Pursuant to Local Laws 126, 127, and 128 of 2016, certain demographic data is collected voluntarily and anonymously by persons voluntarily seeking social services. This data can be used by agencies and the public to better understand the demographic makeup of client populations and to better understand and serve residents of all backgrounds and identities. The data presented here has been collected through either electronic form or paper surveys offered at the point of application for services. These surveys are anonymous. Each record represents an anonymized demographic profile of an individual applicant for social services, disaggregated by response option, agency, and program. Response options include information regarding ancestry, race, primary and secondary languages, English proficiency, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Idiosyncrasies or Limitations: Note that while the dataset contains the total number of individuals who have identified their ancestry or languages spoke, because such data is collected anonymously, there may be instances of a single individual completing multiple voluntary surveys. Additionally, the survey being both voluntary and anonymous has advantages as well as disadvantages: it increases the likelihood of full and honest answers, but since it is not connected to the individual case, it does not directly inform delivery of services to the applicant. The paper and online versions of the survey ask the same questions but free-form text is handled differently. Free-form text fields are expected to be entered in English although the form is available in several languages. Surveys are presented in 11 languages. Paper Surveys 1. Are optional 2. Survey taker is expected to specify agency that provides service 2. Survey taker can skip or elect not to answer questions 3. Invalid/unreadable data may be entered for survey date or date may be skipped 4. OCRing of free-form tet fields may fail. 5. Analytical value of free-form text answers is unclear Online Survey 1. Are optional 2. Agency is defaulted based on the URL 3. Some questions must be answered 4. Date of survey is automated

Professional organizations in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) can use demographic data to quantify recruitment and retention (R&R) of underrepresented groups within their memberships. However, variation in the types of demographic data collected can influence the targeting and perceived impacts of R&R efforts - e.g., giving false signals of R&R for some groups. We obtained demographic surveys from 73 U.S.-affiliated STEM organizations, collectively representing 712,000 members and conference-attendees. We found large differences in the demographic categories surveyed (e.g., disability status, sexual orientation) and the available response options. These discrepancies indicate a lack of consensus regarding the demographic groups that should be recognized and, for groups that are omitted from surveys, an inability of organizations to prioritize and evaluate R&R initiatives. Aligning inclusive demographic surveys across organizations will provide baseline data that can be used to target and evaluate R&R initiatives to better serve underrepresented groups throughout STEM. Methods We surveyed 164 STEM organizations (73 responses, rate = 44.5%) between December 2020 and July 2021 with the goal of understanding what demographic data each organization collects from its constituents (i.e., members and conference-attendees) and how the data are used. Organizations were sourced from a list of professional societies affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, (n = 156) or from social media (n = 8). The survey was sent to the elected leadership and management firms for each organization, and follow-up reminders were sent after one month. The responding organizations represented a wide range of fields: 31 life science organizations (157,000 constituents), 5 mathematics organizations (93,000 constituents), 16 physical science organizations (207,000 constituents), 7 technology organizations (124,000 constituents), and 14 multi-disciplinary organizations spanning multiple branches of STEM (131,000 constituents). A list of the responding organizations is available in the Supplementary Materials. Based on the AAAS-affiliated recruitment of the organizations and the similar distribution of constituencies across STEM fields, we conclude that the responding organizations are a representative cross-section of the most prominent STEM organizations in the U.S. Each organization was asked about the demographic information they collect from their constituents, the response rates to their surveys, and how the data were used. Survey description The following questions are written as presented to the participating organizations. Question 1: What is the name of your STEM organization? Question 2: Does your organization collect demographic data from your membership and/or meeting attendees? Question 3: When was your organization’s most recent demographic survey (approximate year)? Question 4: We would like to know the categories of demographic information collected by your organization. You may answer this question by either uploading a blank copy of your organization’s survey (linked provided in online version of this survey) OR by completing a short series of questions. Question 5: On the most recent demographic survey or questionnaire, what categories of information were collected? (Please select all that apply)

Disability status Gender identity (e.g., male, female, non-binary) Marital/Family status Racial and ethnic group Religion Sex Sexual orientation Veteran status Other (please provide)

Question 6: For each of the categories selected in Question 5, what options were provided for survey participants to select? Question 7: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about data privacy and confidentiality? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 8: Did the most recent demographic survey provide a statement about intended data use? If yes, please provide the statement. Question 9: Who maintains the demographic data collected by your organization? (e.g., contracted third party, organization executives) Question 10: How has your organization used members’ demographic data in the last five years? Examples: monitoring temporal changes in demographic diversity, publishing diversity data products, planning conferences, contributing to third-party researchers. Question 11: What is the size of your organization (number of members or number of attendees at recent meetings)? Question 12: What was the response rate (%) for your organization’s most recent demographic survey? *Organizations were also able to upload a copy of their demographics survey instead of responding to Questions 5-8. If so, the uploaded survey was used (by the study authors) to evaluate Questions 5-8.

Includes questions written in Spanish pertaining to: race & ethnicitygenderagetribal affiliationdisabilityincomelanguagelocation

The questions list for questionnaire – Demographics and basic work characteristics of survey respondents

Includes questions pertaining to: race & ethnicitygenderpreferred pronounssexual orientationagetribal affiliationdisabilityincomehouseholdlanguagelocationeducationhousing statustransportationemployment status

Abstract

The 1998 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) is the latest in a series of national-level population and health surveys conducted in Ghana and it is part of the worldwide MEASURE DHS+ Project, designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The primary objective of the 1998 GDHS is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behaviour, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, and the utilisation of maternal and child health services in Ghana. Additional data on knowledge of HIV/AIDS are also provided. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning and monitoring and evaluation of programmes at both the national and local government levels.

The long-term objectives of the survey include strengthening the technical capacity of the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) to plan, conduct, process, and analyse the results of complex national sample surveys. Moreover, the 1998 GDHS provides comparable data for long-term trend analyses within Ghana, since it is the third in a series of demographic and health surveys implemented by the same organisation, using similar data collection procedures. The GDHS also contributes to the ever-growing international database on demographic and health-related variables.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The major focus of the 1998 GDHS was to provide updated estimates of important population and health indicators including fertility and mortality rates for the country as a whole and for urban and rural areas separately. In addition, the sample was designed to provide estimates of key variables for the ten regions in the country.

The list of Enumeration Areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1984 Population Census was used as the sampling frame for the survey. The 1998 GDHS is based on a two-stage stratified nationally representative sample of households. At the first stage of sampling, 400 EAs were selected using systematic sampling with probability proportional to size (PPS-Method). The selected EAs comprised 138 in the urban areas and 262 in the rural areas. A complete household listing operation was then carried out in all the selected EAs to provide a sampling frame for the second stage selection of households. At the second stage of sampling, a systematic sample of 15 households per EA was selected in all regions, except in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East Regions. In order to obtain adequate numbers of households to provide reliable estimates of key demographic and health variables in these three regions, the number of households in each selected EA in the Northern, Upper West and Upper East regions was increased to 20. The sample was weighted to adjust for over sampling in the three northern regions (Northern, Upper East and Upper West), in relation to the other regions. Sample weights were used to compensate for the unequal probability of selection between geographically defined strata.

