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.

A data set of cross-nationally comparable microdata samples for 15 Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) countries (Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA) based on the 1990 national population and housing censuses in countries of Europe and North America to study the social and economic conditions of older persons. These samples have been designed to allow research on a wide range of issues related to aging, as well as on other social phenomena. A common set of nomenclatures and classifications, derived on the basis of a study of census data comparability in Europe and North America, was adopted as a standard for recoding. This series was formerly called Dynamics of Population Aging in ECE Countries. The recommendations regarding the design and size of the samples drawn from the 1990 round of censuses envisaged: (1) drawing individual-based samples of about one million persons; (2) progressive oversampling with age in order to ensure sufficient representation of various categories of older people; and (3) retaining information on all persons co-residing in the sampled individual''''s dwelling unit. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania provided the entire population over age 50, while Finland sampled it with progressive over-sampling. Canada, Italy, Russia, Turkey, UK, and the US provided samples that had not been drawn specially for this project, and cover the entire population without over-sampling. Given its wide user base, the US 1990 PUMS was not recoded. Instead, PAU offers mapping modules, which recode the PUMS variables into the project''''s classifications, nomenclatures, and coding schemes. Because of the high sampling density, these data cover various small groups of older people; contain as much geographic detail as possible under each country''''s confidentiality requirements; include more extensive information on housing conditions than many other data sources; and provide information for a number of countries whose data were not accessible until recently. Data Availability: Eight of the fifteen participating countries have signed the standard data release agreement making their data available through NACDA/ICPSR (see links below). Hungary and Switzerland require a clearance to be obtained from their national statistical offices for the use of microdata, however the documents signed between the PAU and these countries include clauses stipulating that, in general, all scholars interested in social research will be granted access. Russia requested that certain provisions for archiving the microdata samples be removed from its data release arrangement. The PAU has an agreement with several British scholars to facilitate access to the 1991 UK data through collaborative arrangements. Statistics Canada and the Italian Institute of statistics (ISTAT) provide access to data from Canada and Italy, respectively. * Dates of Study: 1989-1992 * Study Features: International, Minority Oversamples * Sample Size: Approx. 1 million/country Links: * Bulgaria (1992), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02200 * Czech Republic (1991), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06857 * Estonia (1989), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06780 * Finland (1990), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06797 * Romania (1992), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06900 * Latvia (1989), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/02572 * Lithuania (1989), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/03952 * Turkey (1990), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/03292 * U.S. (1990), http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06219

Abstract

The study included four separate surveys:

1. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2002

2. The survey of Family Income Support (MOP in Serbian) recipients in 2002 These two datasets are published together separately from the 2003 datasets.

3. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2003 (panel survey)

4. The survey of Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 These two datasets are published together.

Objectives

LSMS represents multi-topical study of household living standard and is based on international experience in designing and conducting this type of research. The basic survey was carried out in 2002 on a representative sample of households in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija). Its goal was to establish a poverty profile according to the comprehensive data on welfare of households and to identify vulnerable groups. Also its aim was to assess the targeting of safety net programs by collecting detailed information from individuals on participation in specific government social programs. This study was used as the basic document in developing Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in Serbia which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in October 2003.

The survey was repeated in 2003 on a panel sample (the households which participated in 2002 survey were re-interviewed).

Analysis of the take-up and profile of the population in 2003 was the first step towards formulating the system of monitoring in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The survey was conducted in accordance with the same methodological principles used in 2002 survey, with necessary changes referring only to the content of certain modules and the reduction in sample size. The aim of the repeated survey was to obtain panel data to enable monitoring of the change in the living standard within a period of one year, thus indicating whether there had been a decrease or increase in poverty in Serbia in the course of 2003. [Note: Panel data are the data obtained on the sample of households which participated in the both surveys. These data made possible tracking of living standard of the same persons in the period of one year.]

Along with these two comprehensive surveys, conducted on national and regional representative samples which were to give a picture of the general population, there were also two surveys with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. In 2002, it was the survey of living standard of Family Income Support recipients with an aim to validate this state supported program of social welfare. In 2003 the survey of Roma from Roma settlements was conducted. Since all present experiences indicated that this was one of the most vulnerable groups on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but with no ample research of poverty of Roma population made, the aim of the survey was to compare poverty of this group with poverty of basic population and to establish which categories of Roma population were at the greatest risk of poverty in 2003. However, it is necessary to stress that the LSMS of the Roma population comprised potentially most imperilled Roma, while the Roma integrated in the main population were not included in this study.

Geographic coverage

The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample frame for both surveys of general population (LSMS) in 2002 and 2003 consisted of all permanent residents of Serbia, without the population of Kosovo and Metohija, according to definition of permanently resident population contained in UN Recommendations for Population Censuses, which were applied in 2002 Census of Population in the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, permanent residents were all persons living in the territory Serbia longer than one year, with the exception of diplomatic and consular staff.

The sample frame for the survey of Family Income Support recipients included all current recipients of this program on the territory of Serbia based on the official list of recipients given by Ministry of Social affairs.

