Overview of 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test and Objectives Jason Fields Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division US Census Bureau Presentation to the.
Post on 03-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Overview of2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test
and Objectives
Jason Fields
Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division
US Census Bureau
Presentation to the ASA/SRM SIPP Working Group
November 17, 2009
“Re-SIPP” Development
* Following successful completion of • the EHC Paper Field Test
“Re-SIPP” Development
* Following successful completion of • the EHC Paper Field Test
* Develop the 2010 plan to test an electronic EHC instrument
“Re-SIPP” Development
* Following successful completion of • the EHC Paper Field Test
* Develop the 2010 plan to test an electronic EHC instrument
* Broad involvement across Census Bureau- DID - FLD - TMO- DSD - HHES- DSMD - SRD
Primary Goals of 2010 Test
Primary Goals of 2010 Test(1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality
Primary Goals of 2010 Test(1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality
- How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel?
Primary Goals of 2010 Test(1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality
- How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel?
- Especially for income transfer programs
Primary Goals of 2010 Test(1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality
- How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel?
- Especially for income transfer programs
(2) Strong evidence to guide development and refinement before implementation in 2013 as the production SIPP instrument
Basic Design Features (1)
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses
- could have been larger!
- enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses
- could have been larger!
- enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
“High Poverty” Sample Stratum
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses
- could have been larger!
- enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
“High Poverty” Sample Stratum
- to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses- could have been larger!- enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
“High Poverty” Sample Stratum- to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected
State-Based Design
Basic Design Features (1)
8,000 Sample Addresses- could have been larger!- enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
“High Poverty” Sample Stratum- to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected
State-Based Design- likely (possible?) access to admin records
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
CHI Illinois
Wisconsin
620
132
752
excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
CHI Illinois
Wisconsin
620
132
752
excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
DAL Texas
Louisiana
1,382
325
1,707
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
CHI Illinois
Wisconsin
620
132
752
excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
DAL Texas
Louisiana
1,382
325
1,707
LA California 2,407 excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
CHI Illinois
Wisconsin
620
132
752
excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
DAL Texas
Louisiana
1,382
325
1,707
LA California 2,407 excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO
TOTAL N: 7,982
RO State Sample N Notes
BOS Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Rhode Island
204
465
366
120
1,155
covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
NY New York 1,681 covers NYC portion of NY
PHIL Maryland 280
CHI Illinois
Wisconsin
620
132
752
excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
DAL Texas
Louisiana
1,382
325
1,707
LA California 2,407 excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO
TOTAL N: 7,982
TOTAL ADMIN RECS (?) N: 6,736
Basic Design Features (2)
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010- collect data about calendar year 2009
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010- collect data about calendar year 2009
Field Representative training in Dec/Jan
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010- collect data about calendar year 2009
Field Representative training in Dec/Jan- goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time”- evaluation and improvement of training
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010- collect data about calendar year 2009
Field Representative training in Dec/Jan- goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time”- evaluation and improvement of training
Use FRs with a wide range of experience
Basic Design Features (2)
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010- collect data about calendar year 2009
Field Representative training in Dec/Jan- goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time”- evaluation and improvement of training
Use FRs with a wide range of experience
Expand RO involvement
Research Agenda
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
1. Quantify likely cost savings
Special Methods
1. Quantify likely cost savings
- new cost code(s) established- timing interview length- exchange between 12-month recall and 3 interviews per year
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
2. Test the data processing system
Special Methods
2. Test the data processing system
The data collected in this test will be used to develop and test a new data processing system.
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
3. Evaluate data quality
Special Methods
3. Evaluate data quality
- administrative records
Special Methods
3. Evaluate data quality
- administrative records- recording of selected interviews
Special Methods
3. Evaluate data quality
- administrative records- recording of selected interviews- extract SIPP 2008 panel data; compareCY2009 estimates from the two surveys
Special Methods
3. Evaluate data quality
- administrative records- recording of selected interviews- extract SIPP 2008 panel data; compareCY2009 estimates from the two surveys
(Details) Interview Recording
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
- 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
- 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)
- message: “record the next two interviews”
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
- 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)
- message: “record the next two interviews”
- with consent; adults only (21+)
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
- 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)
- message: “record the next two interviews”
- with consent; adults only (21+)
- record R’s entire continuous “turn”
(Details) Interview Recording
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)- 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)- message: “record the next two interviews”- approximately 480 recorded interviews- with consent; adults only (21+)- record R’s entire continuous “turn”- in RO, with the assistance of the ROCS transfer recordings to the secure HQ network
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block- FR debriefing sessions
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block- FR debriefing sessions- recording of selected interviews
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block- FR debriefing sessions- recording of selected interviews
(Details) R Debriefing Block
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials:
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
- very brief question set:
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
- very brief question set: “did you see [X]?”
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
- very brief question set: “did you see [X]?” “did you read [X]?”
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
- very brief question set: “did you see [X]?” “did you read [X]?” “did [X] have [+/-/0] impact?”
