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:摘要研究调查回答误差与数据质量,未明确涉及所列计量领域细分。

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
Paul P. Biemer
Gösta Forsman

重复访谈数据的质量:当前人口调查的应用

研究问题
当重复访谈分别用于核对回答差异和独立测量回答变异时,能否合并两类样本估计回答方差,并检验数据质量?
方法与思路
作者提出模型与估计程序,从核对差异的样本中估计简单回答方差,再与独立重复访谈样本结合,并构造一致性检查不等式。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,两类样本可共同用于改进回答方差估计;当前人口调查应用显示样本间不一致,并将问题来源指向核对差异的样本。
阅读关注点
应核对两类重复访谈的操作流程、合并估计所需假设、不等式的成立条件,以及将不一致归因于特定样本的证据。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明,不能推断刊本变化;实际成立条件、误差来源判定和估计改善幅度需读全文。

原文摘要

The Current Population Survey (CPS) reinterview sample consists of two subsamples: (a) a sample of CPS households is reinterviewed and the discrepancies between the reinterview responses and the original interview responses are reconciled for the purpose of obtaining more accurate responses (i.e., response bias estimates), and (b) a sample of CPS households, nonoverlapping with sample (a), is reinterviewed “independently” of the original interview for the purpose of estimating simple response variance (SRV). In this article a model and estimation procedure are proposed for obtaining estimates of SRV from subsample (a) as well as the customary estimates of SRV from subsample (b). In this way, an improved estimator of SRV that combines data from both subsamples can be computed. Additionally, under conditions that are usually satisfied in practice, several inequalities involving statistics computed from both subsamples are derived. These inequalities can be used to check the validity of the reinterview assumptions and the quality of the estimates of SRV and response bias from the reinterview program. Data from the CPS reinterview program for both subsamples (a) and (b) are analyzed both (1) to illustrate the methodology and (2) to check the validity of the CPS reinterview data. Our results indicate that data from subsample (a) are not consistent with the data from subsample (b) and provide convincing evidence that errors in subsample (a) are the source of the inconsistency.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文