The definition of the Roma population from Roma settlements was faced with obstacles since precise data on the total number of Roma population in Serbia are not available. According to the last population Census from 2002 there were 108,000 Roma citizens, but the data from the Census are thought to significantly underestimate the total number of the Roma population. However, since no other more precise data were available, this number was taken as the basis for estimate on Roma population from Roma settlements. According to the 2002 Census, settlements with at least 7% of the total population who declared itself as belonging to Roma nationality were selected. A total of 83% or 90,000 self-declared Roma lived in the settlements that were defined in this way and this number was taken as the sample frame for Roma from Roma settlements.

Planned sample: In 2002 the planned size of the sample of general population included 6.500 households. The sample was both nationally and regionally representative (representative on each individual stratum). In 2003 the planned panel sample size was 3.000 households. In order to preserve the representative quality of the sample, we kept every other census block unit of the large sample realized in 2002. This way we kept the identical allocation by strata. In selected census block unit, the same households were interviewed as in the basic survey in 2002. The planned sample of Family Income Support recipients in 2002 and Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 was 500 households for each group.

Sample type: In both national surveys the implemented sample was a two-stage stratified sample. Units of the first stage were enumeration districts, and units of the second stage were the households. In the basic 2002 survey, enumeration districts were selected with probability proportional to number of households, so that the enumeration districts with bigger number of households have a higher probability of selection. In the repeated survey in 2003, first-stage units (census block units) were selected from the basic sample obtained in 2002 by including only even numbered census block units. In practice this meant that every second census block unit from the previous survey was included in the sample. In each selected enumeration district the same households interviewed in the previous round were included and interviewed. On finishing the survey in 2003 the cases were merged both on the level of households and members.

Stratification: Municipalities are stratified into the following six territorial strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western Serbia, Central Serbia (Šumadija and Pomoravlje), Eastern Serbia and South-east Serbia. Primary units of selection are further stratified into enumeration districts which belong to urban type of settlements and enumeration districts which belong to rural type of settlement.

The sample of Family Income Support recipients represented the cases chosen randomly from the official list of recipients provided by Ministry of Social Affairs. The sample of Roma from Roma settlements was, as in the national survey, a two-staged stratified sample, but the units in the first stage were settlements where Roma population was represented in the percentage over 7%, and the units of the second stage were Roma households. Settlements are stratified in three territorial strata: Vojvodina, Beograd and Central Serbia.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

In all surveys the same questionnaire with minimal changes was used. It included different modules, topically separate areas which had an aim of perceiving the living standard of households from different angles. Topic areas were the following: 1. Roster with demography. 2. Housing conditions and durables module with information on the age of durables owned by a household with a special block focused on collecting information on energy billing, payments, and usage. 3. Diary of food expenditures (weekly), including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 4. Questionnaire of main expenditure-based recall periods sufficient to enable construction of annual consumption at the household level, including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 5. Agricultural production for all households which cultivate 10+ acres of land or who breed cattle. 6. Participation and social transfers module with detailed breakdown by programs 7. Labour Market module in line with a simplified version of the Labour Force Survey (LFS), with special additional questions to capture various informal sector activities, and providing information on earnings 8. Health with a focus on utilization of services and expenditures (including informal payments) 9. Education module, which incorporated pre-school, compulsory primary education, secondary education and university education. 10. Special income block, focusing on sources of income not covered in other parts (with a focus on remittances).

Response rate

During field work, interviewers kept a precise diary of interviews, recording both successful and unsuccessful visits. Particular attention was paid to reasons why some households were not interviewed. Separate marks were given for households which were not interviewed due to refusal and for cases when a given household could not be found on the territory of the chosen census block.

In 2002 a total of 7,491 households were contacted. Of this number a total of 6,386 households in 621 census rounds were interviewed. Interviewers did not manage to collect the data for 1,106 or 14.8% of selected households. Out of this number 634 households

This data collection consists of modified records from CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1970 [UNITED STATES]: PUBLIC USE SAMPLES (ICPSR 0018). The original records consisted of 120-character household records and 120-character person records, whereas the new modified records are rectangular (each person record is combined with the corresponding household record) with a length of 188, after the deletion of some items. Additional information was added to the data records, including typical educational requirement for current occupation, occupational prestige score, and group identification code. This version also differs from the original public use census samples in other ways: persons aged 15-75 were included, no majority males were included, but the majority males from CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING [UNITED STATES], 1970 PUBLIC USE SAMPLE: MODIFIED 1/1000 5% STATE SAMPLES (ICPSR 7922) were included for convenience, 10 percent of the Black population from each file was included, and Mexican Americans (identified by a Spanish surname) from outside the five southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas were not included in this file. Variables provide information on the housing unit, such as occupancy and vacancy status of house, value of property, commercial use, ratio of rent and property value to family income, availability of plumbing facilities, sewage disposal, complete kitchen facilities, heating facilities, flush toilet, water, television, and telephone. Data are also provided on household characteristics such as household size, family size, and household relationships. Other demographic variables specify age, sex, place of birth, state of residence, Spanish descent, marital status, race, veteran status, income, and ratio of family income to poverty cutoff level. This collection was made available by the National Chicano Research Network of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. See the related collection, CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING [UNITED STATES], 1970 PUBLIC USE SAMPLE: MODIFIED 1/1000 5% STATE SAMPLES (ICPSR 7922).

