The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) Content Test Questions on International Migration: Improving Data on the U.S. Foreign-Born Dean H. Judson For presentation at the Conference of European Statisticians, Edinburgh, Scotland, 20-22 November, 2006
24
Embed
The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) Content Test Questions on International Migration: Improving Data on the U.S. Foreign-Born Dean H. Judson For.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) Content Test Questions on
International Migration:
Improving Data on the U.S. Foreign-Born
Dean H. Judson
For presentation at the Conference of European Statisticians, Edinburgh, Scotland, 20-22 November, 2006
2
CES Recommendations for 2010 Censuses: Migration Section
“To facilitate and improve the
comparability of data at a regional level
through the selection of a core set of
census topics and the harmonization of
definitions and classifications.”
3
Issues with U.S. Census Bureau International Migration Data
• Difficult to obtain accurate distributions of the foreign born by U.S. citizenship status (citizenversus non-citizen)
• Difficult to estimate time spent in the United States by the foreign born
4
Opportunities for Improvement: The American Community Survey
• An ongoing nationwide survey that collects socioeconomic and housing information and
• replaces the long form componentof the 2010 census
5
Opportunities for Improvement: The ACS Content Test
• 63,000 housing units
• Two versions of question content 1) a control version and 2) a variant, or test, version3) Followup tested consistency of responses
• Changes that met data quality criteria will be implemented in the 2008 ACS, and reflected in the 2009 data release.
6
Improving Data on International Migration: Questions on the ACS
• U.S. Citizenship Status• Year of Entry
Related but Not Discussed Here. . .
• Place of Birth• Residence One Year Ago
7
Motivation for Changes: Citizenship Status• Naturalization: appears to be over-reported in some Census & survey data (Passel and Clark, 1997)
• Year of Naturalization: -item would help to reduce reports of naturalization by non-citizens (by prompting them to examine their answer)
-Year naturalized could be compared with year first entered to determine if respondent had beenin country long enough to naturalize
8
Motivation for Changes: Year of Entry
• Current question does not account for multiple entries (Redstone and Massey, 2004)
• Will better approximate host country experience by asking for first & most recent entry
9
Content Test Questions: Citizenship
Control Variant
10
Content Test Questions: Year of Entry
Control Variant
11
Summary of Question ChangesControl version:
Citizenship -five categories, including “Naturalized Citizen”
-American parent(s)
Year of Entry -Allows for reporting one entry
Test version:
Citizenship-five categories, including “Naturalized Citizen” and write-in for year naturalized
-U.S. Citizen Parents
Year of Entry -Allows for reporting more than one entry (first and most recent)
12
Selection Criteria: U.S. Citizenship Status
• The percent naturalized in the test version will be equal to or less than the percent for the control.
• The percent of non-responses in the test will be equal to or less than the percent for the control.
13
Citizenship Status: Naturalized Citizens
Universe: All nonblank records
5.1 5.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
Citizen by naturalization
Per
cent Test
Control
14
Citizenship Status Nonresponse Rates
1: Universe includes all nonblank records2: Universe includes all test records of naturalized citizens
9.8
2.7 3.00.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Citizenship Status Year of Naturalization
Per
cent Test
Control
1 2
15
Summary: Citizenship Status
Percent Naturalized (Control versus Test)No statistical difference
Item Non-response:-Citizenship Status (Control versus Test) No statistical difference
-Year of NaturalizationTen percent non-response for those naturalized
Conclusion: Asking for year naturalized had no statistically significant effect on Citizenship item
but does have other uses
16
Selection Criteria: Year of Entry
• The net difference rate will be lower in the test version than the control (by period of entry).
• The percent of non-responses for the test version will be equal to or less than the percent for the control.
(for information purposes only. . .)• Determine if the year of entry values provided in the
control version reflect a first year of arrival, most recent year of arrival, or something else.
17
Number of Arrivals: Test versus Follow-up
39.4
60.6
87.2
12.80
20
40
60
80
100
Once More Than Once
Per
cent Test
Followup
47.7(4.6)
47.7(4.6)
Universe: Test cases of population born outside the U.S.
18
Year Entered: Control and Test versus Follow-Up
(Year entered matches exactly)
Universe: All persons born outside the United States.
68.074.0
66.1 65.770.3
63.5 63.5 60.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
2000 orlater
1990 to1999
1980 to1989
Before1980
Per
cent
Test (only or mostrecent arrival)
Control
19Universe: All persons born outside the United States.
80.590.0
84.1 87.783.7 84.1 84.7
94.1
0
20
40
60
80
100
2000 orlater
1990 to1999
1980 to1989
Before1980
Per
cent
Test (only or mostrecent arrival)
Control
Year Entered: Control and Test versus Follow-Up
(Year entered matches within two years)
20
Year of Entry Nonresponse RatesUniverse: Population born outside the United States
23.1 22.6
83.3
21.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Year of First orOnly Arrival
Arrive More thanOnce?
Year of MostRecent Arrival
Per
cent Test
Control
1 21Year of First/Only Arrival
or Year of EntryArrive more than once?
Year of Most Recent Arrival
1: Includes all nonblank records.2: Includes all test cases that marked more than one entry.
21
Universe: All control records indicating more than one arrivalin reinterview.
Years Entered for Persons with Multiple Entries: Follow-up Interviews with Control Group to Check for
Consistency of Year Provided
18.0 18.8
32.6
44.6
25.1
21.3
9.1
30.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50M
atc
hes B
oth
Matc
hes Y
ear
of F
irst A
rriv
al
Matc
hes Y
ear
of Last A
rriv
al
No M
atc
h
Matc
hes B
oth
Matc
hes
Decade/P
eriod
of F
irst A
rriv
al
Matc
hes
Decade/P
eriod
of Last A
rriv
al
No M
atc
h
Pe
rce
nt
Year to Year Same Decade
22
Summary: Year of Entry
Item Consistency
Number of Entries (Test versus Follow-Up):Large difference (48 percentage points) in proportion ofrespondents indicating single versus multiple entries.
Year Entered (Control and Test versus Follow-up):Somewhat consistent reporting of exact year and good reporting within two years.
Year Entered (Control vs. Follow-up, Multiple Entries):Follow-up reporting indicated that the original response more often represented the first year of arrival than the most recent year of arrival.However, exact year matches and same decade reporting was poor,with a sizeable proportion matching neither first nor last arrival.
23
Summary: Year of Entry (Cont.)
Item Non-responseYear Entered (Control versus Test):• Only or first arrival
-No statistical difference -non-response somewhat high for both versions (22 percent).
• Year of most recent arrival-very high non-response (83 percent)
Conclusion
The control version performed better, althoughfollow-up interviewing suggested concerns for thecontrol.
24
Thoughts on lessons learned • The purpose was to better represent the hard-to-
enumerate foreign born• Year of naturalization has analytic value
– Did no harm to the overall question– Can be used for consistency checking– Appears to be well understood
• Year of arrival– Despite successful cognitive testing…– Question form continues to be problematic– Many inconsistent responses