The survey was designed to obtain completed interviews of 4,500 women age 15-49. In addition, all males age 15-59 in every third selected household were interviewed, to obtain a target of 1,500 men. In order to take cognisance of non-response, a total of 6,375 households nation-wide were selected.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three types of questionnaires were used in the GDHS: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire. These questionnaires were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ programme and were designed to provide information needed by health and family planning programme managers and policy makers. The questionnaires were adapted to the situation in Ghana and a number of questions pertaining to on-going health and family planning programmes were added. These questionnaires were developed in English and translated into five major local languages (Akan, Ga, Ewe, Hausa, and Dagbani).

The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in a selected household and to collect information on the socio-economic status of the household. The first part of the Household Questionnaire collected information on the relationship to the household head, residence, sex, age, marital status, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. For this purpose, all women age 15-49, and all men age 15-59 in every third household, whether usual residents of a selected household or visitors who slept in a selected household the night before the interview, were deemed eligible and interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also provides basic demographic data for Ghanaian households. The second part of the Household Questionnaire contained questions on the dwelling unit, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water and the type of toilet facilities, and on the ownership of a variety of consumer goods.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information on the following topics: respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunisation and health, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics, women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs, as well as anthropometric measurements of children and mothers.

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, as well as knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STDs.

Response rate

A total of 6,375 households were selected for the GDHS sample. Of these, 6,055 were occupied. Interviews were completed for 6,003 households, which represent 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 4,970 eligible women from these households and 1,596 eligible men from every third household were identified for the individual interviews. Interviews were successfully completed for 4,843 women or 97 percent and 1,546 men or 97 percent. The principal reason for nonresponse among individual women and men was the failure of interviewers to find them at home despite repeated callbacks.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of shortfalls made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 1998 GDHS to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 1998 GDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 1998 GDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 1998 GDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

Abstract

The Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2008 has been conducted by the Haccettepe University Institute of Population Studies in collaboration with the Ministry of health General Directorate of Mother and Child Health and Family Planning and Undersecretary of State Planning Organization. The Turkey Demographic and Health Survey 2008 has been financed the scientific and Technological research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the support program for Research Projects of Public Institutions.

The primary objective of the Turkey DHS 2008 is to provide data on fertility, contraceptive methods, maternal and child health. Detailed information on these issues is obtained through questionnaires, filled by face-to face interviews with ever-married women in reproductive ages (15-49).

Another important objective of the survey, with aims to contribute to the knowledge on population and health as well, is to maintain the flow of information for the related organizations in Turkey on the Turkish demographic structure and change in the absence of reliable vital registration system and ascertain the continuity of data on demographic and health necessary for sustainable development in the absence of a reliable vital registration system. In terms of survey methodology and content, the Turkey DHS 2008 is comparable with the previous demographic surveys in Turkey (MEASURE DHS+).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Children under age of five

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Two main types of questionnaires were used to collect the TDHS-2008 data: a) The Household Questionnaire; b) The Individual Questionnaire for Ever-Married Women of Reproductive Ages.

The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model "A" Questionnaire, which was designed for the DHS program for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. Additions, deletions and modifications were made to the DHS model questionnaire in order to collect information particularly relevant to Turkey. Attention also was paid to ensuring the comparability of the DHS-2008 findings with previous demographic surveys carried out by the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. In the process of designing the TDHS-2003 questionnaires, national and international population and health agencies were consulted for their comments.

a) The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members of and visitors to the selected households and to collect information relating to the socioeconomic position of the households. In the first part of the Household Questionnaire, basic information was collected on the age, sex, educational attainment, recent migration and residential mobility, employment, marital status, and relationship to the head of household of each person listed as a household member or visitor. The objective of the first part of the Household Questionnaire was to obtain the information needed to identify women who were eligible for the individual interview as well as to provide basic demographic data for Turkish households. The second part of the Household Questionnaire included questions on never married women age 15-49, with the objective of collecting information on basic background characteristics of women in this age group. The third section was used to collect information on the welfare of the elderly people. The final section of the Household Questionnaire was used to collect information on housing characteristics, such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, and the type of toilet facilities, and on the household's ownership of a variety of consumer goods. This section also incorporated a module that was only administered in Istanbul metropolitan households, on house ownership, use of municipal facilities and the like, as well as a module that was used to collect information, from one-half of households, on salt iodization. In households where salt was present, test kits were used to test whether the salt used in the household was fortified with potassium iodine or potassium iodate, i.e. whether salt was iodized.

b) The Individual Questionnaire for ever-married women obtained information on the following subjects: - Background characteristics - Reproduction - Marriage - Knowledge and use of family planning - Maternal care and breastfeeding - Immunization and health - Fertility preferences - Husband's background
- Women's work and status - Sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS - Maternal and child anthropometry.

Cleaning operations

The questionnaires were returned to the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies by the fieldwork teams for data processing as soon as interviews were completed in a province. The office editing staff checked that the questionnaires for all the selected households and eligible respondents were returned from the field.

Abstract

The 2002 Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey (VNDHS 2002) is a nationally representative sample survey of 5,665 ever-married women age 15-49 selected from 205 sample points (clusters) throughout Vietnam. It provides information on levels of fertility, family planning knowledge and use, infant and child mortality, and indicators of maternal and child health. The survey included a Community/ Health Facility Questionnaire that was implemented in each of the sample clusters.

The survey was designed to measure change in reproductive health indicators over the five years since the VNDHS 1997, especially in the 18 provinces that were targeted in the Population and Family Health Project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children. Consequently, all provinces were separated into “project” and “nonproject” groups to permit separate estimates for each. Data collection for the survey took place from 1 October to 21 December 2002.

The Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey 2002 (VNDHS 2002) was the third DHS in Vietnam, with prior surveys implemented in 1988 and 1997. The VNDHS 2002 was carried out in the framework of the activities of the Population and Family Health Project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children (previously the National Committee for Population and Family Planning).

The main objectives of the VNDHS 2002 were to collect up-to-date information on family planning, childhood mortality, and health issues such as breastfeeding practices, pregnancy care, vaccination of children, treatment of common childhood illnesses, and HIV/AIDS, as well as utilization of health and family planning services. The primary objectives of the survey were to estimate changes in family planning use in comparison with the results of the VNDHS 1997, especially on issues in the scope of the project of the Committee for Population, Family and Children.

VNDHS 2002 data confirm the pattern of rapidly declining fertility that was observed in the VNDHS 1997. It also shows a sharp decline in child mortality, as well as a modest increase in contraceptive use. Differences between project and non-project provinces are generally small.

Geographic coverage

The 2002 Vietnam Demographic and Health Survey (VNDHS 2002) is a nationally representative sample survey. The VNDHS 1997 was designed to provide separate estimates for the whole country, urban and rural areas, for 18 project provinces and the remaining nonproject provinces as well. Project provinces refer to 18 focus provinces targeted for the strengthening of their primary health care systems by the Government's Population and Family Health Project to be implemented over a period of seven years, from 1996 to 2002 (At the outset of this project there were 15 focus provinces, which became 18 by the creation of 3 new provinces from the initial set of 15). These provinces were selected according to criteria based on relatively low health and family planning status, no substantial family planning donor presence, and regional spread. These criteria resulted in the selection of the country's poorer provinces. Nine of these provinces have significant proportions of ethnic minorities among their population.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Universe

The population covered by the 2002 VNDHS is defined as the universe of all women age 15-49 in Vietnam.