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

In 2013, the EU-SILC instrument covered all EU Member States plus Iceland, Turkey, Norway, Switzerland and Croatia. EU-SILC has become the EU reference source for comparative statistics on income distribution and social exclusion at European level, particularly in the context of the "Program of Community action to encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social exclusion" and for producing structural indicators on social cohesion for the annual spring report to the European Council. The first priority is to be given to the delivery of comparable, timely and high quality cross-sectional data.

There are two types of datasets: 1) Cross-sectional data pertaining to fixed time periods, with variables on income, poverty, social exclusion and living conditions. 2) Longitudinal data pertaining to individual-level changes over time, observed periodically - usually over four years.

Social exclusion and housing-condition information is collected at household level. Income at a detailed component level is collected at personal level, with some components included in the "Household" section. Labor, education and health observations only apply to persons aged 16 and over. EU-SILC was established to provide data on structural indicators of social cohesion (at-risk-of-poverty rate, S80/S20 and gender pay gap) and to provide relevant data for the two 'open methods of coordination' in the field of social inclusion and pensions in Europe.

This is the 1st version of the 2013 Cross-Sectional User Database as released in July 2015.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers following countries: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Spain; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Hungary; Malta; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovenia; Slovakia; Serbia; Sweden; United Kingdom; Iceland; Norway; Turkey; Switzerland

Small parts of the national territory amounting to no more than 2% of the national population and the national territories listed below may be excluded from EU-SILC: France - French Overseas Departments and territories; Netherlands - The West Frisian Islands with the exception of Texel; Ireland - All offshore islands with the exception of Achill, Bull, Cruit, Gorumna, Inishnee, Lettermore, Lettermullan and Valentia; United Kingdom - Scotland north of the Caledonian Canal, the Scilly Islands.

Analysis unit

• Households;
• Individuals 16 years and older.

Universe

The survey covered all household members over 16 years old. Persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

On the basis of various statistical and practical considerations and the precision requirements for the most critical variables, the minimum effective sample sizes to be achieved were defined. Sample size for the longitudinal component refers, for any pair of consecutive years, to the number of households successfully interviewed in the first year in which all or at least a majority of the household members aged 16 or over are successfully interviewed in both the years.

For the cross-sectional component, the plans are to achieve the minimum effective sample size of around 131.000 households in the EU as a whole (137.000 including Iceland and Norway). The allocation of the EU sample among countries represents a compromise between two objectives: the production of results at the level of individual countries, and production for the EU as a whole. Requirements for the longitudinal data will be less important. For this component, an effective sample size of around 98.000 households (103.000 including Iceland and Norway) is planned.

Member States using registers for income and other data may use a sample of persons (selected respondents) rather than a sample of complete households in the interview survey. The minimum effective sample size in terms of the number of persons aged 16 or over to be interviewed in detail is in this case taken as 75 % of the figures shown in columns 3 and 4 of the table I, for the cross-sectional and longitudinal components respectively.

The reference is to the effective sample size, which is the size required if the survey were based on simple random sampling (design effect in relation to the 'risk of poverty rate' variable = 1.0). The actual sample sizes will have to be larger to the extent that the design effects exceed 1.0 and to compensate for all kinds of non-response. Furthermore, the sample size refers to the number of valid households which are households for which, and for all members of which, all or nearly all the required information has been obtained. For countries with a sample of persons design, information on income and other data shall be collected for the household of each selected respondent and for all its members.

At the beginning, a cross-sectional representative sample of households is selected. It is divided into say 4 sub-samples, each by itself representative of the whole population and similar in structure to the whole sample. One sub-sample is purely cross-sectional and is not followed up after the first round. Respondents in the second sub-sample are requested to participate in the panel for 2 years, in the third sub-sample for 3 years, and in the fourth for 4 years. From year 2 onwards, one new panel is introduced each year, with request for participation for 4 years. In any one year, the sample consists of 4 sub-samples, which together constitute the cross-sectional sample. In year 1 they are all new samples; in all subsequent years, only one is new sample. In year 2, three are panels in the second year; in year 3, one is a panel in the second year and two in the third year; in subsequent years, one is a panel for the second year, one for the third year, and one for the fourth (final) year.

