Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJodie Cook Modified over 9 years ago
1
Overview of 2010 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
2
“Re-SIPP” Development * Following successful completion of the EHC Paper Field Test
3
“Re-SIPP” Development * Following successful completion of the EHC Paper Field Test * Develop the 2010 plan to test an electronic EHC instrument
4
“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
5
Primary Goals of 2010 Test
6
(1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality
7
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?
8
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
9
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
10
Basic Design Features (1)
11
8,000 Sample Addresses
12
Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY
18
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY
19
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280
20
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280 CHIIllinois Wisconsin 620 132 752 excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO
21
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280 CHIIllinois Wisconsin 620 132 752 excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO DALTexas Louisiana 1,382 325 1,707
22
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280 CHIIllinois Wisconsin 620 132 752 excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO DALTexas Louisiana 1,382 325 1,707 LACalifornia 2,407excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO
23
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280 CHIIllinois Wisconsin 620 132 752 excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO DALTexas Louisiana 1,382 325 1,707 LACalifornia 2,407excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO TOTAL N: 7,982
24
ROStateSample NNotes BOSConnecticut Massachusetts New York Rhode Island 204 465 366 120 1,155 covers upstate (non-NYC) NY NYNew York 1,681covers NYC portion of NY PHILMaryland 280 CHIIllinois Wisconsin 620 132 752 excludes 57 IL addresses in KC-RO DALTexas Louisiana 1,382 325 1,707 LACalifornia 2,407excludes 445 CA addresses in SEA-RO TOTAL N: 7,982 TOTAL ADMIN RECS (?) N: 6,736
25
Basic Design Features (2)
26
Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010
27
Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009
28
Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009 Field Representative training in Dec/Jan
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
Research Agenda
33
1. Quantify likely cost savings
34
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system
35
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality
36
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials
37
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training
38
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
39
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues
40
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
41
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
42
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
43
Special Methods 1. Quantify likely cost savings
44
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
45
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
46
Special Methods 2. Test the data processing system
47
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.
48
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
49
Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality
50
Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality - administrative records
51
Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality - administrative records - recording of selected interviews
52
Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality - administrative records - recording of selected interviews - extract SIPP 2008 panel data; compare CY2009 estimates from the two surveys
53
Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality - administrative records - recording of selected interviews - extract SIPP 2008 panel data; compare CY2009 estimates from the two surveys
54
(Details) Interview Recording
55
- close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80)
56
(Details) Interview Recording - close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80) - 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb)
57
(Details) Interview Recording - close-to-RO FRs (approximately 80) - 3 recording windows (early Jan, late Jan, mid Feb) - message: “record the next two interviews”
58
(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+)
59
(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”
60
(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
61
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
62
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid)
63
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block
64
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block - FR debriefing sessions
65
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block - FR debriefing sessions - recording of selected interviews
66
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block - FR debriefing sessions - recording of selected interviews
67
(Details) R Debriefing Block
68
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
69
(Details) R Debriefing Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - focus on “field support” materials:
70
(Details) R Debriefing Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid
71
(Details) R Debriefing Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - focus on “field support” materials: advance letter, brochure, calendar aid - very brief question set:
72
(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]?”
73
(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]?”
74
(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?”
75
(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
76
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block - FR debriefing sessions - recording of selected interviews
77
Special Methods 4. Evaluate “field support” materials (advance letter, brochure, calendar aid) - Respondent debriefing instrument block - FR debriefing sessions - recording of selected interviews
78
(Details) FR Debriefings
79
- at (or near) end of field period
80
(Details) FR Debriefings - at (or near) end of field period - at least one session per RO
81
(Details) FR Debriefings - at (or near) end of field period - at least one session per RO - with 8-10 FRs/SFRs
82
(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
83
(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.
84
(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
85
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
86
Special Methods 5. Evaluate FR training
87
Special Methods 5. Evaluate FR training - recording of selected interviews
88
Special Methods 5. Evaluate FR training - recording of selected interviews - certification (and other) testing
89
Special Methods 5. Evaluate FR training - recording of selected interviews - certification (and other) testing - HQ (and RO) training observation
90
Special Methods 5. Evaluate FR training - recording of selected interviews - certification (and other) testing - HQ (and RO) training observation - HQ (and RO) interview observation
91
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
92
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
93
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
94
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
95
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
96
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations
97
- intensive HQ/RO observation of field test
98
(Details) HQ/RO Interview Observations - intensive HQ/RO observation of field test - key observation themes:
99
(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)
100
(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
101
(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
102
(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
103
(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
104
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
105
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
106
(Details) FR Feedback Block
107
- at end of interview (status=“complete”)
108
(Details) FR Feedback Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - brief set of Qs about:
109
(Details) FR Feedback Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - brief set of Qs about: use of EHC methods (domains; success)
110
(Details) FR Feedback Block - at end of interview (status=“complete”) - brief set of Qs about: use of EHC methods (domains; success) EHC instrument bugs
111
(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
112
(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
113
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
114
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”
115
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” - HQ (and RO) interview observations
116
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions
117
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block
118
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - item-level notes
119
Special Methods 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - item-level notes
120
(Details) Item-Level Notes
121
- accessible throughout Blaise interview
122
(Details) Item-Level Notes - accessible throughout Blaise interview non-calendar sections standarized Q “script”
123
(Details) Item-Level Notes - accessible throughout Blaise interview - FR training will encourage & instruct
124
(Details) Item-Level Notes - accessible throughout Blaise interview - FR training will encourage & instruct - focus on “bugs” – instrument not working as planned, e.g.:
125
(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
126
(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
127
(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
128
(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”
129
(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
130
(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
131
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
132
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues
133
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues (interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHC interaction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs)
134
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues (interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHC interaction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs) - HQ (and RO) interview observations
135
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues (interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHC interaction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions
136
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues (interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHC interaction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block
137
Special Methods 7. Identify “interview process” issues (interview “flow,” R interest/engagement, EHC interaction, mix of structured/unstructured Qs) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - recording of selected interviews
138
Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?
139
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and use special features of the EHC)
140
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and use special features of the EHC) - HQ (and RO) interview observations
141
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and use special features of the EHC) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions
142
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and use special features of the EHC) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block
143
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and use special features of the EHC) - HQ (and RO) interview observations - FR debriefing sessions - FR feedback instrument block - recording of selected interviews
144
Special Methods 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) (instrument navigation, FRs’ ability to access and 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
145
Summary: Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)
146
Summary: Research Agenda Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded - Data quality - Instrument quality - Training quality
147
Summary: Research Agenda Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded - Data quality - Instrument quality - Training quality GOAL: Fully Exploit the Test’s Information Potential
148
Summary: Research Agenda Lots of Extra “Stuff” – 2010 Test is Loaded - Data quality - Instrument quality - Training quality GOAL: Fully Exploit the Test’s Information Potential Improvements/Refinements for 2013
149
What’s Missing from 2010?
150
- Attrition/mover effects in an annual interview
151
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
152
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
153
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
154
Thanks! Questions? contact: Jason.M.Fields@census.gov
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.