跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接评估家庭面板 PSID 的长期追踪、样本流失、代表性与测量误差。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Greg J. Duncan
Daniel H. Hill

家庭面板数据质量评估:以收入动态面板研究为例

研究问题
在长期累计非应答的情况下,PSID 是否仍代表美国非移民人口,其调查变量的准确性与测量误差程度如何?
方法与思路
作者汇集多项方法研究,考察样本追踪规则与非应答,并将调查测量同全国总量和高准确度个体验证数据比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称样本仍保持对非移民人口的代表性,多项行为模型中的非应答近似随机,但不同变量的测量误差方差差异很大。
阅读关注点
应核对代表性的目标人口、非应答随机性的检验对象、验证数据匹配方式,以及各类变量的测量误差大小。
阅读边界
结论针对研究覆盖的历史时期和非移民人口;摘要未给出逐项误差数值,也不能据此认定现今 PSID 或所有模型均无选择问题。

原文摘要

Evidence from a number of methodological studies are used to assess the overall quality of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Despite substantial cumulative non-response over the nearly two decades spanned by the study, the sample is found to maintain its representation of the nonimmigrant population of the United States. The most important reasons for this result are that the study's following rules insure that the sample replaces itself in the same manner as the population (through the formation of new families by the offspring of old) and that nonresponse is largely unsystematic. Nonresponse also appears to be largely random with respect to parameters in a number of behavioral models. The accuracy of measures is assessed by comparing survey measures with national aggregates and with highly accurate individual validating data. PSID reports of transfer income appear to compare more favorably with program aggregates than do reports from other large-scale surveys such as the Current Population Survey. Finally, although PSID survey measures generally are unbiased when compared to validating data, they contain amounts of measurement-error variance that range from trivially small to very large.

笔记与分组