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample for the VNDHS 2002 was based on that used in the VNDHS 1997, which in turn was a subsample of the 1996 Multi-Round Demographic Survey (MRS), a semi-annual survey of about 243,000 households undertaken regularly by GSO. The MRS sample consisted of 1,590 sample areas known as enumeration areas (EAs) spread throughout the 53 provinces/cities of Vietnam, with 30 EAs in each province. On average, an EA comprises about 150 households. For the VNDHS 1997, a subsample of 205 EAs was selected, with 26 households in each urban EA and 39 households for each rural EA. A total of 7,150 households was selected for the survey. The VNDHS 1997 was designed to provide separate estimates for the whole country, urban and rural areas, for 18 project provinces and the remaining nonproject provinces as well. Because the main objective of the VNDHS 2002 was to measure change in reproductive health indicators over the five years since the VNDHS 1997, the sample design for the VNDHS 2002 was as similar as possible to that of the VNDHS 1997.

Although it would have been ideal to have returned to the same households or at least the same sample points as were selected for the VNDHS 1997, several factors made this undesirable. Revisiting the same households would have held the sample artificially rigid over time and would not allow for newly formed households. This would have conflicted with the other major survey objective, which was to provide up-to-date, representative data for the whole of Vietnam. Revisiting the same sample points that were covered in 1997 was complicated by the fact that the country had conducted a population census in 1999, which allowed for a more representative sample frame.

In order to balance the two main objectives of measuring change and providing representative data, it was decided to select enumeration areas from the 1999 Population Census, but to cover the same communes that were sampled in the VNDHS 1997 and attempt to obtain a sample point as close as possible to that selected in 1997. Consequently, the VNDHS 2002 sample also consisted of 205 sample points and reflects the oversampling in the 20 provinces that fall in the World Bank-supported Population and Family Health Project. The sample was designed to produce about 7,000 completed household interviews and 5,600 completed interviews with ever-married women age 15-49.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

As in the VNDHS 1997, three types of questionnaires were used in the 2002 survey: the Household Questionnaire, the Individual Woman's Questionnaire, and the Community/Health Facility Questionnaire. The first two questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, with additions and modifications made during an ORC Macro staff visit in July 2002. The questionnaires were pretested in two clusters in Hanoi (one in a rural area and another in an urban area). After the pretest and consultation with ORC Macro, the drafts were revised for use in the main survey.

a) The Household Questionnaire was used to enumerate all usual members and visitors in selected households and to collect information on age, sex, education, marital status, and relationship to the head of household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify persons who were eligible for individual interview (i.e. ever-married women age 15-49). In addition, the Household Questionnaire collected information on characteristics of the household such as water source, type of toilet facilities, material used for the floor and roof, and ownership of various durable goods.

b) The Individual Questionnaire was used to collect information on ever-married women aged 15-49 in surveyed households. These women were interviewed on the following topics:
- Respondent's background characteristics (education, residential history, etc.); - Reproductive history; - Contraceptive knowledge and use;
- Antenatal and delivery care; - Infant feeding practices; - Child immunization; - Fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning; - Husband's background characteristics; - Women's work information; and - Knowledge of AIDS.

c) The Community/Health Facility Questionnaire was used to collect information on all communes in which the interviewed women lived and on services offered at the nearest health stations. The Community/Health Facility Questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first two sections collected information from community informants on some characteristics such as the major economic activities of residents, distance from people's residence to civic services and the location of the nearest sources of health care. The last two sections involved visiting the nearest commune health centers and intercommune health centers, if these centers were located within 30 kilometers from the surveyed cluster. For each visited health center, information was collected on the type of health services offered and the number of days services were offered per week; the number of assigned staff and their training; medical equipment and medicines available at the time of the visit.

Cleaning operations

The first stage of data editing was implemented by the field editors soon after each interview. Field editors and team leaders checked the completeness and consistency of all items in the questionnaires. The completed questionnaires were sent to the GSO headquarters in Hanoi by post for data processing. The editing staff of the GSO first checked the questionnaires for completeness. The data were then entered into microcomputers and edited using a software program specially developed for the DHS program, the Census and Survey Processing System, or CSPro. Data were verified on a 100 percent basis, i.e., the data were entered separately twice and the two results were compared and corrected. The data processing and editing staff of the GSO were trained and supervised for two weeks by a data processing specialist from ORC Macro. Office editing and processing activities were initiated immediately after the beginning of the fieldwork and were completed in late December 2002.

Response rate

The results of the household and individual

Abstract

The 2013 Turkey Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS-2013) is a nationally representative sample survey. The primary objective of the TDHS-2013 is to provide data on socioeconomic characteristics of households and women between ages 15-49, fertility, childhood mortality, marriage patterns, family planning, maternal and child health, nutritional status of women and children, and reproductive health. The survey obtained detailed information on these issues from a sample of women of reproductive age (15-49). The TDHS-2013 was designed to produce information in the field of demography and health that to a large extent cannot be obtained from other sources.

Specifically, the objectives of the TDHS-2013 included: - Collecting data at the national level that allows the calculation of some demographic and health indicators, particularly fertility rates and childhood mortality rates, - Obtaining information on direct and indirect factors that determine levels and trends in fertility and childhood mortality, - Measuring the level of contraceptive knowledge and practice by contraceptive method and some background characteristics, i.e., region and urban-rural residence, - Collecting data relative to maternal and child health, including immunizations, antenatal care, and postnatal care, assistance at delivery, and breastfeeding, - Measuring the nutritional status of children under five and women in the reproductive ages, - Collecting data on reproductive-age women about marriage, employment status, and social status

The TDHS-2013 information is intended to provide data to assist policy makers and administrators to evaluate existing programs and to design new strategies for improving demographic, social and health policies in Turkey. Another important purpose of the TDHS-2013 is to sustain the flow of information for the interested organizations in Turkey and abroad on the Turkish population structure in the absence of a reliable and sufficient vital registration system. Additionally, like the TDHS-2008, TDHS-2013 is accepted as a part of the Official Statistic Program.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Children under age of five

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), children age 0-5 years and women age 15-49 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample design and sample size for the TDHS-2013 makes it possible to perform analyses for Turkey as a whole, for urban and rural areas, and for the five demographic regions of the country (West, South, Central, North, and East). The TDHS-2013 sample is of sufficient size to allow for analysis on some of the survey topics at the level of the 12 geographical regions (NUTS 1) which were adopted at the second half of the year 2002 within the context of Turkey’s move to join the European Union.

In the selection of the TDHS-2013 sample, a weighted, multi-stage, stratified cluster sampling approach was used. Sample selection for the TDHS-2013 was undertaken in two stages. The first stage of selection included the selection of blocks as primary sampling units from each strata and this task was requested from the TURKSTAT. The frame for the block selection was prepared using information on the population sizes of settlements obtained from the 2012 Address Based Population Registration System. Settlements with a population of 10,000 and more were defined as “urban”, while settlements with populations less than 10,000 were considered “rural” for purposes of the TDHS-2013 sample design. Systematic selection was used for selecting the blocks; thus settlements were given selection probabilities proportional to their sizes. Therefore more blocks were sampled from larger settlements.