According to the Commission Regulation on sampling and tracing rules, the selection of the sample will be drawn according to the following requirements:

1. For all components of EU-SILC (whether survey or register based), the crosssectional and longitudinal (initial sample) data shall be based on a nationally representative probability sample of the population residing in private households within the country, irrespective of language, nationality or legal residence status. All private households and all persons aged 16 and over within the household are eligible for the operation.
2. Representative probability samples shall be achieved both for households, which form the basic units of sampling, data collection and data analysis, and for individual persons in the target population.
3. The sampling frame and methods of sample selection shall ensure that every individual and household in the target population is assigned a known and non-zero probability of selection.
4. By way of exception, paragraphs 1 to 3 shall apply in Germany exclusively to the part of the sample based on probability sampling according to Article 8 of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1177/2003 concerning

Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. Article 8 of the EU-SILC Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council mentions: 1. The cross-sectional and longitudinal data shall be based on nationally representative probability samples. 2. By way of exception to paragraph 1, Germany shall supply cross-sectional data based on a nationally representative probability sample for the first time for the year 2008. For the year 2005, Germany shall supply data for one fourth based on probability sampling and for three fourths based on quota samples, the latter to be progressively replaced by random selection so as to achieve fully representative probability sampling by 2008. For the longitudinal component, Germany shall supply for the year 2006 one third of longitudinal data (data for year 2005 and 2006) based on probability sampling and two thirds based on quota samples. For the year 2007, half of the longitudinal data relating to years 2005, 2006 and 2007 shall be based on probability sampling and half on quota sample. After 2007 all of the longitudinal data shall be based on probability sampling.

Detailed information about sampling is available in Quality Reports in Related Materials.

Mode of data collection

Mixed

Abstract

The Estimating the Size of Populations through a Household Survey (EPSHS), sought to assess the feasibility of the network scale-up and proxy respondent methods for estimating the sizes of key populations at higher risk of HIV infection and to compare the results to other estimates of the population sizes. The study was undertaken based on the assumption that if these methods proved to be feasible with a reasonable amount of data collection for making adjustments, countries would be able to add this module to their standard household survey to produce size estimates for their key populations at higher risk of HIV infection. This would facilitate better programmatic responses for prevention and caring for people living with HIV and would improve the understanding of how HIV is being transmitted in the country.

The specific objectives of the ESPHS were: 1. To assess the feasibility of the network scale-up method for estimating the sizes of key populations at higher risk of HIV infection in a Sub-Saharan African context; 2. To assess the feasibility of the proxy respondent method for estimating the sizes of key populations at higher risk of HIV infection in a Sub-Saharan African context; 3. To estimate the population size of MSM, FSW, IDU, and clients of sex workers in Rwanda at a national level; 4. To compare the estimates of the sizes of key populations at higher risk for HIV produced by the network scale-up and proxy respondent methods with estimates produced using other methods; and 5. To collect data to be used in scientific publications comparing the use of the network scale-up method in different national and cultural environments.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Sampling procedure

The Estimating the Size of Populations through a Household Survey (ESPHS) used a two-stage sample design, implemented in a representative sample of 2,125 households selected nationwide in which all women and men age 15 years and above where eligible for an individual interview. The sampling frame used was the preparatory frame for the Rwanda Population and Housing Census (RPHC), which was conducted in 2012; it was provided by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR).

The sampling frame was a complete list of natural villages covering the whole country (14,837 villages). Two strata were defined: the city of Kigali and the rest of the country. One hundred and thirty Primary Sampling Units (PSU) were selected from the sampling frame (35 in Kigali and 95 in the other stratum). To reduce clustering effect, only 20 households were selected per cluster in Kigali and 15 in the other clusters. As a result, 33 percent of the households in the sample were located in Kigali.

The list of households in each cluster was updated upon arrival of the survey team in the cluster. Once the listing had been updated, a number was assigned to each existing household in the cluster. The supervisor then identified the households to be interviewed in the survey by using a table in which the households were randomly pre-selected. This table also provided the list of households pre-selected for each of the two different definitions of what it means "to know" someone.

For further details on sample design and implementation, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Estimating the Size of Populations through a Household Survey (ESPHS) used two types of questionnaires: a household questionnaire and an individual questionnaire. The same individual questionnaire was used to interview both women and men. In addition, two versions of the individual questionnaire were developed, using two different definitions of what it means “to know” someone. Each version of the individual questionnaire was used in half of the selected households.

Cleaning operations

The processing of the ESPHS data began shortly after the fieldwork commenced. Completed questionnaires were returned periodically from the field to the SPH office in Kigali, where they were entered and checked for consistency by data processing personnel who were specially trained for this task. Data were entered using CSPro, a programme specially developed for use in DHS surveys. All data were entered twice (100 percent verification). The concurrent processing of the data was a distinct advantage for data quality, because the School of Public Health had the opportunity to advise field teams of problems detected during data entry. The data entry and editing phase of the survey was completed in late August 2011.

Response rate

A total of 2,125 households were selected in the sample, of which 2,120 were actually occupied at the time of the interview. The number of occupied households successfully interviewed was 2,102, yielding a household response rate of 99 percent.

From the households interviewed, 2,629 women were found to be eligible and 2,567 were interviewed, giving a response rate of 98 percent. Interviews with men covered 2,102 of the eligible 2,149 men, yielding a response rate of 98 percent. The response rates do not significantly vary by type of questionnaire or residence.

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 to minimize this type of error during the implementation of the Rwanda ESPHS 2011, 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 ESPHS 2011 is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical 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 ESPHS 2011 sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the ESPHS 2011 is a SAS program. This program uses the Taylor linearization method for variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions.

