Analysis

All (2) ((2 results))

• 1. Probabilistic or deterministic? Linkage methods tested for the Résil program Archived

  Articles and reports: 11-522-X202200100019

  Description: The purpose of this article is to compare the linkage results for individuals from French tax sources with those of the 2019 Enquête Annuelle de Recensement (EAR), obtained through different methods. Such a comparison will decide whether the Répertoires Statistiques d'Individus et de Logements (Résil) program should be equipped with a probabilistic matching tool for its administrative source identification and matching engine.

  Release date: 2024-03-25

  ---

• 2. Requirement: Collect less. Our mission: Do the best we can. Archived

  Articles and reports: 11-522-X201300014276

  Description:

  In France, budget restrictions are making it more difficult to hire casual interviewers to deal with collection problems. As a result, it has become necessary to adhere to a predetermined annual work quota. For surveys of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), which use a master sample, problems arise when an interviewer is on extended leave throughout the entire collection period of a survey. When that occurs, an area may cease to be covered by the survey, and this effectively generates a bias. In response to this new problem, we have implemented two methods, depending on when the problem is identified: If an area is ‘abandoned’ before or at the very beginning of collection, we carry out a ‘sub-allocation’ procedure. The procedure involves interviewing a minimum number of households in each collection area at the expense of other areas in which no collection problems have been identified. The idea is to minimize the dispersion of weights while meeting collection targets. If an area is ‘abandoned’ during collection, we prioritize the remaining surveys. Prioritization is based on a representativeness indicator (R indicator) that measures the degree of similarity between a sample and the base population. The goal of this prioritization process during collection is to get as close as possible to equal response probability for respondents. The R indicator is based on the dispersion of the estimated response probabilities of the sampled households, and it is composed of partial R indicators that measure representativeness variable by variable. These R indicators are tools that we can use to analyze collection by isolating underrepresented population groups. We can increase collection efforts for groups that have been identified beforehand. In the oral presentation, we covered these two points concisely. By contrast, this paper deals exclusively with the first point: sub-allocation. Prioritization is being implemented for the first time at INSEE for the assets survey, and it will be covered in a specific paper by A. Rebecq.

  Release date: 2014-10-31

Stats in brief (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.

Articles and reports (2) ((2 results))

• 1. Probabilistic or deterministic? Linkage methods tested for the Résil program Archived

  Articles and reports: 11-522-X202200100019

  Description: The purpose of this article is to compare the linkage results for individuals from French tax sources with those of the 2019 Enquête Annuelle de Recensement (EAR), obtained through different methods. Such a comparison will decide whether the Répertoires Statistiques d'Individus et de Logements (Résil) program should be equipped with a probabilistic matching tool for its administrative source identification and matching engine.

  Release date: 2024-03-25

  ---

• 2. Requirement: Collect less. Our mission: Do the best we can. Archived

  Articles and reports: 11-522-X201300014276

  Description:

  In France, budget restrictions are making it more difficult to hire casual interviewers to deal with collection problems. As a result, it has become necessary to adhere to a predetermined annual work quota. For surveys of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), which use a master sample, problems arise when an interviewer is on extended leave throughout the entire collection period of a survey. When that occurs, an area may cease to be covered by the survey, and this effectively generates a bias. In response to this new problem, we have implemented two methods, depending on when the problem is identified: If an area is ‘abandoned’ before or at the very beginning of collection, we carry out a ‘sub-allocation’ procedure. The procedure involves interviewing a minimum number of households in each collection area at the expense of other areas in which no collection problems have been identified. The idea is to minimize the dispersion of weights while meeting collection targets. If an area is ‘abandoned’ during collection, we prioritize the remaining surveys. Prioritization is based on a representativeness indicator (R indicator) that measures the degree of similarity between a sample and the base population. The goal of this prioritization process during collection is to get as close as possible to equal response probability for respondents. The R indicator is based on the dispersion of the estimated response probabilities of the sampled households, and it is composed of partial R indicators that measure representativeness variable by variable. These R indicators are tools that we can use to analyze collection by isolating underrepresented population groups. We can increase collection efforts for groups that have been identified beforehand. In the oral presentation, we covered these two points concisely. By contrast, this paper deals exclusively with the first point: sub-allocation. Prioritization is being implemented for the first time at INSEE for the assets survey, and it will be covered in a specific paper by A. Rebecq.

  Release date: 2014-10-31

Journals and periodicals (0) (0 results)

No content available at this time.