The second stage of sample selection involved the systematic selection of a fixed number of households from each block, after block lists were obtained from TURKSTAT and were updated through a field operation; namely the listing and mapping fieldwork. Twentyfive households were selected as a cluster from urban blocks, and 18 were selected as a cluster from rural blocks. The total number of households selected in TDHS-2013 is 14,490.

The total number of clusters in the TDHS-2013 was set at 642. Block level household lists, each including approximately 100 households, were provided by TURKSTAT, using the National Address Database prepared for municipalities. The block lists provided by TURKSTAT were updated during the listing and mapping activities.

All women at ages 15-49 who usually live in the selected households and/or were present in the household the night before the interview were regarded as eligible for the Women’s Questionnaire and were interviewed. All analysis in this report is based on de facto women.

Note: A more technical and detailed description of the TDHS-2013 sample design, selection and implementation is presented in Appendix B of the final report of the survey.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Two main types of questionnaires were used to collect the TDHS-2013 data: the Household Questionnaire and the Individual Questionnaire for all women of reproductive age. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS core questionnaire. Additions, deletions and modifications were made to the DHS model questionnaire in order to collect information particularly relevant to Turkey. Attention also was paid to ensuring the comparability of the TDHS-2013 findings with previous demographic surveys carried out by the Hacettepe Institute of Population Studies. In the process of designing the TDHS-2013 questionnaires, national and international population and health agencies were consulted for their comments.

The questionnaires were developed in Turkish and translated into English.

Cleaning operations

TDHS-2013 questionnaires were returned to the Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies by the fieldwork teams for data processing as soon as interviews were completed in a province. The office editing staff checked that the questionnaires for all selected households and eligible respondents were returned from the field. A total of 29 data entry staff were trained for data entry activities of the TDHS-2013. The data entry of the TDHS-2013 began in late September 2013 and was completed at the end of January 2014.

The data were entered and edited on microcomputers using the Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) software. CSPro is designed to fulfill the census and survey data processing needs of data-producing organizations worldwide. CSPro is developed by MEASURE partners, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, ICF International’s DHS Program, and SerPro S.A. CSPro allows range, skip, and consistency errors to be detected and corrected at the data entry stage. During the data entry process, 100% verification was performed by entering each questionnaire twice using different data entry operators and comparing the entered data.

Response rate

In all, 14,490 households were selected for the TDHS-2013. At the time of the listing phase of the survey, 12,640 households were considered occupied and, thus, eligible for interview. Of the eligible households, 93 percent (11,794) households were successfully interviewed. The main reasons the field teams were unable to interview some households were because some dwelling units that had been listed were found to be vacant at the time of the interview or the household was away for an extended period.

In the interviewed 11,794 households, 10,840 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview, aged 15-49 and were present in the household on the night before the interview. Interviews were successfully completed with 9,746 of these women (90 percent). Among the eligible women not interviewed in the survey, the principal reason for nonresponse was the failure to find the women at home after repeated visits to the household.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the TDHS-2013 to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the TDHS-2013 is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall

Abstract

The Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) programme, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The primary objective of the 1999 TRCHS was to collect data at the national level (with breakdowns by urban-rural and Mainland-Zanzibar residence wherever warranted) on fertility levels and preferences, family planning use, maternal and child health, breastfeeding practices, nutritional status of young children, childhood mortality levels, knowledge and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS, and the availability of specific health services within the community.1 Related objectives were to produce these results in a timely manner and to ensure that the data were disseminated to a wide audience of potential users in governmental and nongovernmental organisations within and outside Tanzania. The ultimate intent is to use the information to evaluate current programmes and to design new strategies for improving health and family planning services for the people of Tanzania.

Geographic coverage

National. The sample was designed to provide estimates for the whole country, for urban and rural areas separately, and for Zanzibar and, in some cases, Unguja and Pemba separately.

Analysis unit

• Households
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The TRCHS used a three-stage sample design. Overall, 176 census enumeration areas were selected (146 on the Mainland and 30 in Zanzibar) with probability proportional to size on an approximately self-weighting basis on the Mainland, but with oversampling of urban areas and Zanzibar. To reduce costs and maximise the ability to identify trends over time, these enumeration areas were selected from the 357 sample points that were used in the 1996 TDHS, which in turn were selected from the 1988 census frame of enumeration in a two-stage process (first wards/branches and then enumeration areas within wards/branches). Before the data collection, fieldwork teams visited the selected enumeration areas to list all the households. From these lists, households were selected to be interviewed. The sample was designed to provide estimates for the whole country, for urban and rural areas separately, and for Zanzibar and, in some cases, Unguja and Pemba separately. The health facilities component of the TRCHS involved visiting hospitals, health centres, and pharmacies located in areas around the households interviewed. In this way, the data from the two components can be linked and a richer dataset produced.

See detailed sample implementation in the APPENDIX A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The household survey component of the TRCHS involved three questionnaires: 1) a Household Questionnaire, 2) a Women’s Questionnaire for all individual women age 15-49 in the selected households, and 3) a Men’s Questionnaire for all men age 15-59.

The health facilities survey involved six questionnaires: 1) a Community Questionnaire administered to men and women in each selected enumeration area; 2) a Facility Questionnaire; 3) a Facility Inventory; 4) a Service Provider Questionnaire; 5) a Pharmacy Inventory Questionnaire; and 6) a questionnaire for the District Medical Officers.

All these instruments were based on model questionnaires developed for the MEASURE programme, as well as on the questionnaires used in the 1991-92 TDHS, the 1994 TKAP, and the 1996 TDHS. These model questionnaires were adapted for use in Tanzania during meetings with representatives from the Ministry of Health, the University of Dar es Salaam, the Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre, USAID/Tanzania, UNICEF/Tanzania, UNFPA/Tanzania, and other potential data users. The questionnaires and manual were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Kiswahili.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for individual interview and children under five who were to be weighed and measured. Information was also collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, ownership of various consumer goods, and use of iodised salt. Finally, the Household Questionnaire was used to collect some rudimentary information about the extent of child labour.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: · Background characteristics (age, education, religion, type of employment) · Birth history · Knowledge and use of family planning methods · Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care · Breastfeeding and weaning practices · Vaccinations, birth registration, and health of children under age five · Marriage and recent sexual activity · Fertility preferences · Knowledge and behaviour concerning HIV/AIDS.

The Men’s Questionnaire covered most of these same issues, except that it omitted the sections on the detailed reproductive history, maternal health, and child health. The final versions of the English questionnaires are provided in Appendix E.

Before the questionnaires could be finalised, a pretest was done in July 1999 in Kibaha District to assess the viability of the questions, the flow and logical sequence of the skip pattern, and the field organisation. Modifications to the questionnaires, including wording and translations, were made based on lessons drawn from the exercise.

Response rate

In all, 3,826 households were selected for the sample, out of which 3,677 were occupied. Of the households found, 3,615 were interviewed, representing a response rate of 98 percent. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant or in which the inhabitants were not at home despite of several callbacks.

