Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix E: Statistical Rationale Behind Some Initial Findings on the Relative Statistical Plausibility of a Multiple-Frame Approach to Estimating the Victimization Rate of Rape and Sexual Assault
Pages 247-256

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 247...
... It explores the statistical rationale behind some initial findings on the relative statistical plausibility of a multiple-frame approach.2 BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS 1. The primary analysis objective is to estimate the proportion (P)
From page 248...
... design but uses a standard area household frame as currently used in the NCVS. While more complex forms of strati fied cluster sampling would be used with DF and SF designs, one assumes SRSWR sampling is applied to each frame, with the pre sumption that effects of greater sampling complexity would cancel, thus sustaining a comparison between the two design alternatives.
From page 249...
... If one defines Ch, the average cost of adding another survey respondent in the h-th stratum, then we can use the simple linear variable cost model, H C* = ∑ Ch nh and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to establish the sample h =1 { } { } allocation that minimizes  V ( pW )
From page 250...
... Ratio of Average Unit Costs for the Two Dual-Frame Strata -- This ratio depicts the ratio of the average cost of adding another respon dent to the administrative stratum compared to the comparable average cost for the nonadministrative household stratum. This indicator is computed as
From page 251...
... PHH 3. Extent of Oversampling Members of the Administrative Frame in the Dual-Frame Design -- This is a descriptive indicator of the relatively greater sampling intensity in the administrative stratum compared to the household stratum in the DF design.
From page 252...
... estimates from a household SF design as currently used in the NCVS. To determine the relative utility of DF and SF designs one might pose this question.
From page 253...
... CA + WHH PHH (1 − PHH ) CHH  CHH     Thus, the total sample size for the DF design in this case would be
From page 254...
... The variance of the weighted estimate of P from the DF design based on this most cost-efficient sample allocation between strata will be WA PA (1 − PA )
From page 255...
... Nonetheless, I believe that these preliminary findings strongly suggest that it would be worthwhile for BJS to more closely investigate the feasibility of using a dual-frame approach for estimating rates of RSA, particularly if these estimates are obtained from an independent RSA victimization survey as recommended by the panel. Finally, the panel's suggestions accompanying a further investigation of the dual-frame might be to incorporate more realistic elements overlooked by my simplifying assumptions above.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.