Measuring undercounts for hard-to-survey groups

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139381635.005

3 - Measuring undercounts for hard-to-survey groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2014

Edited by

Kirk M. Wolter and

Mary H. Mulry: Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Roger Tourangeau: Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards: Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson: Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter: Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates: Affiliation:
US Census Bureau

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Measuring census undercount is an important way of gaining insight about subpopulations that are hard to survey. Although such groups may be a relatively small proportion of the population, they contribute disproportionately to the overall undercount. Several methods are available for measuring census undercounts, so countries are able to choose the one that best suits their situation. The methods for estimating net undercount include post-enumeration surveys, demographic analysis, administrative record matches, and reverse record checks. Countries use these methods to make population estimates that are thought to be more accurate than the census; this estimate is then compared to the census count to give an estimate of the net undercount.

The methods have different data requirements, so not every country has the data needed to apply each one. Even when such data exist, some countries have privacy and confidentiality restrictions on how the data are used. Therefore, not all methods can be applied in all countries. Demographic analysis uses vital records in aggregate calculations. Administrative record matches and reverse record checks require high-quality records systems and laws that permit their use to measure undercounts. A post-enumeration survey is a second enumeration implemented on a sample basis after a census and then matched to the census on a case-by-case basis. One advantage of a post-enumeration survey is that is does not depend on the availability of an administrative or vital records system. Even if such records are available, their quality and the characteristics of individuals that they contain are not issues when a post-enumeration survey is done. Therefore, the method may be applied in developed or developing countries.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Hard-to-Survey Populations , pp. 37 - 57

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381635.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, O. (2009). 2011 UK Census coverage assessment and adjustment methodology. Population Trends, 137, 25–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). 2011 Census of Population and Housing – Details of Undercount. Report 2940.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar

Ayhan, H. Ö., & Ekni, S. (2003). Coverage error in population censuses: The case of Turkey. Survey Methodology, 29(2), 155–65.Google Scholar

Bell, W. (1993). Using information from demographic analysis in post-enumeration survey estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(3), 1106–18.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brass, W. (1996). Demographic data analysis in less developed countries: 1946–1996. Population Studies, 50(3), 451–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chandrasekar, C., & Deming, W. E. (1949). On a method of estimating birth and death rates and the extent of registration. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44(1), 101–15.Google Scholar

Childers, D., & Hogan, H. (1983). Census experimental match studies. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 173–76). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Coale, A. J. (1955). The population of the United States in 1950 classified by age, sex, and color – a revision of census figures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50(1), 16–54.Google Scholar

Diffendal, G. (1986). CPS-Census Retrospective Study. Statistical Methods and Survey Methodology Research Report RR86-13. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Fay, R. A., Passel, J. S., Robinson, J. G., & Cowan, C. (1988). The Coverage of the Population in the 1980 Census. Evaluation and Research Report PHC80-E4. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

German Federal Statistics Office (2013). 2011 Census: 80.2 million inhabitants lived in Germany on 9 May 2011. Press release 188/2013-05-31, Weisbaden, Germany: German Federal Statistics Office.Google Scholar

Harala, R., & Tammilehto-Luode, M. (1999). GIS and register-based population census. In Alho, J. (ed.), Statistics, Registries, and Science (pp. 55–72). Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar

Hedrich, A., Collinson, J., & Rhoads, F. (1939). Comparison of birth tests by several methods in Georgia and Maryland. Vital Statistics – Special Reports, 7(60), 245–49.Google Scholar

Hendriks, C. (2012). Input data quality in register based statistics – the Norwegian experience. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings (pp. 1473–80). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Hogan, H. (1993). The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: operations and results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 29(3), 1047–60.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hogan, H. (2003). Accuracy and coverage evaluation: theory and design. Survey Methodology, 29(2), 129–38.Google Scholar

Judson, D. H. (2000). The Statistical Administrative Records System: System Design, Successes, and Challenges. Paper presented at the NISS/Telcordia Data Quality Conference, Morristown, NJ, November, 2000.

Keller, A., & Fox, T. (2012). Components of Census Coverage for the Household Population in the United States. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-04. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Kerr, D. (1998). Alternate Methodologies in the Evaluation of Census Coverage: Canada, the United States, Britain and Australia. Catalogue number 91F0015MPF-Number 005. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar

Konicki, S. (2012). Adjustment for Correlation Bias. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-11. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Leggieri, C., Pistiner, A., & Farber, J. (2002). Methods for conducting an administrative records experiment in Census 2000. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 2709–13). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Long, J., Robinson, G., & Gibson, C. (2003). Setting the standard for comparison: census accuracy from 1940 to 2000. In 2003 Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings (pp. 2515–24). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Marks, E., Seltzer, W., & Krotki, K. (1974). Population Growth Estimation. New York: The Population Council.Google Scholar

Marks, E., & Waksberg, J. (1966). Evaluation of coverage in the 1960 Census of Population through case-by-case checking. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Social Statistics Section (pp. 62–70). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Mule, T. (2012). Summary of Estimates of Coverage for Persons in the United States. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-01. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Mulry, M. (2007). Summary of accuracy and coverage evaluation for Census 2000. Journal of Official Statistics, 23(3), 345–70.Google Scholar