In the interviewed households, a total of 4,118 eligible women (i.e., women age 15-49) were identified for the individual interview, and 4,029 women were actually interviewed, yielding a response rate of 98 percent. A total of 3,792 eligible men (i.e., men age 15-59), were identified for the individual interview, of whom 3,542 were interviewed, representing a response rate of 93 percent. The principal reason for nonresponse among both eligible men and women was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The lower response rate among men than women was due to the more frequent and longer absences of men.

The response rates are lower in urban areas due to longer absence of respondents from their homes. One-member households are more common in urban areas and are more difficult to interview because they keep their houses locked most of the time. In urban settings, neighbours often do not know the whereabouts of such people.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the TRCHS to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the TRCHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the TRCHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the TRCHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (SAMPERR). This module used the Taylor linearisation method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rate

Note: See detailed sampling error calculation in the APPENDIX B

Open Science in (Higher) Education – data of the February 2017 survey

This data set contains:

• Full raw (anonymised) data set (completed responses) of Open Science in (Higher) Education February 2017 survey. Data are in xlsx and sav format.
• Survey questionnaires with variables and settings (German original and English translation) in pdf. The English questionnaire was not used in the February 2017 survey, but only serves as translation.
• Readme file (txt)

Survey structure

The survey includes 24 questions and its structure can be separated in five major themes: material used in courses (5), OER awareness, usage and development (6), collaborative tools used in courses (2), assessment and participation options (5), demographics (4). The last two questions include an open text questions about general issues on the topics and singular open education experiences, and a request on forwarding the respondent’s e-mail address for further questionings. The online survey was created with Limesurvey[1]. Several questions include filters, i.e. these questions were only shown if a participants did choose a specific answer beforehand ([n/a] in Excel file, [.] In SPSS).

Demographic questions

Demographic questions asked about the current position, the discipline, birth year and gender. The classification of research disciplines was adapted to general disciplines at German higher education institutions. As we wanted to have a broad classification, we summarised several disciplines and came up with the following list, including the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Natural Sciences
• Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences
• Economics
• Law
• Medicine
• Computer Sciences, Engineering, Technics
• Other

The current job position classification was also chosen according to common positions in Germany, including positions with a teaching responsibility at higher education institutions. Here, we also included the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification:

• Professor
• Special education teacher
• Academic/scientific assistant or research fellow (research and teaching)
• Academic staff (teaching)
• Student assistant
• Other

We chose to have a free text (numerical) for asking about a respondent’s year of birth because we did not want to pre-classify respondents’ age intervals. It leaves us options to have different analysis on answers and possible correlations to the respondents’ age. Asking about the country was left out as the survey was designed for academics in Germany.

Remark on OER question

Data from earlier surveys revealed that academics suffer confusion about the proper definition of OER^[2]. Some seem to understand OER as free resources, or only refer to open source software (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 11). Allen and Seaman (2016) decided to give a broad explanation of OER, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”. Thus, there is a danger of having a bias when giving an explanation. We decided not to give an explanation, but keep this question simple. We assume that either someone knows about OER or not. If they had not heard of the term before, they do not probably use OER (at least not consciously) or create them.

Data collection

The target group of the survey was academics at German institutions of higher education, mainly universities and universities of applied sciences. To reach them we sent the survey to diverse institutional-intern and extern mailing lists and via personal contacts. Included lists were discipline-based lists, lists deriving from higher education and higher education didactic communities as well as lists from open science and OER communities. Additionally, personal e-mails were sent to presidents and contact persons from those communities, and Twitter was used to spread the survey.

The survey was online from Feb 6^th to March 3^rd 2017, e-mails were mainly sent at the beginning and around mid-term.

Data clearance

We got 360 responses, whereof Limesurvey counted 208 completes and 152 incompletes. Two responses were marked as incomplete, but after checking them turned out to be complete, and we added them to the complete responses dataset. Thus, this data set includes 210 complete responses. From those 150 incomplete responses, 58 respondents did not answer 1st question, 40 respondents discontinued after 1st question. Data shows a constant decline in response answers, we did not detect any striking survey question with a high dropout rate. We deleted incomplete responses and they are not in this data set.

Due to data privacy reasons, we deleted seven variables automatically assigned by Limesurvey: submitdate, lastpage, startlanguage, startdate, datestamp, ipaddr, refurl. We also deleted answers to question N^o 24 (email address).

References

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16.

First results of the survey are presented in the poster:

Heck, Tamara, Blümel, Ina, Heller, Lambert, Mazarakis, Athanasios, Peters, Isabella, Scherp, Ansgar, & Weisel, Luzian. (2017). Survey: Open Science in Higher Education. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.400561

Contact:

Open Science in (Higher) Education working group, see http://www.leibniz-science20.de/forschung/projekte/laufende-projekte/open-science-in-higher-education/.

[1] https://www.limesurvey.org

[2] The survey question about the awareness of OER gave a broad explanation, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”.

Abstract

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is the first of this kind of study conducted in Bangladesh. It provides rapid feedback on key demographic and programmatic indicators to monitor the strength and weaknesses of the national family planning/MCH program. The wealth of information collected through the 1993-94 BDHS will be of immense value to the policymakers and program managers in order to strengthen future program policies and strategies.

The BDHS is intended to serve as a source of population and health data for policymakers and the research community. In general, the objectives of the BDHS are to: - asses the overall demographic situation in Bangladesh, - assist in the evaluation of the population and health programs in Bangladesh, and - advance survey methodology.

More specifically, the BDHS was designed to: - provide data on the family planning and fertility behavior of the Bangladesh population to evaluate the national family planning programs, - measure changes in fertility and contraceptive prevalence and, at the same time, study the factors which affect these changes, such as marriage patterns, urban/rural residence, availability of contraception, breastfeeding patterns, and other socioeconomic factors, and - examine the basic indicators of maternal and child health in Bangladesh.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 10-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into five administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 489 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, an administrative land unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1993-94 BDHS employed a nationally-representative, two-stage sample. It was selected from the Integrated Multi-Purpose Master Sample (IMPS), newly created by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. The IMPS is based on 1991 census data. Each of the five divisions was stratified into three groups: 1) statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs) 2) municipalities (other urban areas), and 3) rural areas. In rural areas, the primary sampling unit was the mauza, while in urban areas, it was the mahalla. Because the primary sampling units in the IMPS were selected with probability proportional to size from the 1991 census frame, the units for the BDHS were sub-selected from the IMPS with equal probability to make the BDHS selection equivalent to selection with probability proportional to size. A total of 304 primary sampling units were selected for the BDHS (30 in SMAs, 40 in municipalities, and 234 in rural areas), out of the 372 in the IMPS. Fieldwork in three sample points was not possible, so a total of 301 points were covered in the survey.

Since one objective of the BDHS is to provide separate survey estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for Barisal Division und for municipalities relative to the other divisions, SMAs, and rural areas. Thus, the BDHS sample is not self-weighting and weighting factors have been applied to the data in this report.