(Details) R Debriefing Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
- focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
- very brief question set: “did you see [X]?” “did you read [X]?” “did [X] have [+/-/0] impact?”
- with most convenient respondent
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block- FR debriefing sessions- recording of selected interviews
Special Methods
4. Evaluate “field support” materials(advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
- Respondent debriefing instrument block- FR debriefing sessions- recording of selected interviews
(Details) FR Debriefings
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
- at least one session per RO
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
- at least one session per RO
- with 8-10 FRs/SFRs
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
- at least one session per RO
- with 8-10 FRs/SFRs
- guided 2-3 hour discussion
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
- at least one session per RO
- with 8-10 FRs/SFRs
- guided 2-3 hour discussion
- wide range of issues – e.g., training, EHC procedures, usability, interview “process” issues, etc.
(Details) FR Debriefings
- at (or near) end of field period
- at least one session per RO
- with 8-10 FRs/SFRs
- guided 2-3 hour discussion
- wide range of issues – e.g., training, EHC procedures, usability, interview “process” issues, etc.
- improvements for 2013
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- FR training assessment form
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- FR training assessment form- Trainers’ debriefing
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- FR training assessment form- Trainers’ debriefing
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes:
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes: use of EHC techniques (landmarks, cross-domain referencing, calendar aid)
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes: use of EHC techniques (landmarks, cross-domain referencing, calendar aid)
instrument usability/navigation
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes: use of EHC techniques (landmarks, cross-domain referencing, calendar aid)
instrument usability/navigation FR preparedness/training
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes: use of EHC techniques (landmarks, cross-domain referencing, calendar aid)
instrument usability/navigation FR preparedness/training R interest/engagement
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
- key observation themes: use of EHC techniques (landmarks, cross-domain referencing, calendar aid)
instrument usability/navigation FR preparedness/training R interest/engagement
- R debriefing regarding landmarks
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- FR training assessment form- Trainers’ debriefing
Special Methods
5. Evaluate FR training
- recording of selected interviews- certification (and other) testing- HQ (and RO) training observation- HQ (and RO) interview observation- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- FR training assessment form- Trainers’ debriefing
(Details) FR Feedback Block
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)- brief set of Qs about:
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)- brief set of Qs about:
use of EHC methods (domains; success)
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)- brief set of Qs about:
use of EHC methods (domains; success)
EHC instrument bugs
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)- brief set of Qs about:
use of EHC methods (domains; success)
EHC instrument bugs perceived +/- R reactions
(Details) FR Feedback Block
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)- brief set of Qs about:
use of EHC methods (domains; success)
EHC instrument bugs perceived +/- R reactions training gaps
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
- HQ (and RO) interview observations
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- item-level notes
Special Methods
6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- item-level notes
(Details) Item-Level Notes
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview
non-calendar sections standarized Q “script”
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills garbled wording
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills garbled wording wrong/missing Qs
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills garbled wording wrong/missing Qs FR “work-arounds”
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills garbled wording wrong/missing Qs FR “work-arounds” missing help screens
(Details) Item-Level Notes
- accessible throughout Blaise interview- FR training will encourage & instruct- focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
wrong/missing fills garbled wording wrong/missing Qs FR “work-arounds” missing help screens confusing/inapp./redundant/etc. Qs
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues(interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHCinteraction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues(interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHCinteraction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues(interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHCinteraction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues(interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHCinteraction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block
Special Methods
7. Identify “interview process” issues(interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHCinteraction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations- FR debriefing sessions- FR feedback instrument block- recording of selected interviews
Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - recording of selected interviews
Special Methods
8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)(instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to accessand use special features of the EHC)
- HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - recording of selected interviews - FR testing sessions at HQ
Summary: Research Agenda
1. Quantify likely cost savings2. Test the data processing system3. Evaluate data quality4. Evaluate “field support” materials5. Evaluate FR training6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”7. Identify “interview process” issues8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
Summary: Research Agenda
Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded- Data quality- Instrument quality- Training quality
Summary: Research Agenda
Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded- Data quality- Instrument quality- Training quality
GOAL: Fully Exploit the Test’s InformationPotential
Summary: Research Agenda
Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded- Data quality- Instrument quality- Training quality
GOAL: Fully Exploit the Test’s InformationPotential
Improvements/Refinements for 2013
What’s Missing from 2010?
What’s Missing from 2010?
- Attrition/mover effects in an annual interview
What’s Missing from 2010?
- Attrition/mover effects in an annual interview
- Year to year data quality - seams between waves of a 12-month reference period interview
What’s Missing from 2010?
- Attrition/mover effects in an annual interview
- Year to year data quality - seams between waves of a 12-month reference period interview
- Wave 2+ instrument and procedures
What’s Missing from 2010?
- Attrition/mover effects in an annual interview
- Year to year data quality - seams between waves of a 12-month reference period interview
- Wave 2+ instrument and procedures
- In Development – 2011 / 2012 Testing Plans
Thanks!
Questions?
contact:Jason.M.Fields@census.gov
top related