A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in Appendix B of the survey report.

The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) are computer-accessible files containing records for a sample of housing Units, with information on the characteristics of each housing Unit and the people in it for 1940-1990. Within the limits of sample size and geographical detail, these files allow users to prepare virtually any tabulations they require. Each datafile is documented in a codebook containing a data dictionary and supporting appendix information. Electronic versions for the codebooks are only available for the 1980 and 1990 datafiles. Identifying information has been removed to protect the confidentiality of the respondents. PUMS is produced by the United States Census Bureau (USCB) and is distributed by USCB, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), and Columbia University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN).

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Advance population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Advance across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Advance was 505, a 0.40% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Advance population was 503, a decline of 0.59% compared to a population of 506 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Advance decreased by 54. In this period, the peak population was 598 in the year 2009. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Advance is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Advance population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Advance Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Snowflake population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Snowflake. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Snowflake by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Snowflake.

Key observations

The largest age group in Snowflake, AZ was for the group of age 10 to 14 years years with a population of 873 (14.10%), according to the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Snowflake, AZ was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 48 (0.78%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group in consideration
• Population: The population for the specific age group in the Snowflake is shown in this column.
• % of Total Population: This column displays the population of each age group as a proportion of Snowflake total population. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Snowflake Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Abstract

The main objectives of the study were to assess the knowledge and beliefs of high-risk groups about STI and HIV, determine the prevalence of HIV infection and syphilis among these groups and obtain baseline data that will permit comparisons of risk behaviours, HIV infection and syphilis over time.

Geographic coverage

Six selected states

Analysis unit

State, group, individual

Universe

The Integrated Biological and Behavioural Surveillance Survey 2007 covered only males and females aged up to 15-49 years among seven sub-populations at risk of HIV in six selected states of Nigeria, namely Female Sex Workers (both brothel- and non-brothel-based), men who have sex with men (MSM), injecting drug users (IDU), members of the armed forces, police, and transport workers (TW).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In order to reach a representative sample of all groups involved in the 2007 IBBSS, a number of different sampling techniques were used depending on the group in question, including simple random sampling (SRS), cluster sampling (probability proportionate to size (PPS) for fixed populations), time-location sampling (TLS) and respondent-driven sampling (RDS). For MSM and IDU, the RDS method was used, while a TLS technique was used to select non-brothel-based FSW and TW. The brothel-based FSW, armed forces, and police were selected using a two-stage cluster sampling technique. The take all (TA) sampling method was used when the desired sample size was not attainable based on the results of target population mapping.

ITLS is a form of cluster sampling that contains both time and location dimensions. TLS provides the opportunity to reach members of a target population who access certain locations at any point in time. The process starts by creating time * location PSU (PSU that have both a time and a location dimensions) from which a random sample is selected. At the second stage all or a sub-sample of randomly selected population members who appear at the site during a designated time interval of fixed length, for example 4 hours, are interviewed. To the extent that all members of a target population access the locations at some point in time, TLS is a probability sampling method because: (i) all population members have a non-zero chance of selection as long as the TLS frame is complete; and (ii) the selection probabilities can be calculated by taking the time dimension as well as the space dimension into account.

RDS is a method that combines "snowball sampling" with a mathematical model that weights the sample to compensate for the fact that the sample was collected in a non-random way. Characterized by long referral chains (to ensure that all members of the target population can be reached) and a statistical theory of the sampling process which controls for bias including the effects of choice of seeds and differences in network size, RDS overcomes the shortcomings of institutional sampling (coverage) and snow-ball type methods (statistical validity). By making chain-referral into a probability sampling method and consequently resolving the dilemma of a choice between coverage and statistical validity, RDS has become the most appropriate method for reaching the hard-to-reach population groups. The RDS process starts with the recruitment of the initial seeds each of whom recruits a maximum of two to three members from their population group.

Sampling deviation

Cluster samples were chosen randomly based on sampling frames developed through the mapping process. This process was to identify places where potential subjects could be reached and sampled. Field work for the mapping exercise was performed over one week. Due to the limited period some hidden populations may not be adequately represented in sampling frames.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaire was designed in collaboration with FMOH, SFH, CDC, WHO, UNAIDS and other stakeholders. At both central- and state-level trainings, each question in the questionnaire was reviewed and role-played and possible challenges were identified and addressed. The questionnaire of Integrated Biological and Behavioural Surveillance Survey 2007 was grouped into fifteen sections

Section 0: Identification particularsBackground characteristics Section 1: Background characteristics Section 2: Marriage and partnerships Section 3: Sexual history numbers and types of partners Section 4: Sexual history-regular partners (for those with spouse/live-in sexual partners only; for MSM, female spouse/live-in sexual partners only) Section 5: Sexual history-boy friends/girl friends (for those with boy friends/girl friends sexual partners only; for MSM, female boy friends/girl friends sexual partners only) Section 6: Sexual history-purchasing sex (male only) (for those with commercial sex partners only; for MSM, female commercial sex partners only) Section 7: Sexual history-casual-non regular non-paying sexual partners (for those with casual sexual partners only; for MSM, female casual sexual partners only) Section 8: Selling sex (for female populatios only) Section 9: Social habits (all groups) Section 10: Dru use/needle sharing (all population reporting drug injection in the past 12 months) Section 11: MSM-men who have sex with men (ask all respondents) Section 12: STIs (ask all respondents) Section 13: Knowledge, opinions, and attitudes towards HIV/AIDS (ask all respondents) Section 12: Exposure to interventions