After the selection of the BDHS sample points, field staffs were trained by Mitra and Associates and conducted a household listing operation in September and October 1993. A systematic sample of households was then selected from these lists, with an average "take" of 25 households in the urban clusters and 37 households in rural clusters. Every second household was identified as selected for the husband's survey, meaning that, in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed the husband of any woman who was successfully interviewed. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 4,200 of their husbands.

Note: See detailed in APPENDIX A of the survey final report.

Sampling deviation

Data collected for women 10-49, indicators calculated for women 15-49. A total of 304 primary sampling units were selected, but fieldwork in 3 sample points was not possible.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four types of questionnaires were used for the BDHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women's Questionnaire, a Husbands' Questionnaire, and a Service Availability Questionnaire. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with relatively high levels of contraceptive use. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaires were made during a series of meetings with representatives of various organizations, including the Asia Foundation, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the Cambridge Consulting Corporation, the Family Planning Association of Bangladesh, GTZ, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (ICDDR,B), Pathfinder International, Population Communications Services, the Population Council, the Social Marketing Company, UNFPA, UNICEF, University Research Corporation/Bangladesh, and the World Bank. The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors of selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for individual interview. In addition, information was collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, and ownership of various consumer goods.

The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from ever-married women age 10-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: - Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc.), - Reproductive history, - Knowledge and use of family planning methods, - Antenatal and delivery care, - Breastfeeding and weaning practices, - Vaccinations and health of children under age three, - Marriage, - Fertility preferences, and - Husband's background and respondent's work.

The Husbands' Questionnaire was used to interview the husbands of a subsample of women who were interviewed. The questionnaire included many of the same questions as the Women's Questionnaire, except that it omitted the detailed birth history, as well as the sections on maternal care, breastfeeding and child health.

The Service Availability Questionnaire was used to collect information on the family planning and health services available in and near the sampled areas. It consisted of a set of three questionnaires: one to collect data on characteristics of the community, one for interviewing family welfare visitors and one for interviewing family planning field workers, whether government or non-governent supported. One set of service availability questionnaires was to be completed in each cluster (sample point).

Cleaning operations

All questionnaires for the BDHS were returned to Dhaka for data processing at Mitra and Associates. The processing operation consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, and editing inconsistencies found by the computer programs. One senior staff member, 1 data processing supervisor, questionnaire administrator, 2 office editors, and 5 data entry operators were responsible for the data processing operation. The data were processed on five microcomputers. The DHS data entry and editing programs were written in ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis). Data processing commenced in early February and was completed by late April 1994.

Response rate

A total of 9,681 households were selected for the sample, of which 9,174 were successfully interviewed. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant, or in which the inhabitants had left for an extended period at the time they were visited by the interviewing teams. Of the 9,255 households that were occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 9,900 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview and interviews were completed for 9,640 or 97 percent of these. In one-half of the households that were selected for inclusion in the husbands' survey, 3,874 eligible husbands were identified, of which 3,284 or 85 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was very low (less than one-tenth of one percent among women and husbands). Since the main reason for interviewing husbands was to match the information with that from their wives, survey procedures called for interviewers not to interview husbands of women who were not interviewed. Such cases account for about one-third of the non-response among husbands. Where husbands and wives were both interviewed, they were interviewed simultaneously but separately.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey final report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: non-sampling errors and sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions

Abstract

The Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The BDHS is intended to serve as a source of population and health data for policymakers and the research community. In general, the objectives of the BDHS are to: - assess the overall demographic situation in Bangladesh, - assist in the evaluation of the population and health programs in Bangladesh, and - advance survey methodology.

More specifically, the objective of the BDHS is to provide up-to-date information on fertility and childhood mortality levels; nuptiality; fertility preferences; awareness, approval, and use of family planning methods; breastfeeding practices; nutrition levels; and maternal and child health. This information is intended to assist policymakers and administrators in evaluating and designing programs and strategies for improving health and family planning services in the country.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 10-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Bangladesh is divided into six administrative divisions, 64 districts (zillas), and 490 thanas. In rural areas, thanas are divided into unions and then mauzas, a land administrative unit. Urban areas are divided into wards and then mahallas. The 1996-97 BDHS employed a nationally-representative, two-stage sample that was selected from the Integrated Multi-Purpose Master Sample (IMPS) maintained by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Each division was stratified into three groups: 1 ) statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs), 2) municipalities (other urban areas), and 3) rural areas. 3 In the rural areas, the primary sampling unit was the mauza, while in urban areas, it was the mahalla. Because the primary sampling units in the IMPS were selected with probability proportional to size from the 1991 Census frame, the units for the BDHS were sub-selected from the IMPS with equal probability so as to retain the overall probability proportional to size. A total of 316 primary sampling units were utilized for the BDHS (30 in SMAs, 42 in municipalities, and 244 in rural areas). In order to highlight changes in survey indicators over time, the 1996-97 BDHS utilized the same sample points (though not necessarily the same households) that were selected for the 1993-94 BDHS, except for 12 additional sample points in the new division of Sylhet. Fieldwork in three sample points was not possible (one in Dhaka Cantonment and two in the Chittagong Hill Tracts), so a total of 313 points were covered.

Since one objective of the BDHS is to provide separate estimates for each division as well as for urban and rural areas separately, it was necessary to increase the sampling rate for Barisal and Sylhet Divisions and for municipalities relative to the other divisions, SMAs and rural areas. Thus, the BDHS sample is not self-weighting and weighting factors have been applied to the data in this report.

Mitra and Associates conducted a household listing operation in all the sample points from 15 September to 15 December 1996. A systematic sample of 9,099 households was then selected from these lists. Every second household was selected for the men's survey, meaning that, in addition to interviewing all ever-married women age 10-49, interviewers also interviewed all currently married men age 15-59. It was expected that the sample would yield interviews with approximately 10,000 ever-married women age 10-49 and 3,000 currently married men age 15-59.

Note: See detailed in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Four types of questionnaires were used for the BDHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women's Questionnaire, a Men' s Questionnaire and a Community Questionnaire. The contents of these questionnaires were based on the DHS Model A Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with relatively high levels of contraceptive use. These model questionnaires were adapted for use in Bangladesh during a series of meetings with a small Technical Task Force that consisted of representatives from NIPORT, Mitra and Associates, USAID/Bangladesh, the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), Population Council/Dhaka, and Macro International Inc (see Appendix D for a list of members). Draft questionnaires were then circulated to other interested groups and were reviewed by the BDHS Technical Review Committee (see Appendix D for list of members). The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla (see Appendix E for final version in English).

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Some basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, information was collected about the dwelling itself, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, materials used to construct the house, and ownership of various consumer goods.

The Women's Questionnaire was used to collect information from ever-married women age 10-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: - Background characteristics (age, education, religion, etc.), - Reproductive history, - Knowledge and use of family planning methods, - Antenatal and delivery care, - Breastfeeding and weaning practices, - Vaccinations and health of children under age five, - Marriage, - Fertility preferences, - Husband's background and respondent's work, - Knowledge of AIDS, - Height and weight of children under age five and their mothers.

The Men's Questionnaire was used to interview currently married men age 15-59. It was similar to that for women except that it omitted the sections on reproductive history, antenatal and delivery care, breastfeeding, vaccinations, and height and weight. The Community Questionnaire was completed for each sample point and included questions about the existence in the community of income-generating activities and other development organizations and the availability of health and family planning services.

