Analysis of Influences Related to Interviewer Non-Compliance with - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Analysis of Influences Related to Interviewer Non-Compliance with Established Procedures for SIPP

Danquan Prunty U.S. Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation

• SIPP’s mission is to provide a nationally representative sample

for evaluating:

• Annual and sub-annual income dynamics
• Movements into and out of government transfer programs
• Family and social context of individuals and households
• Interactions among these items
• 2014 Panel Wave 1-4 data used for this analysis

Quality Assurance

• The primary goal of the Quality Assurance program is to maintain the

quality of the SIPP survey data collected by monitoring the performance of interviewers through QC Reinterview.

• Quality Control (QC) Reinterview is also implemented to detect and deter

data falsification. This is accomplished by identifying interviewers who have:

• falsified data
• misclassified eligible household units as noninterviews to avoid interviewing

them

• intentionally not followed the established survey procedures with regards to

asking all questions, using their laptops for personal visit interviews, or collecting roster data

• discrepancies

Discrepancies

Discrepancy Numbers and Descriptions

Discrepancy Number Description 01

The reinterview respondent said no one contacted this household regarding this survey.

02

The reinterviewer determined that the original status was incorrect.

03

The status of this case was completed by observation in the original interview. The reinterviewer determined that the original status was incorrect.

04

This case was a Type A in the original interview. The reinterviewer determined that the original status was incorrect.

05

The interviewer classified this unit as a Type B or Type C Noninterview, and the reinterviewer determined that it should have been an Interview or Type A.

06

The reinterview respondent indicated that the original status was incorrect.

07

The household roster was incorrect.

08

Not all survey questions were asked in the interview.

09

The interviewer conducted a telephone interview only instead of a personal visit interview, as required.

10

This case was done by a personal visit, and the reinterview respondent said the interviewer did not use a laptop.

11

The interviewer entered a bad telephone number for this case.

Any At least one of the discrepancies above 1-11. None None of the discrepancies above. Total Total HUs eligible for SIPP RI.

Top 5 Discrepancies

229 339 231 184 1839 2671 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Discrepancy 1 Discrepancy 2 Discrepancy 7 Discrepancy 8 Discrepancy 11 Any Discrepancy

Number of RI Eliglible SIPP Cases

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Age Distribution

13.8% 17.0% 10.3% 14.5% 8.3% 8.8% 8.0% 9.9% 9.5% 11.0% 24.5% 28.6% 22.5% 23.6% 21.4% 21.0% 20.1% 18.1% 21.9% 21.9% 36.7% 36.6% 37.5% 34.5% 37.2% 38.7% 36.1% 33.7% 37.0% 36.9% 25.0% 17.9% 29.7% 27.4% 33.1% 31.5% 35.8% 38.3% 31.6% 30.2%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

18 to 30 yrs 31 to 45 yrs 46 to 64 yrs 65 yrs plus

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Sex Distribution

55.1% 49.3% 54.4% 56.8% 55.5% 54.5% 56.1% 51.9% 55.2% 54.2% 44.9% 50.7% 45.6% 43.2% 44.5% 45.5% 43.9% 48.1% 44.8% 45.8%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Female Male

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Marital Status Distribution

16.9% 18.4% 18.4% 18.8% 18.0% 18.7% 2.0% 3.1% 2.0% 3.2% 2.0% 3.2% 45.8% 38.6% 45.2% 36.2% 45.4% 36.8% 21.8% 26.0% 19.3% 25.9% 20.0% 25.9% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 4.5% 2.8% 4.0% 10.9% 11.2% 12.3% 11.3% 11.9% 11.3%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 B O T H W A V ES

Divorced Married, spouse absent Married, spouse present Never Married Separated Widowed

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Hispanic Origin Distribution

87.5% 84.4% 86.6% 81.6% 88.4% 91.9% 86.6% 91.0% 87.4% 88.4% 12.5% 15.6% 13.4% 18.4% 11.6% 8.1% 13.4% 9.0% 12.6% 11.6%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Non-Hispanic Hispanic

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Reported Race Distribution

75.3% 58.6% 76.4% 82.7% 76.0% 74.0% 24.7% 41.4% 23.6% 17.3% 24.0% 26.0%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 A L L W A V E S

Race Reported Race Unreported

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent HH Tenure Distribution

2.6% 3.9% 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.6% 5.9% 3.0% 3.6% 61.5% 52.2% 66.2% 56.3% 68.3% 65.7% 67.8% 59.9% 66.7% 61.2% 35.9% 43.9% 31.1% 40.7% 28.6% 31.0% 28.7% 34.3% 30.3% 35.2%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Occupied w/o Pay of Rent Owned Rented

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Region Distribution

20.7% 16.8% 21.4% 19.1% 20.3% 17.2% 23.4% 18.1% 21.2% 17.7% 14.7% 17.5% 12.2% 9.9% 14.5% 21.9% 11.1% 9.2% 13.2% 16.7% 46.6% 40.8% 41.3% 51.5% 47.4% 53.9% 47.0% 57.7% 45.3% 51.9% 18.1% 24.9% 25.1% 19.6% 17.8% 6.9% 18.5% 15.0% 20.3% 13.7%

O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Midwest Northeast South West

Major Conclusions

• Age:
• Age Group 18-30yrs
• 9.5% of overall RI eligible cases with reported age of respondent vs. 11.0% of cases

with one or more discrepancies.

• Marital Status:
• Divorced
• 18.0% of overall RI eligible cases with reported marital status of respondent vs.

18.7% of cases with one or more discrepancies.

• Never Married
• 20.0% of overall RI eligible cases with reported marital status or respondent vs.

25.9% of cases with one or more discrepancies.

Major Conclusions (cont.)

• Household Tenure:
• Renters
• 30.3% of overall RI eligible cases with reported HH tenure of respondent vs. 35.2% of

cases with one or more discrepancies.

• Region:
• South
• 45.3% of overall RI eligible cases vs. 51.9% of cases with one or more discrepancies.
• Northeast
• 13.2% of overall RI eligible cases vs. 16.7% of cases with one or more discrepancies.

Future Research

• More geographical comparisons
• More demographic comparisons
• SIPP 2018 Panel as data becomes available
• Logistic regression results
• Correlation results
• Data breakdown by individual Discrepancy
• More demographic surveys

Thank You

Danquan Prunty U.S. Census Bureau Danquan.Prunty@Census.gov