Cleaning operations

After data entry, the data was cleaned using STATA 10. Frequency counts were carried out to check consistency and assess cleaniness of the database. The data cleaning also included the following:

Searching for ages outside the age range criteria; Cross-checking all corresponding skips to the questionnaire; Reviewing the cluster allocations; Cross-checking the questionnaire completion responses from the interviewers in the database with the records in the supervisors log to ensure they matched; Tallying the supervisors log of blood samples collected to ensure that recorded numbers of samples collected matched the results recorded in the database; and Consistency checks involving cross-checking answers to related questions.

Response rate

There were 11,175 individuals selected for this study out of whom 0.8% and 8.1% refused to participate in behavioural and biological componenets of the study respectively.

Non-brothel based FSW had the highest refusal rate of 2.7% and 19.4% for behavioural and biological components respectively, followed by brothel-based FSW at 2.2% and 13.1% respectively. Refusal rates for the behavioural component were less than 0.5% for other groups.

For the biological component, refusal rates were 3% for police, 0.8% for the armed forces, 1 .2% for TW, 4.6% for MSM, and 3.3% for IDU.

Sampling error estimates

No sampling error estimate

Data appraisal

A template for the questionnaire was designed with pre-programmed consistency checks for cross-checking answers, including skips and eligibility criteria. Laboratory data forms were collected on a periodic basis from the central laboratories and brought to the same centralized location for data entry. At least 25% of the questionnaires entered daily by each data entry clerk had the behaviour and other non-biological data entered, while 100% double-data entry was achieved for the biological data for quality control purposes. The data entry clerks were supervised by three supervisors who reviewed and validated all questionnaires entered.

Abstract

The main purpose of a Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) was to present high quality and representative national household data on income and expenditure in order to update Consumer Price Index (CPI), improve statistics on National Accounts and measure poverty within the country.

The main objectives of this survey - update the weight of each expenditure item (from COICOP) and obtain weights for the revision of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Funafuti - provide data on the household sectors contribution to the National Accounts - design the structure of consumption for food secutiry - To provide information on the nature and distribution of household income, expenditure and food consumption patterns household living standard useful for planning purposes - To provide information on economic activity of men and women to study gender issues - To generate the income distribution for poverty analysis

The 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) is the third HIES that was conducted by the Central Statistics Division since Tuvalu gained political independence in 1978.

This survey deals mostly with expenditure and income on the cash side and non cash side (gift, home production). Moreover, a lot of information are collected:

at a household level: - goods possession - description of the dwelling - water tank capacity - fruits and vegetables in the garden - livestock

at an individual level: - education level - employment - health

Geographic coverage

National Coverage: Funafuti and /Outer islands.

Analysis unit

• Household level
• Individual level

Universe

The scope of the 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) was all occupied households in Tuvalu. Households are the sampling unit, defined as a group of people (related or not) who pool their money, and cook and eat together. It is not the physical structure (dwelling) in which people live. HIES covered all persons who were considered to be usual residents of private dwellings (must have been living in Tuvalu for a period of 12-months, or have intention to live in Tuvalu for a period of 12-months in order to be included in the survey). Usual residents who are temporary away are included as well (e.g., for work or a holiday).

All the private household are included in the sampling frame. In each household selected, the current resident are surveyed, and people who are usual resident but are currently away (work, health, holydays reasons, or border student for example. If the household had been residing in Tuvalu for less than one year: - but intend to reside more than 12 months => he is included - do not intend to reside more than 12 months => out of scope.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Tuvalu 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) outputs breakdowns at the domain level which is Funafuti and Outer Islands. To achieve this, and to match the budget constraint, a third of the households were selected in both domains. It was decided that 33% (one third) sample was sufficient to achieve suitable levels of accuracy for key estimates in the survey. So the sample selection was spread proportionally across all the islands except Niulakita as it was considered too small. The selection method used is the simple random survey, meaning that within each domain households were directly selected from the population frame (which was the updated 2009 household listing). All islands were included in the selection except Niulakita that was excluded due to its remoteness, and size.

For selection purposes, in the outer island domain, each island was treated as a separate strata and independent samples were selected from each (one third). The strategy used was to list each dwelling on the island by their geographical position and run a systematic skip through the list to achieve the 33% sample. This approach assured that the sample would be spread out across each island as much as possible and thus more representative.