Response rate

A total of 9,099 households were selected for the sample, of which 8,682 were successfully interviewed. The shortfall is primarily due to dwellings that were vacant or in which the inhabitants had left for an extended period at the time they were visited by the interviewing teams. Of the 8,762 households occupied, 99 percent were successfully interviewed. In these households, 9,335 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview (i.e., ever-married and age 10-49) and interviews were completed for 9,127 or 98 percent of them. In the half of the households that were selected for inclusion in the men's survey, 3,611 eligible ever-married men age 15-59 were identified, of whom 3,346 or 93 percent were interviewed.

The principal reason for non-response among eligible women and men was the failure to find them at home despite repeated visits to the household. The refusal rate was low.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the BDHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the BDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the BDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the BDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module used the Taylor

This data collection is comprised of responses from the March and April installments of the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS). Both the March and April surveys used two sets of questions, the basic CPS and a separate supplement for each month.The CPS, administered monthly, is a labor force survey providing current estimates of the economic status and activities of the population of the United States. Specifically, the CPS provides estimates of total employment (both farm and nonfarm), nonfarm self-employed persons, domestics, and unpaid helpers in nonfarm family enterprises, wage and salaried employees, and estimates of total unemployment.In addition to the basic CPS questions, respondents were asked questions from the March supplement, known as the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) supplement. The ASEC provides supplemental data on work experience, income, noncash benefits, and migration. Comprehensive work experience information was given on the employment status, occupation, and industry of persons 15 years old and older. Additional data for persons 15 years old and older are available concerning weeks worked and hours per week worked, reason not working full time, total income and income components, and place of residence on March 1, 2007. The March supplement also contains data covering nine noncash income sources: food stamps, school lunch program, employer-provided group health insurance plan, employer-provided pension plan, personal health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, CHAMPUS or military health care, and energy assistance. Questions covering training and assistance received under welfare reform programs, such as job readiness training, child care services, or job skill training were also asked in the March supplement.The April supplement, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, queried respondents on the economic situation of persons and families for the previous year. Moreover, all household members 15 years of age and older that are a biological parent of children in the household that have an absent parent were asked detailed questions about child support and alimony. Information regarding child support was collected to determine the size and distribution of the population with children affected by divorce or separation, or other relationship status change. Moreover, the data were collected to better understand the characteristics of persons requiring child support, and to help develop and maintain programs designed to assist in obtaining child support. These data highlight alimony and child support arrangements made at the time of separation or divorce, amount of payments actually received, and value and type of any property settlement.The April supplement data were matched to March supplement data for households that were in the sample in both March and April 2008. In March 2008, there were 4,522 household members eligible, of which 1,431 required imputation of child support data. When matching the March 2008 and April 2008 data sets, there were 170 eligible people on the March file that did not match to people on the April file. Child support data for these 170 people were imputed. The remaining 1,261 imputed cases were due to nonresponse to the child support questions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, veteran status, educational attainment, occupation, and income. Data on employment and income refer to the preceding year, although other demographic data refer to the time at which the survey was administered.

Includes questions pertaining to: race & ethnicitygenderageincomelocation

Abstract

The 1997 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is a national sample survey carried out by the Department of Statistics (DOS) as part of its National Household Surveys Program (NHSP). The JPFHS was specifically aimed at providing information on fertility, family planning, and infant and child mortality. Information was also gathered on breastfeeding, on maternal and child health care and nutritional status, and on the characteristics of households and household members. The survey will provide policymakers and planners with important information for use in formulating informed programs and policies on reproductive behavior and health.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The 1997 JPFHS sample was designed to produce reliable estimates of major survey variables for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas, for the three regions (each composed of a group of governorates), and for the three major governorates, Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa.

The 1997 JPFHS sample is a subsample of the master sample that was designed using the frame obtained from the 1994 Population and Housing Census. A two-stage sampling procedure was employed. First, primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected with probability proportional to the number of housing units in the PSU. A total of 300 PSUs were selected at this stage. In the second stage, in each selected PSU, occupied housing units were selected with probability inversely proportional to the number of housing units in the PSU. This design maintains a self-weighted sampling fraction within each governorate.

UPDATING OF SAMPLING FRAME

Prior to the main fieldwork, mapping operations were carried out and the sample units/blocks were selected and then identified and located in the field. The selected blocks were delineated and the outer boundaries were demarcated with special signs. During this process, the numbers on buildings and housing units were updated, listed and documented, along with the name of the owner/tenant of the unit or household and the name of the household head. These activities took place between January 7 and February 28, 1997.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 1997 JPFHS used two questionnaires, one for the household interview and the other for eligible women. Both questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into Arabic. The household questionnaire was used to list all members of the sampled households, including usual residents as well as visitors. For each member of the household, basic demographic and social characteristics were recorded and women eligible for the individual interview were identified. The individual questionnaire was developed utilizing the experience gained from previous surveys, in particular the 1983 and 1990 Jordan Fertility and Family Health Surveys (JFFHS).

The 1997 JPFHS individual questionnaire consists of 10 sections: - Respondent’s background - Marriage - Reproduction (birth history) - Contraception - Pregnancy, breastfeeding, health and immunization - Fertility preferences - Husband’s background, woman’s work and residence - Knowledge of AIDS - Maternal mortality - Height and weight of children and mothers.

Cleaning operations

Fieldwork and data processing activities overlapped. After a week of data collection, and after field editing of questionnaires for completeness and consistency, the questionnaires for each cluster were packaged together and sent to the central office in Amman where they were registered and stored. Special teams were formed to carry out office editing and coding.

Data entry started after a week of office data processing. The process of data entry, editing, and cleaning was done by means of the ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis) program DHS has developed especially for such surveys. The ISSA program allows data to be edited while being entered. Data entry was completed on November 14, 1997. A data processing specialist from Macro made a trip to Jordan in November and December 1997 to identify problems in data entry, editing, and cleaning, and to work on tabulations for both the preliminary and final report.

Response rate

A total of 7,924 occupied housing units were selected for the survey; from among those, 7,592 households were found. Of the occupied households, 7,335 (97 percent) were successfully interviewed. In those households, 5,765 eligible women were identified, and complete interviews were obtained with 5,548 of them (96 percent of all eligible women). Thus, the overall response rate of the 1997 JPFHS was 93 percent. The principal reason for nonresponse among the women was the failure of interviewers to find them at home despite repeated callbacks.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.1 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are subject to two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the result of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing (such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding questions either by the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors). Although during the implementation of the 1997 JPFHS numerous efforts were made to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are not only impossible to avoid but also difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The respondents selected in the 1997 JPFHS constitute only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, given the same design and expected size. Each of those samples would have yielded results differing somewhat from the results of the sample actually selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, since the 1997 JDHS-II sample resulted from a multistage stratified design, formulae of higher complexity had to be used. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 1997 JDHS-II was the ISSA Sampling Error Module, which uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics, such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

Abstract

The 2005 Armenia Demographic and Health Survey (2005 ADHS) is the second in a series of nationally representative sample surveys designed to provide information on population and health issues in Armenia. As in the 2000 ADHS, the primary goal of the 2005 survey was to develop a single integrated set of demographic and health data pertaining to the population of the Republic of Armenia. In addition to integrating measures of reproductive, child, and adult health, another feature of the 2005 ADHS survey is that the majority of data are presented at the marz (region) level.

