A City-Based Design That Attempts to Improve National Representativeness of Asians

Open access

Abstract

This article describes a case study on the potential of using smaller geographical units in an area probability design, and reports the challenges of collecting a nationally representative sample for this hard-to-reach population. The Census Integrated Communications Program Evaluation (CICPE) was designed to evaluate the promotional campaign’s effect on Decennial Census participation for six race/ethnicity groups of interest. A nationally representative Core sample was designed to collect interviews for Hispanics, non-Hispanic African-Americans, and non- Hispanic Whites. However, it was impractical to include the rarer Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) populations in the Core design. For the Asian sample, we designed a separate area probability sample.

Traditional area probability sampling designs use counties or metropolitan areas as first-stage units, but smaller geographical units can better target hard-to-reach populations. The CICPE Asian sample used cities as the first-stage units.

References

  • Barnes, J. and Bennett, C. (2002). The Asian Population: 2000, a Census 2000 Brief. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-16.pdf (accessed December 2013).

  • Curtin, L., Mohadjer, L., Dohrmann, S., Kruszan-Moran, D., Mirel, L., Carroll, M., Hirsch, R., Burt, V., and Johnson, C. (2013). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Sample Design, 2007-2010, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, Number 160. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_160.pdf (accessed December 2013).

  • Datta, A., Yan, T., Evans, D., Pedlow, S., Spencer, B., and Bautista, R. (2012). The 2010 Census Integrated Communications Program Evaluation (CICPE) Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ 2010census/pdf/2010_Census_ICP_Evaluation.pdf (accessed December 2013).

  • Davern, M., McAlpine, D., Ziegenfuss, J., and Beebe, T. (2007). Are Surname Telephone Oversamples an Efficient Way to Better Understand the Health and Healthcare of Minority Group Members? Medical Care, 45, 1098-1104.

  • Heeringa, S., Wagner, J., Torres, M., Duan, N., Adams, T., and Berglund, P. (2004). Sample Designs and Sampling Methods for the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 221-240, DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/mpr.179.

  • Hoeffel, E., Rastogi, S., Kim, M.O., and Shahid, H. (2012). The Asian Population: 2010, a Census 2010 Brief. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf (accessed December 2013).

  • Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.

  • Lohr, S. (2009). Sampling: Design and Analysis (Second Edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

  • Moore, W., Pedlow, S., Krishnamurty, P., and Wolter, K. (2000). The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) Technical Sampling Report. Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/nls/ nlsy97techsamp.pdf (accessed December 2013).

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Profile America Facts for Features, Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month: May 2011. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff06.html (accessed December 2013).

  • Wolter, K., Calder, B., Malthouse, E., Murphy, S., Pedlow, S., and Porras, J. (2002). Census 2000 Evaluation: Partnership and Marketing Program Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/ D.1.PDF (accessed December 2013).

Journal of Official Statistics

The Journal of Statistics Sweden

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.411
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.776

CiteScore 2016: 0.63

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.710
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.975

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 30 30 18
PDF Downloads 8 8 3