Report No. 9 in the 2002 NSAF Methodology Series
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).
1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The 2002 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) had both a telephone and an in-person
protocol. This report focuses on the telephone protocol. The in-person protocol is described in 2002 NSAF In-Person Survey Methods, Report No. 5 in this methodology series.
The NSAF has had three rounds of data collection. The first was in 1997 (Round 1), the second in 1999 (Round 2) and the third in 2002 (Round 3). This report describes Round 3. For information about telephone survey methods in Round 1, see 1997 NSAF Telephone Survey Methods, Report No. 9 in the Round 1 methodology series; for Round 2, see 1999 NSAF Telephone Survey Methods, Report No. 9 in the Round 2 methodology series.
The telephone component of the NSAF 2002 used a list-assisted method to select the random digit dialing (RDD) sample of telephone numbers and computer-assisted interviewing (CATI) for screening and interviewing. The sample was selected separately for each study site and for the balance of the nation. Telephone households were subsampled, with the subsampling rates depending upon the presence of children in the household and responses to income screening questions. All households with children that were classified as low-income households were sampled, while higher income households with children and all households without children (but with someone under 65) were subsampled.
From the sample of 556,651 telephone numbers, 133,503 households were screened, and detailed extended telephone interviews were conducted in 39,220 households with 43,157 persons under the age of 65.1 As noted earlier, there was also an in-person component to the study. In the in-person component, 649 extended interviews were conducted in 578 selected households. In total 43,806 telephone and in-person extended interviews were conducted in 39,798 households.
The longer interview (47 minutes), referred to as Option A, was administered in households with children under 18, and the shorter interview (31 minutes), referred to as Option B, was administered to adults under 65 without children under 18 living in their household. There were 28,502 Option A interviews and 15,219 Option B interviews. Option A interviews asked questions about both children and their families, while Option B interviews contained only those Option A questions relevant to adults. The questionnaire was divided into several sections, including the following topics: education, health care coverage and access, child care, employment and earnings, family income, welfare participation, housing and economic hardship, social services, problems, race, ethnicity, and nativity.
Before the interview was administered, households were screened to determine eligibility and subsampled as appropriate, and persons were selected for the interview. In households with children, up to two children (called focal children) were selected, one under age 6 and the other
between ages 6 and 17. Information about the child(ren) and the household (the Option A interview) was obtained from the most knowledgeable adult, or MKA. It was possible to have separate MKAs for each focal child though it was more common to have one MKA for both children. It was also possible to sample adults from households with children. To be eligible for this selection protocol, the adult had to be under 65 years old, not a spouse or partner of the respondent, and not a parent of any children under 18 years old living in the sample household.
This group is referred to as the Option B stragglers because their interview always followed the interview for the focal children. Other adults under 65 were sampled from households without children. In these households, one or two adults were randomly selected for the Option B interview.
The interviews and screener were programmed into Westat's CATI system to facilitate
administration and data editing. Data collection for the screener and extended interview started
on February 13, 2002. The timing of data collection was planned to allow respondents a chance
to receive all their 2001 tax information documents (W-2s, Forms 1099, etc.) before the
interview and thus be able to answer questions about 2001 income in a more informed way. The
survey was completed on November 3, 2002.
Before the initial contact, all respondents with addresses were sent a prenotification letter and a brochure describing the study in some detail (see appendix A). The prenotification letters were timed to arrive approximately one week before initial contact with the household. Refusal
conversion letters were also sent at both the screener and extended interview levels (see appendix C). The mailing and conversion protocols are discussed in detail in chapter 5.
All interviewing was conducted from one of eight Westat interviewing facilities—Chambersburg, Pennsylvania; Frederick, Maryland; Greeley, Colorado; Merced, California; Rockville, Maryland; Sacramento, California; Sarasota, Florida; and Toms River, New Jersey. A total of 620 interviewers were trained across all sites; 31 in Chambersburg, 89 in Frederick, 63 in Greeley, 46 in Merced, 112 in Rockville, 140 in Sacramento, 82 in Sarasota, and 57 in Toms River. In-person interviewers used cell phones and called in interviews to the Frederick and Twelve Oaks Telephone Research Centers (TRCs). This procedure is described in 2002 NSAF In-Person Survey Methods, Report No. 5 in this methodology series.
Various quality control methods were used in the NSAF. Some of them, such as CATI testing and training, were used before beginning data collection as preventive measures. Others, such as supplemental interviewer training, monitoring, and comment and problem sheet review, were used during data collection to respond to issues with interviewers or to make adjustments to the questionnaire.
One main issue in Round 1 of the survey was a problem with the family definition. Because the definition was changed in Round 1, it was not a problem in Rounds 2 or 3. See 1997 NSAF Telephone Survey Methods, Report No. 9 in the Round 1 methodology series, for a discussion. The 1997 report also describes a small within-household coverage issue that is relevant to all rounds but is not discussed again here. The bottom line is that there were no major difficulties with the NSAF in Rounds 2 and 3.
Details of the main study telephone component are described in the chapters that follow. The
telephone screener is discussed in chapter 2 and the extended interview is described in chapter 3. Chapter 4 focuses on training. Chapter 5 describes scheduling and the release of work, and chapter 6 describes quality control.
Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).
1 In Round 3, completed interviews were defined as those that were completed through section K of the interview. In households with multiple interviews, if the first and later interviews were partially completed only the first interview was retained.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
