Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-9w8k4 Total loading time: 0.291 Render date: 2022-12-10T05:53:38.734Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Misreporting in rural fertility data: an analysis of husband–wife disagreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

C. Vlassoff
Affiliation:
Department of Demography, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, University of Poona, India
M. Vlassoff
Affiliation:
Department of Demography, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, University of Poona, India

Summary

Two independent, concurrent demographic surveys in rural India, one male, the other female, were used to examine misreporting of ever-born children among 223 couples common to both samples. Husband-wife disagreements were checked in detail and characteristics of the errors and of the misreporters themselves were analysed. ‘Forgetting’ of dead children was the main cause of mistaken reporting. Another type of error was found to be sex-related: men, but not women, confused fetal deaths with live births. Of the various correlates of male misreporting tested, only age appeared to be a determining factor. On the other hand, traditional attitudes and overall response reliability were more important than age in explaining female errors. No significant relationships between faulty reporting and socio-economic status or family size were established. Various suggestions are made for minimizing fertility misreporting in surveys of rural, illiterate populations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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.)

References

Bogue, D.G. & Bogue, E.J. (1970) Techniques of Pregnancy History Analysis. University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brass, W. & Coale, A.J. (1968) Methods of analysis and estimation. In: The Demography of Tropical Africa, pp. 88142. Edited by Brass, W. et al. . Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brass, W. (1975) Methods for Estimating Fertility and Mortality from Limited and Defective Data. Laboratories for Population Statistics, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. & Moffett, J. (1974) A comparison of results obtained by men and women interviewers in a fertility survey. J. biosoc. Sci. 6, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, A. & Prince, E. (1975) The repeatability of data obtained in a fertility survey. J. biosoc. Sci. 7, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, R. & Takeshita, J.Y. (1969) Family Planning in Taiwan. Princeton University Press, Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poffenberger, T. & Poffenberger, S.B. (1973) The social psychology of fertility behaviour in a village in India. In: Psychological Perspectives on Population, pp. 135162. Edited by Fawcett, J. T.. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Potter, J.E. (1977) Methods of detecting errors in WFS data: an application to the Fiji Fertility Study, Part 2. In: International Population Conference, Mexico 1977, Vol. 1, pp. 101120. IUSSP, Liege.Google Scholar
Shryock, H.S., Siegel, J.S. et al. . (1973) The Methods and Materials of Demography, Vol. 2, Government Printing Office, Washington.Google Scholar
Srivastava, M.L. (1976) Utility of male and female investigators in surveys related to fertility and family planning—a pilot study. J. Family Welfare, 22, 9.Google Scholar
Van De Walle, E. (1968) Characteristics of African demographic data. In: The Demography of Tropical Africa, pp. 1287. Edited by Brass, W. et al. . Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Vlassoff, C. (1978) The Significance of Cultural Tradition for Contraceptive Change: A Study of Rural Indian Women. Ph.D. thesis. University of Poona, Poona.Google Scholar
Wyon, J.B. & Gordon, J.E. (1971) The Khanna Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Misreporting in rural fertility data: an analysis of husband–wife disagreement
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Misreporting in rural fertility data: an analysis of husband–wife disagreement
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Misreporting in rural fertility data: an analysis of husband–wife disagreement
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *