Current Population Survey Design and Methodology - Census Bureau

More documents

Recommendations

Info

educed. Results from these tests formed the basis for the design of the final revised version of the questionnaire. This revised version was tested in a separate year-and-ahalf parallel survey prior to implementation as the official survey in January 1994. In addition, from January 1994 through May 1994, the unrevised procedures were used with the parallel survey sample. These parallel surveys were conducted to assess the effect of the redesign on national labor force estimates. Estimates derived from the initial year-and-a-half of the parallel survey indicated that the redesign might increase the unemployment rate by 0.5 percentage points. However, subsequent analysis using the entire parallel survey indicates that the redesign did not have a statistically significant effect on the unemployment rate. (Analysis of the effect of the redesign on the unemployment rate and other labor force estimates can be found in Cohany, Polivka, and Rothgeb [1994].) Analysis of the redesign on the unemployment rate along with a wide variety of other labor force estimates using data from the entire parallel survey can be found in Polivka and Miller (1995). CONTINUOUS TESTING AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS Experience gained during the redesign of the CPS has demonstrated the importance of testing questions and monitoring data quality. The experience, along with contemporaneous advances in research on questionnaire design, also has helped inform the development of methods for testing new or improved questions for the basic CPS and its periodic supplements (Martin [1987]; Oksenberg; Bischoping, K.; Cannell and Kalton [1991]; Campanelli, Martin, and Rothgeb [1991]; Esposito et al.[1992]; and Forsyth and Lessler [1991] ). Methods to continuously test questions and assess data quality are discussed in Chapter 15. Despite the benefits of adding new questions and improving existing ones, changes to the CPS should be approached cautiously and the effects measured and evaluated. When possible, methods to bridge differences caused by changes and techniques to avoid the disruption of historical series should be included in the testing of new or revised questions. REFERENCES Bischoping, K. (1989), An Evaluation of Interviewer Debriefings in Survey Pretests, In C. Cannell et al. (eds.), New Techniques for Pretesting Survey Questions, Chapter 2. Campanelli, P. C., E. A. Martin, and J. M. Rothgeb (1991), The Use of Interviewer Debriefing Studies as a Way to Study Response Error in Survey Data, The Statistician, vol. 40, pp. 253−264. Cohany, S. R., A. E. Polivka, and J. M. Rothgeb (1994), Revisions in the Current Population Survey Effective January 1994, Employment and Earnings, February 1994 vol. 41 no. 2 pp. 1337. Copeland, K. and J. M. Rothgeb (1990), Testing Alternative Questionnaires for the Current Population Survey, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 63−71. Edwards, S. W., R. Levine, and S. R. Cohany (1989), Procedures for Validating Reports of Hours Worked and for Classifying Discrepancies Between Reports and Validation Totals, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association. Esposito, J. L., and J. Hess (1992), ‘‘The Use of Inteviewer Debriefings to Identify Problematic Questions on Alternate Questionnaires,″ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, FL. Esposito, J. L., J. M. Rothgeb, A. E. Polivka, J. Hess, and P. C. Campanelli (1992), Methodologies for Evaluating Survey Questions: Some Lessons From the Redesign of the Current Population Survey, Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Trento, Italy, June, 1992. Esposito, J. L. and J. M. Rothgeb (1997), ‘‘Evaluating Survey Data: Making the Transition From Pretesting to Quality Assessment,’’ in Survey Measurement and Process Quality, New York: Wiley, pp.541−571. Forsyth, B. H. and J. T. Lessler (1991), Cognitive Laboratory Methods: A Taxonomy, in P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman (eds.), Measurement Errors in Surveys, New York: Wiley, pp. 393−418. Fracasso, M. P. (1989), Categorization of Responses to the Open-Ended Labor Force Questions in the Current Population Survey, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 481−485. Gaertner, G., D. Cantor, and N. Gay (1989), Tests of Alternative Questions for Measuring Industry and Occupation in the CPS, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association. Martin, E. A. (1987), Some Conceptual Problems in the Current Population Survey, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 420−424. Martin, E. A. and A. E. Polivka (1995), Diagnostics for Redesigning Survey Questionnaires: Measuring Work in the Current Population Survey, Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1995 vol. 59, no.4, pp. 547−67. 6–8 Design of the Current Population Survey Instrument Current Population Survey TP66 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau
Oksenberg, L., C. Cannell, and G. Kalton (1991), New Strategies for Pretesting Survey Questions, Journal of Official Statistics, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 349−365. Palmisano, M. (1989), Respondents Understanding of Key Labor Force Concepts Used in the CPS, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association. Polivka, A. E. and S. M. Miller (1998),The CPS After the Redesign Refocusing the Economic Lens, Labor Statistics Measurement Issues, edited by J. Haltiwanger et al., pp. 249−86. Polivka, A. E. and J. M. Rothgeb (1993), Overhauling the Current Population Survey: Redesigning the Questionnaire, Monthly Labor Review, September 1993 vol. 116, no. 9, pp. 10−28. Current Population Survey TP66 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau Rothgeb, J. M. (1982), Summary Report of July Followup of the Unemployed, Internal memorandum, December 20, 1982. Rothgeb, J. M., A. E. Polivka, K. P. Creighton, and S. R. Cohany (1992), Development of the Proposed Revised Current Population Survey Questionnaire, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 56−65. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1988), Response Errors on Labor Force Questions Based on Consultations With Current Population Survey Interviewers in the United States. Paper prepared for the OECD Working Party on Employment and Unemployment Statistics. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1997), BLS Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2490, April 1997. Design of the Current Population Survey Instrument 6–9
Page 1 and 2:
Design and Methodology Current Popu
Page 3 and 4: U.S. Department of Labor Elaine L.
Page 5 and 6: Foreword The Current Population Sur
Page 7 and 8: CONTENTS Chapter 9. Data Preparatio
Page 9 and 10: CONTENTS Figures 3-1 CPS Rotation C
Page 11 and 12: Chapter 1. Background The Current P
Page 13 and 14: Chapter 2. History of the Current P
Page 15 and 16: in small circles with an ordinary l
Page 17 and 18: was added as a control to the Hispa
Page 19 and 20: More detailed information on these
Page 21 and 22: social and economic characteristics
Page 23 and 24: d. Stratification is performed inde
Page 25 and 26: Calculation of overall state sampli
Page 27 and 28: use of census information to reduce
Page 29 and 30: Summary of Sampling Frames Table 3-
Page 31 and 32: Examples of Post-Sampling Code Assi
Page 33 and 34: 2. The sample for 1 month is compos
Page 35 and 36: Chapter 4. Preparation of the Sampl
Page 37 and 38: Even without geographic clustering,
Page 39 and 40: Permit listing. Listing in the perm
Page 41 and 42: Chapter 5. Questionnaire Concepts a
Page 43 and 44: Employed citizens of foreign countr
Page 45 and 46: ‘‘What are all of the things yo
Page 47 and 48: Chapter 6. Design of the Current Po
Page 49 and 50: Item Response Analysis The primary
Page 51 and 52: Industry and occupation—Dependent
Page 53: months. For people reported to be l
Page 57 and 58: Figure 7−1. Introductory Letter 7
Page 59 and 60: Figure 7-3. Noninterviews: Main Ite
Page 61 and 62: Figure 7-5. Summary Table for Deter
Page 63 and 64: eason, the CATI facilities generall
Page 65 and 66: Figure 7-9. Interviewing Results (S
Page 67 and 68: transmitted directly to the compute
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 9. Data Preparation INTRODU
Page 71 and 72: Demographic-related recodes are cre
Page 73 and 74: sample unit (person or household) b
Page 75 and 76: still be associated with the state-
Page 77 and 78: Weights After National Coverage Adj
Page 79 and 80: Table 10−4: Second-Stage Adjustme
Page 81 and 82: Iteration 2: (Repeat steps above be
Page 83 and 84: 1. For each state 7 and the Distric
Page 85 and 86: Production of monthly, quarterly, a
Page 87 and 88: for national CPS labor force series
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 11. Current Population Surv
Page 91 and 92: Table 11-1. Current Population Surv
Page 93 and 94: have completed their eighth and fin
Page 95 and 96: Table 11−3. Summary of 2004 ASEC
Page 97 and 98: Current Population Survey TP66 U.S.
Page 99 and 100: Chapter 12. Data Products From the
Page 101 and 102: Table 12-1. Bureau of Labor Statist
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 13. Overview of Data Qualit
Page 105 and 106:
For example, we now recognize that
Page 107 and 108:
the other panel in the SR SECU or N
Page 109 and 110:
means that the estimates of varianc
Page 111 and 112:
Table 14-2. Components of Variance
Page 113 and 114:
Table 14-4. Effect of Compositing o
Page 115 and 116:
Wolter, K. (1984), ‘‘An Investi
Page 117 and 118:
• Master Address File (MAF): The
Page 119 and 120:
no RO review of group quarters list
Page 121 and 122:
5. The questionnaire does not elici
Page 123 and 124:
chance to answer; probing technique
Page 125 and 126:
Chapter 16. Quality Indicators of N
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 16−2. Average Yearly Type
Page 129 and 130:
Table 16-3. Labor Force Status by I
Page 131 and 132:
supposed to be done in person, the
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 16−4. Basic CPS Household
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix A Sample Preparation Mater
Page 137 and 138:
Illustration 1. Segment Folder, BC-
Page 139 and 140:
Illustration 3. Unit/Permit Listing
Page 141 and 142:
Illustration 5. Unit/Permit Listing
Page 143 and 144:
Illustration 7. Permit Sketch Map,
Page 145 and 146:
group numbers are chosen for deleti
Page 147 and 148:
demographic components often cited
Page 149 and 150:
2. The CPS control universe exclude
Page 151 and 152:
A concern exists relative to the co
Page 153 and 154:
The resulting race categories (Whit
Page 155 and 156:
treat race and Hispanic origin as a
Page 157 and 158:
REFERENCES Ahmed, B. and J. G. Robi
Page 159 and 160:
Figure D-1. Map D-2 Organization an
Page 161 and 162:
This report provides the supervisor
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix E. Reinterview: Design and
Page 165 and 166:
Acronyms ADS Annual Demographic Sup
Page 167 and 168:
Births—Con. total population C-4
Page 169 and 170:
Estimates, population—Con. popula
Page 171 and 172:
Listing checks 15-4 Listing Sheets
Page 173 and 174:
Ratio adjustments—Con. second-sta
Page 175:
Vacancy rates 11-2, 11-4 Variance e
show all

Current Population Survey Design and Methodology - Census Bureau

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?