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:文本聚焦调查回应误差、再访质量和方差估计,未研究面板动态或因果效应,调查对象本身不足以支持所列领域分类。

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
Gosta Forsman

再访数据的质量:当前人口调查的应用

研究问题
如何结合经过差异核对与独立再访的两类样本估计简单回应方差,并利用二者的关系检查再访假设及调查数据质量?
方法与思路
作者提出从两类再访子样本估计简单回应方差的模型和程序,并推导统计量之间的不等式,用于诊断假设与估计质量。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称合并两类样本可改进方差估计;对当前人口调查的分析发现两类数据不一致,并认为经差异核对子样本中的错误是其来源。
阅读关注点
应核对再访独立性与核对流程的建模方式、不等式成立条件,以及将数据不一致归因于某类子样本错误的证据链。
阅读边界
来源为版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;具体诊断条件与结果未提供,摘要中的错误归因不能视为已独立验证的结论。

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