.1 What impact did the wording of the voluntary message have on mail cooperation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1.2 In a mandatory survey, did a more user-friendly design improve rates of mail cooperation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1.3 What was the difference in the timing of mail responses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.4 How were the interviews distributed across the three modes of data collection when the survey was voluntary versus mandatory? Did this vary by race or ethnicity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 Data Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1 What impact did the wording of the voluntary message have on the percentage of the initial sample that was interviewed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2 What was the effect of the more direct voluntary message on unit nonresponse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.3 What impact did the use of voluntary methods and the wording of the voluntary message have on levels of item nonresponse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.4 Did the use of voluntary methods lead to higher levels of item nonresponse for certain racial or ethnic groups? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.5 Did the use of voluntary methods impact the completeness of any specific questions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 

Click To View

Additional Books


  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Transportation Vehicle In... (by )
  • 1997 Census of Agriculture : Oklahoma (by )
  • 1997 Census of Agriculture : Ohio (by )
  • 1997 Census of Agriculture : New York (by )
  • 1997 Census of Agriculture : Maine (by )
Scroll Left
Scroll Right

 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.