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.

The previous review in this series introduced the notion of data description and outlined some of the more common summary measures used to describe a dataset. However, a dataset is typically only of interest for the information it provides regarding the population from which it was drawn. The present review focuses on estimation of population values from a sample.

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 2023 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is the eighth Population and Family Health Survey conducted in Jordan, following those conducted in 1990, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2017–18. It was implemented by the Department of Statistics (DoS) at the request of the Ministry of Health (MoH).

The primary objective of the 2023 JPFHS is to provide up-to-date estimates of key demographic and health indicators. Specifically, the 2023 JPFHS: • Collected data at the national level that allowed calculation of key demographic indicators • Explored the direct and indirect factors that determine levels of and trends in fertility and childhood mortality • Measured contraceptive knowledge and practice • Collected data on key aspects of family health, including immunisation coverage among children, prevalence and treatment of diarrhoea and other diseases among children under age 5, and maternity care indicators such as antenatal visits and assistance at delivery • Obtained data on child feeding practices, including breastfeeding, and conducted anthropometric measurements to assess the nutritional status of children under age 5 and women age 15–49 • Conducted haemoglobin testing with eligible children age 6–59 months and women age 15–49 to gather information on the prevalence of anaemia • Collected data on women’s and men’s knowledge and attitudes regarding sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS • Obtained data on women’s experience of emotional, physical, and sexual violence • Gathered data on disability among household members

The information collected through the 2023 JPFHS is intended to assist policymakers and programme managers in evaluating and designing programmes and strategies for improving the health of the country’s population. The survey also provides indicators relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for Jordan.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Man age 15-59

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged 15-49, men aged 15-59, and all children aged 0-4 resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sampling frame used for the 2023 JPFHS was the 2015 Jordan Population and Housing Census (JPHC) frame. The survey was designed to produce representative results for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas separately, for each of the country’s 12 governorates, and for four nationality domains: the Jordanian population, the Syrian population living in refugee camps, the Syrian population living outside of camps, and the population of other nationalities. Each of the 12 governorates is subdivided into districts, each district into subdistricts, each subdistrict into localities, and each locality into areas and subareas. In addition to these administrative units, during the 2015 JPHC each subarea was divided into convenient area units called census blocks. An electronic file of a complete list of all of the census blocks is available from DoS. The list contains census information on households, populations, geographical locations, and socioeconomic characteristics of each block. Based on this list, census blocks were regrouped to form a general statistical unit of moderate size, called a cluster, which is widely used in various surveys as the primary sampling unit (PSU). The sample clusters for the 2023 JPFHS were selected from the frame of cluster units provided by the DoS.

The sample for the 2023 JPFHS was a stratified sample selected in two stages from the 2015 census frame. Stratification was achieved by separating each governorate into urban and rural areas. In addition, the Syrian refugee camps in Zarqa and Mafraq each formed a special sampling stratum. In total, 26 sampling strata were constructed. Samples were selected independently in each sampling stratum, through a twostage selection process, according to the sample allocation. Before the sample selection, the sampling frame was sorted by district and subdistrict within each sampling stratum. By using a probability proportional to size selection at the first stage of sampling, an implicit stratification and proportional allocation were achieved at each of the lower administrative levels.

For further details on sample design, see APPENDIX A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Five questionnaires were used for the 2023 JPFHS: (1) the Household Questionnaire, (2) the Woman’s Questionnaire, (3) the Man’s Questionnaire, (4) the Biomarker Questionnaire, and (5) the Fieldworker Questionnaire. The questionnaires, based on The DHS Program’s model questionnaires, were adapted to reflect the population and health issues relevant to Jordan. Input was solicited from various stakeholders representing government ministries and agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and international donors. After all questionnaires were finalised in English, they were translated into Arabic.

Cleaning operations

All electronic data files for the 2023 JPFHS were transferred via SynCloud to the DoS central office in Amman, where they were stored on a password-protected computer. The data processing operation included secondary editing, which required resolution of computer-identified inconsistencies and coding of open-ended questions. Data editing was accomplished using CSPro software. During the duration of fieldwork, tables were generated to check various data quality parameters, and specific feedback was given to the teams to improve performance. Secondary editing and data processing were initiated in July and completed in September 2023.

Response rate

A total of 20,054 households were selected for the sample, of which 19,809 were occupied. Of the occupied households, 19,475 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 98%.

In the interviewed households, 13,020 eligible women age 15–49 were identified for individual interviews; interviews were completed with 12,595 women, yielding a response rate of 97%. In the subsample of households selected for the male survey, 6,506 men age 15–59 were identified as eligible for individual interviews and 5,873 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 90%.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and in 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 2023 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (2023 JPFHS) 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 2023 JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and sample 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 among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

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% of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected by simple random sampling, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2023 JPFHS sample was the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed using SAS programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearisation method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

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

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables

• Household age distribution
• Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women
• Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men
• Age displacement at age 14/15
• Age displacement at age 49/50
• Pregnancy outcomes by years preceding the survey
• Completeness of reporting
• Standardization exercise results from anthropometry training
• Height and weight data completeness and quality for children
• Height measurements from random subsample of measured children
• Interference in height and weight measurements of children
• Interference in height and weight measurements of women
• Heaping in

Abstract

In 2009, the EU-SILC instrument covered all EU Member States plus Iceland, Turkey, Norway and Switzerland. 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. Labour, education and health observations only apply to persons 16 and older. 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.

The 7th version of the 2009 Cross-Sectional User Database (UDB) as released in July 2015 is documented here.

Geographic coverage

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

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

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

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 This paper contributes to the existing literature by reviewing the research methodology and the literature review with the focus on potential applications for the novelty technology of the single platform E-payment. These included, but were not restricted to the subjects, population, sample size requirement, data collection method and measurement of variables, pilot study and statistical techniques for data analysis. The reviews will shed some light and potential applications for future researchers, students and others to conceptualize, operationalize and analyze the underlying research methodology to assist in the development of their research methodology.

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).

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

Effective conservation and management of animal populations requires knowledge of abundance and trends. For many species, these quantities are estimated using systematic visual surveys. Additional individual-level data are available for some species. Integrated population modelling (IPM) offers a mechanism for leveraging these datasets into a single estimation framework. IPMs that incorporate both population- and individual-level data have previously been developed for birds, but have rarely been applied to cetaceans. Here, we explore how IPMs can be used to improve the assessment of cetacean populations. We combined three types of data that are typically available for cetaceans of conservation concern: population-level visual survey data, individual-level capture-recapture data, and data on anthropogenic mortality. We used this IPM to estimate the population dynamics of the Cook Inlet population of beluga whales (CIBW; Delphinapterus leucas) as a case study. Our state-space IPM included a population process model and three observational submodels: 1) a group detection model to describe group size estimates from aerial survey data; 2) a capture-recapture model to describe individual photographic capture-recapture data; and 3) a Poisson regression model to describe historical hunting data. The IPM produces biologically plausible estimates of population trajectories consistent with all three datasets. The estimated population growth rate since 2000 is less than expected for a recovering population. The estimated juvenile/adult survival rate is also low compared to other cetacean populations, indicating that low survival may be impeding recovery. This work demonstrates the value of integrating various data sources to assess cetacean populations and serves as an example of how multiple, imperfect datasets can be combined to improve our understanding of a population of interest. The model framework is applicable to other cetacean populations and to other taxa for which similar data types are available.

Methods /Data/CIBW_RSideCapHist_McGuire&Stephens.csv contains a matrix of right side capture histories (1 = captured, 0 = not captured) for each individual (rows) and year (columns). Photographic capture-recapture data were collected by Tamara McGuire. These data are made available here, without restriction, but anyone wishing to use these data is requested to contact tamaracookinletbeluga@gmail.com, who can provide further information on how raw data were processed to provide capture histories.

/Data/CIBW_HuntData_Mahoney&Shelden2000.xlsx contains the minimum documented number of animals killed (MinKilled) for years between 1950 and 1998 as published in Mahoney and Shelden 2000. Entries which are NA indicate that no data were available for that year.

/Data/CIBW_Abundance_HobbsEtAl2015.xlsx contains the total group size estimates from Hobbs et al. 2015.

/Data/CIBW_Abundance_BoydEtAl2019.txt contains an array with dimensions [1:1000, 1:8, 1:11] containing 1000 posterior samples of total group size for up to 8 survey days over 11 years, as described in Boyd et al. 2019.

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.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Malta by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for Malta. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Malta by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in Malta. Additionally, it can be used to see how the gender ratio changes from birth to senior most age group and male to female ratio across each age group for Malta.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 35-39 years (52) | Female # 25-29 years (62). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 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

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis.

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Malta population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Malta is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Malta is shown in the following column.
• Gender Ratio: Also known as the sex ratio, this column displays the number of males per 100 females in Malta for each age group.

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 Malta Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

Abstract

The Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) is a national sample survey designed to provide information on fertility, family planning and health in Ghana. The survey, which was conducted by the Statistical Service of Ghana, is part of a worldwide programme coordinated by the Institute for Resource Development/Macro Systems, Inc., in more than 40 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The short-term objectives of the Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) are to provide policymakers and those implementing policy with current data on fertility levels, knowledge and use of contraception, reproductive intentions of women 15-49, and health indicators. The information will also serve as the basis for monitoring and evaluating programmes initiated by the government such as the extended programme on immunization, child nutrition, and the family planning programme. The long-term objectives are to enhance the country's ability to undertake surveys of excellent technical quality that seek to measure changes in fertility levels, health status (particularly of children), and the extent of contraceptive knowledge and use. Finally, the results of the survey will form part of an international data base for researchers investigating topics related to the above issues.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

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

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The 150 clusters from which a representative sample of women aged 15-49 was selected from a subsample of the 200 clusters used for the Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS). All census Enumeration Areas (EAs) were first stratified by ecological zones into 3 strata, namely Coastal Savanna, Forest, and Northern Savanna. These were further stratified into urban, semi-urban, and rural EAs. The EAs (in some cases, segments of EAs) were then selected with probability proportional to the number of households. All households in the selected EAs were subsequently listed.

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

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three different types of questionnaires were used for the GDHS. These were the household, individual and the husband questionnaires. The household and the individual questionnaires were adapted from the Model "B" Questionnaire for the DHS program. The GDHS is one of the few surveys in which special effort was made to collect information from husbands of interviewed women on such topics as fertility preferences, knowledge and use of contraception, and environmental and health related issues.

All usual members and visitors in the selected households were listed on the household questionnaire. Recorded in the household questionnaire were data on the age and sex of all listed persons in addition to information on fostering for children aged 0-14. Eligible women and eligible husbands were also identified in the household questionnaire.

The individual questionnaire was used to collect data on eligible women. Eligible women were definedas those aged 15-49 years who spent the night prior to the household interview in the selected household, irrespective of whether they were usual members of the household or not. Items of information collected in this questionnaire are as follows: 1) Respondent's Background 2) Reproductive Behavior 3) Knowledge and Use of Contraception 4) Health and Breastfeeding 5) Marriage 6) Fertility Preferences 7) Husband's Background and Women's Work 8) Weight and Height of Children Aged 3-36 Months.

In half of the selected clusters a husband's questionnaire was used to collect data on eligible husbands. Eligible husbands were defined as those who were co-resident with their wives and whose wives had been successfully interviewed. Data on the husband's background, contraceptive knowledge and use, as well as fertility preferences were collected.

All three questionnaires were translated into seven local languages, namely, Twi, Fante, Nzema, Ga, Ewe, Hausa and Dagbani. All the GDHS interviewers were able to conduct interviews in English and at least one local language. The questionnaires were pretested from mid-October to early November 1987. Five teams were used for the pretest fieldwork. These included 19 persons who were trained for 11 days.

Cleaning operations

Completed questionnaires were collected weekly from the regions by the field coordinators. Coding, data entry and machine editing went on concurrently at the Ghana Statistical Service in Accra as the fieldwork progressed. Coding and data entry were started in March 1988 and were completed by the end of June 1988. Preliminary tabulations were produced by mid-July 1988, and by August 1988 preliminary results of the survey were published.

Response rate

Of the 4966 households selected, 4406 were successfully interviewed. Excluding 9 percent of households that were vacant, absent, etc., the household response rate is 98 percent.

Out of 4574 eligible women in the household schedule, 4488 were interviewed successfully. The response rate at the individual level is 98 percent. Of the 997 eligible husbands, 943 were successfully interviewed, representing a response rate of 95 percent.

Sampling error estimates

The results from sample surveys are affected by two types of errors: non-sampling error and sampling error. The former is due to mistakes in implementing the field activities, such as failing to locate and interview the correct household, errors in asking questions, data entry errors, etc. While numerous steps were taken to minimize this sort of error in the GDHS, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid entirely, and are difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of women selected in the GDHS is only one of many samples of the same size that could have been drawn from the population using the same design. Each sample would have yielded slightly different results from the sample actually selected. The variability observed among all possible samples constitutes sampling error, which can be estimated from survey results (though not measured exactly).

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

If simple random sampling had been used to select women for the GDHS, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the GDHS sample design used three stages and clusters of households, and it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Therefore, the computer package CLUSTERS, developed for the World Fertility Survey, and was used to compute sampling errors.

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

These data were compiled here to fit various versions of Bayesian population models and compare their performance, primarily the time required to make inferences using different softwares and versions of code. The humpback chub data were collected by US Geological Survey and US Fish and Wildlife service in the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers from April 2009 to October 2017. Adult fish were captured using hoop nets and electro-fishing, measured for total length and given individual marks using passive integrated transponders that were scanned when fish were recaptured. The other three datasets were collected by US Forest Service. Owl data for the N-occupancy model was collected between 1990 and 2015. Owl data for the two-species example was collected between 1990 and 2011. Both owl data sets were collected in a ~1000 km2 area in the Roseburg District of the Bureau of Land Management in western Oregon, USA. Owl vocalizations (vocal lures) were used to detect barred owl or spotted owl pairs in 158 survey polygons spread throughout the study area. The avian community occupancy data were collected from 1991 to 1995 across 92 sites in the Chiricahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona, USA. 149 species were detected through repeated point counts in each year.

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 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.

The 1961 Census Microdata Individual File for Great Britain: 5% Sample dataset was created from existing digital records from the 1961 Census under a project known as Enhancing and Enriching Historic Census Microdata Samples (EEHCM), which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council with input from the Office for National Statistics and National Records of Scotland. The project ran from 2012-2014 and was led from the UK Data Archive, University of Essex, in collaboration with the Cathie Marsh Institute for Social Research (CMIST) at the University of Manchester and the Census Offices. In addition to the 1961 data, the team worked on files from the 1971 Census and 1981 Census.

The original 1961 records preceded current data archival standards and were created before microdata sets for secondary use were anticipated. A process of data recovery and quality checking was necessary to maximise their utility for current researchers, though some imperfections remain (see the User Guide for details). Three other 1961 Census datasets have been created:

• SN 8273 - 1961 Census Microdata Household File for Great Britain: 0.95% Sample, which links household members together to allow individuals to be understood within their household context, and is available to registered UK Data Service users based in the United Kingdom (see Access section for non-UK access restrictions);
• SN 8274 - 1961 Census Microdata Teaching Dataset for Great Britain: 1% Sample: Open Access, which can be used as a taster file and is freely available for anyone to download under an Open Government Licence; and
• SN 8275 - 1961 Census Microdata for Great Britain: 9% Sample: Secure Access, which comprises a larger population sample and so contains sufficient information to constitute personal data, meaning that it is only available to Accredited Researchers, under restrictive Secure Access conditions.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Allison 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 Allison 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 Allison was 942, a 1.15% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Allison population was 953, a decline of 1.04% compared to a population of 963 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Allison decreased by 58. In this period, the peak population was 1,026 in the year 2010. 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 Allison is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Allison 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 Allison Population by Year. You can refer the same here