Population and sample counts of dwellings by islands for 2010 HIES Islands: -Nanumea: Population: 123; sample: 41 -Nanumaga: Population: 117; sample: 39 -Niutao: Population: 138; sample: 46 -Nui: Population: 141; sample: 47 -Vaitupu: Population: 298; sample: 100 -Nukufetau: Population: 141; sample: 47 -Nukulaelae: Population: 78; sample: 26 -Funafuti: Population: 791; sample: 254 -TOTAL: Population: 1827; sample: 600.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

3 forms were used. Each question is writen in English and translated in Tuvaluan on the same version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was highly based on the previous one (2004 survey).

Household Schedule This questionnaire, to be completed by interviewers, is used to collect information about the household composition, living conditions and is also the main form for collecting expenditure on goods and services purchased infrequently.

• composition of the household and demographic profile of each members
• dwelling information
• dwelling expenditure
• transport expenditure
• education expenditure
• health expenditure
• land and property expenditure
• household furnishing
• home appliances
• cultural and social payments
• holydays/travel costs
• Loans and saving
• clothing
• other major expenditure items

Individual Schedule There will be two individual schedules: - health and education - labor force (individual aged 15 and above) - employment activity and income (individual aged 15 and above): wages and salaries working own business agriculture and livestock fishing income from handicraft income from gambling small scale activies jobs in the last 12 months other income childreen income tobacco and alcohol use other activities seafarer

Diary (one diary per week, on a 2 weeks period, 2 diaries per household were required) The diaries are used to record all household expenditure and consumption over the two week diary keeping period. The diaries are to be filled in by the household members, with the assistance from interviewers when necessary. - All kind of expenses - Home production - food and drink (eaten by the household, given away, sold) - Goods taken from own business (consumed, given away) - Monetary gift (given away, received, winning from gambling) - Non monetary gift (given away, received, winning from gambling).

Cleaning operations

Consistency of the data: - each questionnaire was checked by the supervisor during and after the collection - before data entry, all the questionnaire were coded - the CSPRo data entry system included inconsistency checks which allow the National Statistics Office staff to point some errors and to correct them with imputation estimation from their own knowledge (no time for double entry), 4 data entry operators. 1. presence of all the form for each household 2. consistency of data within the questionnaire

at this stage, all the errors were corrected on the questionnaire and on the data entry system in the meantime.

• after data entry, the extreme amount of each questionnaire where selected in order to check their consistency. at this stage, all the inconsistency were corrected by imputation on CSPRO editing.

Response rate

The final response rates for the survey was very pleasing with an average rate of 97 per cent across all islands selected. The response rates were derived by dividing the number of fully responding households by the number of selected households in scope of the survey which weren't vacant.

Response rates for Tuvalu 2010 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES): - Nanumea 100% - Nanumaga 100% - Niutao 98% - Nui 100% - Vaitupu 99% - Nukufetau 89% - Nukulaelae 100% - Funafuti 96%

As can be seen in the table, four of the islands managed a 100 per cent response, whereas only Nukufetau had a response rate of less than 90 per cent.

Further explanation of response rates can be located in the external resource entitled Tuvalu 2010 HIES Report Table 1.2.

Sampling error estimates

The quality of the results can be found in the report provided in this documentation.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, for 2020, the 2020 Census provides the official counts of the population and housing units for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns. For 2016 to 2019, the Population Estimates Program provides estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and intercensal housing unit estimates for the nation, states, and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the September 2018 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances, the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineation lists due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

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

Abstract

The Afrobarometer is a comparative series of public attitude surveys that assess African citizen's attitudes to democracy and governance, markets, and civil society, among other topics. The surveys have been undertaken at periodic intervals since 1999. The Afrobarometer's coverage has increased over time. Round 1 (1999-2001) initially covered 7 countries and was later extended to 12 countries. Round 2 (2002-2004) surveyed citizens in 16 countries. Round 3 (2005-2006) 18 countries, Round 4 (2008) 20 countries, Round 5 (2011-2013) 34 countries, Round 6 (2014-2015) 36 countries, and Round 7 (2016-2018) 34 countries. The survey covered 34 countries in Round 8 (2019-2021).

Geographic coverage

National coverage.

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

Citizens who are 18 years and older.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Afrobarometer Sampling Procedure

Afrobarometer uses national probability samples designed to meet the following criteria. Samples are designed to generate a sample that is a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of being selected for an interview. They achieve this by:

• using random selection methods at every stage of sampling; • sampling at all stages with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible to ensure that larger (i.e., more populated) geographic units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample.

The sampling universe normally includes all citizens age 18 and older. As a standard practice, we exclude people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories, patients in hospitals, and persons in prisons or nursing homes. Occasionally, we must also exclude people living in areas determined to be inaccessible due to conflict or insecurity. Any such exclusion is noted in the technical information report (TIR) that accompanies each data set.

Sample size and design Samples usually include either 1,200 or 2,400 cases. A randomly selected sample of n=1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than +/-2.8% with a confidence level of 95 percent. With a sample size of n=2400, the margin of error decreases to +/-2.0% at 95 percent confidence level.

The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample. Specifically, we first stratify the sample according to the main sub-national unit of government (state, province, region, etc.) and by urban or rural location.