Mulry, M. (2011). Post-enumeration survey. In Anderson, M., Citro, C., & Salvo, J. J. (eds.), Encyclopedia of U. S. Census (2nd edn.): From the Constitution to the American Community Survey (pp. 339–43). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar

Mulry, M., Bean, S., Bauder, D., Mule, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Evaluation of census duplication using administrative records. Journal of Official Statistics, 22(4), 655–79.Google Scholar

Mulry, M., & Bell, W. (2008). Fundamental Issues with Reverse Record Check Methodology for Census Coverage Evaluation in the U.S. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #A-30. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Mulry, M., & Cantwell, P. (2010). Overview of the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Program and its evaluations. Chance, 46(3), 46–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mulry, M., & Dajani, A. (1989). The forward trace study. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 675–80). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Mulry, M., and Spencer, B. (1991). Total error in PES estimates of population. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86(4), 839–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Myrskyla, P. (1991). Census by questionnaire – census by registers and administrative records: the Finnish experience. Journal of Official Statistics, 7(4), 457–74.Google Scholar

Olson, D. (2012). Net Coverage Comparison with Post-Stratification. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-12. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Price, D. (1947). A check on underenumeration in the 1940 Census. American Sociological Review, 12(1), 44–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rastogia, S., & O’Hara, A. (2012). 2010 Census Match Study. 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series, Report No. 247. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Redfern, P. (1986). Which countries will follow the Scandinavian lead in taking a register-based census?Journal of Official Statistics, 2(4), 415–24.Google Scholar PubMed

Robinson, J. G. (2001). ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results. Executive Steering Committee for ACE Policy II, Report No. 1. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. G., Ahmed, B., Das Gupta, P., & Woodrow, K. A. (1993). Estimation of population coverage in the 1990 United States Census based on demographic analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(3), 1061–79.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Royce, D. (1992). Incorporating estimates of census coverage error into the Canadian Population Estimates Program. In Proceedings of the 1992 Annual Research Conference (pp. 18–26). Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Siegel, J., & Zelnik, M. (1966). An evaluation of coverage in the 1960 census of population by techniques of demographic analysis and by composite methods. In Joint Statistical Meetings Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 71–85). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Statistics Canada. (2007). 2006 Census Technical Report: Coverage. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar

Statistics Finland (2004). Use of Registers and Administrative Data Sources for Statistical Purposes – Best Practices in Statistics Finland. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar

Sweet, E. (1997). Using administrative records persons in the 1996 Community Census Test. In Proceedings of American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 416–21). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Tracey, W. (1931). Reprinted from Dominion of Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Seventh Census of Canada, 1931 (vol. II), Census Monograph No. 3. Ottawa, Ontario: Cloutier.

Turkish Statistical Institute. (2012). The 2011 Population and Housing Census of Turkey. Working Paper 18. UNECE-Eurostat Expert Group Meeting on Censuses Using Registers, Geneva, 22–23 May 2012. Geneva: UN Economic Commission for Europe.Google Scholar

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1964). Record Check Studies of Population Coverage. Series ER 60, No.2. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1974). Estimates of Coverage of Population by Sex, Race, and Age: Demographic Analysis. Census Population and Housing: 1970 Evaluation and Research Program, PHC(E)-4. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

US Bureau of the Census. (1960). The Post-Enumeration Survey: 1950. Technical Paper No. 4. US Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The Development and Sensitivity Analysis of the 2010 Demographic Analysis Estimates. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar

US Census Bureau. (2012). Documentation for the Revised 2010 Demographic Analysis Middle Series Estimates. Washington, DC: author.Google Scholar

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2006). Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations for the 2010 Censuses of Housing and Population. Report ECE/CES/STAT/NONE/2006/4. Geneva:Author.Google Scholar

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2010). Report of the Joint UNECE/Eurostat Expert Group Meeting on Register-Based Censuses (The Hague, The Netherlands, 10–11 May 2010). Report ECE/CES/2010/49. Geneva: Author.Google Scholar

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2012). Report of the Joint UNECE/Eurostat Expert Group Meeting on Register-Based Censuses (Geneva, Switzerland, 22–23 May 2012). Geneva: Author.Google Scholar

United Nations Secretariat. (2009). Final Report of the United Nations Regional Workshop on the 2010 World Programme on Population and Housing Censuses: Census Evaluation and Post-Enumeration Surveys (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 14–18 September 2009). New York: Author.Google Scholar

United Nations Secretariat. (2010a). Post-Enumeration Survey Operations Guidelines. New York: Author.Google Scholar

United Nations Secretariat. (2010b). United Nations Regional Workshop on the 2010 World Programme on Population and Housing Censuses: Census Evaluation and Post-Enumeration Surveys (Bangkok, Thailand, 10–14 May 2010). New York: Author.Google Scholar

Valente, P. (2010). Census taking in Europe: how are populations counted in 2010?Population & Societies, 457. Paris: Institut National d’Études Démographiques.Google Scholar

Whitford, D., & Banda, J. (2001). Post-Enumeration Surveys: Are They Worth It? ESA/STAT/AC.84/13. New York: United Nations Secretariat.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.