The 2005 ADHS was conducted by the National Statistical Service (NSS) and the MOH of the Republic of Armenia from September through December 2005. ORC Macro provided technical support for the survey through the MEASURE DHS project. MEASURE DHS is a worldwide project, sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), with a mandate to assist countries in obtaining information on key population and health indicators. USAID/Armenia provided funding for the survey, while the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)/Armenia and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)/Armenia supported the survey through in-kind contributions.

The 2005 ADHS collected national- and regional-level data on fertility and contraceptive use, maternal and child health, adult health, and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The survey obtained detailed information on these issues from women of reproductive age and, on certain topics, from men as well. Data are presented by marz wherever sample size permits.

The 2005 ADHS results are intended to provide the information needed to evaluate existing social programs and to design new strategies for improving the health of and health services for the people of Armenia. The 2005 ADHS also contributes to the growing international database on demographic and health-related variables.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-49

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The sample was designed to permit detailed analysis-including the estimation of rates of fertility, infant/child mortality, and abortion-for the national level, for Yerevan, and for total urban and total rural areas separately. Many indicators can also be estimated at the regional (marz) level.

A representative probability sample of 7,565 households was selected for the 2005 ADHS sample. The sample was selected in two stages. In the first stage, 308 clusters were selected from a list of enumeration areas in a subsample from a master sample that was designed from the 2001 Population Census. In the second stage, a complete listing of households was carried out in each selected cluster. Households were then systematically selected for participation in the survey.

All women age 15-49 who were either permanent residents of the households in the 2005 ADHS sample or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. Interviews were completed with 6,566 women. In addition, in a subsample of one-third of all the households selected for the survey, all men age 15-49 were eligible to be interviewed if they were either permanent residents or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey. Interviews were completed with 1,447 men.

Note: See detailed summarized sample implementation tables in APPENDIX A of the report which is presented in this documentation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Three questionnaires were used in the 2005 ADHS: a Household Questionnaire, a Women’s Questionnaire, and a Men’s questionnaire. The Household and Individual Questionnaires were based on model survey instruments developed in the MEASURE DHS program and on questionnaires used in the 2000 ADHS. The model questionnaires were adapted for use by experts from the NSS and MOH. Input was also sought from a number of non-governmental organizations. The questionnaires were developed in English and translated into Armenian. The Household and Individual Questionnaires were pretested in June 2005.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual members of and visitors to the selected households and to collect information on the socioeconomic status of the household. The first part of the Household Questionnaire collected information on the age, sex, educational attainment, and relationship to the household head of each household member or visitor. This information provides basic demographic data for Armenian households. It also was used to identify the women and men who were eligible for the individual interview (i.e., women and men age 15-49). In the second part of the Household Questionnaire, there were questions on housing characteristics (e.g., flooring material, source of water, type of toilet facilities), on ownership of a variety of consumer goods, and other questions relating to the socioeconomic status of the household. In addition, the Household Questionnaire was used to record height and weight measurements of women, men, and children under age five; hemoglobin measurement of women and children under age five; and blood pressure measurement of women and men.

The Women’s Questionnaire obtained data from women age 15-49 on the following topics: • Background characteristics • Pregnancy history • Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care • Knowledge, attitudes, and use of contraception • Reproductive and adult health • Health care utilization • Vaccinations, birth registration, and health of children under age five • Episodes of diarrhea and respiratory illness of children under age five • Breastfeeding and weaning practices • Marriage and recent sexual activity • Fertility preferences • Knowledge of and attitude toward HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections

The Men’s Questionnaire, administered to men age 15-49, focused on the following topics: • Background characteristics • Health and health care utilization • Marriage and recent sexual activity • Attitudes toward and use of condoms • Knowledge of and attitude toward HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections • Attitudes toward women’s status

Response rate

A total of 7,565 households were selected for the sample, of which 7,003 were occupied at the time of fieldwork. The main reason for the difference is that some of the dwelling units that were occupied during the household listing operation were either vacant or the household was away for an extended period at the time of interviewing. Of the occupied households, 96 percent were successfully interviewed.

In these households, 6,773 women were identified as eligible for the individual interview, and interviews were completed with 97 percent of them. Of the 1,630 eligible men identified, 89 percent were successfully interviewed. Response rates are almost identical in urban and rural areas.

Note: See summarized response rates by residence (urban/rural) in Table 1.1 of the report which is presented this documentation.

Sampling error estimates

Estimates derived from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: 1) non-sampling errors, and 2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2005 Armenia DHS (2005 ADHS) to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2005 ADHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2005 ADHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use a more complex formula. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2005 ADHS is the sampling error module in ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis). This module uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. Another approach, the Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed

This file contains the demographic questions.

The City of Norfolk is committed to using data to inform decisions and allocate resources. An important source of data is input from residents about their priorities and satisfaction with the services we provide. Norfolk last conducted a citywide survey of residents in 2022.

To provide up-to-date information regarding resident priorities and satisfaction, Norfolk contracted with ETC Institute to conduct a survey of residents. This survey was conducted in May and June 2024; surveys were sent via the U.S. Postal Service, and respondents were given the choice of responding by mail or online. This survey represents a random and statistically valid sample of residents from across the city, including each Ward. ETC Institute monitored responses and followed up to ensure all sections of the city were represented. Additionally, an opportunity was provided for residents not included in the random sample to take the survey and express their views. This dataset includes all random sample survey data including demographic information; it excludes free-form comments to protect privacy. It is grouped by Question Category, Question, Response, Demographic Question, and Demographic Question Response. This dataset will be updated every two years.

The STAMINA study examined the nutritional risks of low-income peri-urban mothers, infants and young children (IYC), and households in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was designed to capture information through three, repeated cross-sectional surveys at approximately 6 month intervals over an 18 month period, starting in December 2020. The surveys were carried out by telephone in November-December 2020, July-August 2021 and in February-April 2022. The third survey took place over a longer period to allow for a household visit after the telephone interview.The study areas were Manchay (Lima) and Huánuco district in the Andean highlands (~ 1900m above sea level).In each study area, we purposively selected the principal health centre and one subsidiary health centre. Peri-urban communities under the jurisdiction of these health centres were then selected to participate. Systematic random sampling was employed with quotas for IYC age (6-11, 12-17 and 18-23 months) to recruit a target sample size of 250 mother-infant pairs for each survey.Data collected included: household socio-demographic characteristics; infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF), child and maternal qualitative 24-hour dietary recalls/7 day food frequency questionnaires, household food insecurity experience measured using the validated Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey module (Cafiero, Viviani, & Nord, 2018), and maternal mental health.In addition, questions that assessed the impact of COVID-19 on households including changes in employment status, adaptations to finance, sources of financial support, household food insecurity experience as well as access to, and uptake of, well-child clinics and vaccination health services were included.This folder includes the dataset and dictionary of variables for survey 3 (English only).The survey questionnaire for survey 3 is available at 10.17028/rd.lboro.21740921.