Area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. Afrobarometer occasionally purposely oversamples certain populations that are politically significant within a country to ensure that the size of the sub-sample is large enough to be analysed. Any oversamples is noted in the TIR.

Sample stages Samples are drawn in either four or five stages:

Stage 1: In rural areas only, the first stage is to draw secondary sampling units (SSUs). SSUs are not used in urban areas, and in some countries they are not used in rural areas. See the TIR that accompanies each data set for specific details on the sample in any given country. Stage 2: We randomly select primary sampling units (PSU). Stage 3: We then randomly select sampling start points. Stage 4: Interviewers then randomly select households. Stage 5: Within the household, the interviewer randomly selects an individual respondent. Each interviewer alternates in each household between interviewing a man and interviewing a woman to ensure gender balance in the sample.

To keep the costs and logistics of fieldwork within manageable limits, eight interviews are clustered within each selected PSU.

Burkina Faso - Sample size: 1,200 - Sampling Frame: Recensement Général de la Population et de l'Habitation 2006 - Sample design: Nationally representative, random, clustered, stratified, multi-stage area probability sample - Stratification: Region and urban-rural location - PSU selection: Probability Proportionate to Population Size (PPPS) - Cluster size: 8 households per PSU - Household selection: Randomly selected start points, followed by walk pattern using 5/10 interval - Respondent selection: Gender quota filled by alternating interviews between men and women; respondents of appropriate gender listed, after which household member draws a numbered card to select individual.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Round 8 questionnaire has been developed by the Questionnaire Committee after reviewing the findings and feedback obtained in previous Rounds, and securing input on preferred new topics from a host of donors, analysts, and users of the data.

The questionnaire consists of three parts: 1. Part 1 captures the steps for selecting households and respondents, and includes the introduction to the respondent and (pp.1-4). This section should be filled in by the Fieldworker. 2. Part 2 covers the core attitudinal and demographic questions that are asked by the Fieldworker and answered by the Respondent (Q1 – Q100). 3. Part 3 includes contextual questions about the setting and atmosphere of the interview, and collects information on the Fieldworker. This section is completed by the Fieldworker (Q101 – Q123).

Response rate

Outcome rates: - Contact rate: 90% - Cooperation rate: 88% - Refusal rate: 3% - Response rate: 79%

Sampling error estimates

+/- 3 % with 95% confidence level

Overview of population samples that were included in genetic analyses of Pleuromamma xiphias from across the Atlantic Ocean. Specimens were collected on the Atlantic Meridional Transect 22 (AMT22) cruise on RRS James Cook from Oct-Nov 2012. Data columns include collection location and date, ocean biome, number of individuals sampled (N), number of haplotypes observed (H), the ratio of haplotypes to sample size (H/N), haplotype diversity (h) and nucleotide diversity (π) for each site. 'Pop' indicates whether the sample was included in population genetic analyses (Yes/No, see Goetze et al. 2016 for explanation).

These data are also published in Table 1 of:
Goetze, E., Hüdepohl, P., Chang, C., Iacchei, M., Van Woudenberg, L., Peijnenburg, K. T. C. A. (2016) Ecological dispersal barrier across the equatorial Atlantic in a migratory planktonic copepod. Progress in Oceanography – AMT special issue. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2016.07.001

Refer to the related dataset "Pxiphias PopStructure mtDNA" for data files generated by the genetic analyses.

Summary of our statistical analyses for the maze study, compared to the analysis results reported in the original study.

Patterns of genetic variation in human populations across the African continent are still not well studied in comparison with Eurasia and America, despite the high genetic and cultural diversity among African populations. In population and forensic genetic studies a single sample is often used to represent a complete African region. In such a scenario, inappropriate sampling strategies and/or the use of local, isolated populations may bias interpretations and pose questions of representativeness at a macrogeographic-scale. The non-recombining region of the Y-chromosome (NRY) has great potential to reveal the regional representation of a sample due to its powerful phylogeographic information content. An area poorly characterized for Y-chromosomal data is the West-African region along the Bight of Benin, despite its important history in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and its large number of ethnic groups, languages and lifestyles. In this study, Y-chromosomal haplotypes from four Beninese populations were determined and a global meta-analysis with available Y-SNP and Y-STR data from populations along the Bight of Benin and surrounding areas was performed. A thorough methodology was developed allowing comparison of population samples using Y-chromosomal lineage data based on different Y-SNP panels and phylogenies. Geographic proximity turned out to be the best predictor of genetic affinity between populations along the Bight of Benin. Nevertheless, based on Y-chromosomal data from the literature two population samples differed strongly from others from the same or neighbouring areas and are not regionally representative within large-scale studies. Furthermore, the analysis of the HapMap sample YRI of a Yoruban population from South-western Nigeria based on Y-SNPs and Y-STR data showed for the first time its regional representativeness, a result which is important for standard population and forensic genetic applications using the YRI sample. Therefore, the uniquely and powerful geographical information carried by the Y-chromosome makes it an important locus to test the representativeness of a certain sample even in the genomic era, especially in poorly investigated areas like Africa.

Summary of the number of samples collected and total livestock population in sampling sites.