An A n a l y s i s o f t h e Accuracy of Spousal Reports
G 55 h l & . & ~ \ o ~ \ c ~ G
\ port
rJd
.TS
November, 1985
Tom Smith
NORC
U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago
This r e s e a r c h was done f o r t h e General S o c i a l Survey p r o j e c t d i r e c t e d by' James
A s Davis and Tom W.
Smith.
The p r o j e c t i s funded by t h e N a t i o n a l Science
Foundation, Grant NOS SES-8118731.
- 1-
GSS :62
Like t h e p r o v e r b i a l h o r s e t r a d e r , s u r v e y r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e i t i s b e s t
t o "go s t r a i g h t t o t h e h o r s e ' s mouth."
S e l f - r e p o r t s a r e a c c e p t e d a s t h e most
a c c u r a t e , w h i l e proxy r e p o r t s by i n f o r m a n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d less r e l i a b l e
(Sudman and Bradburn, 1982).
S e l f - r e p o r t s a r e judged s u p e r i o r because t h e
i n d i v i d u a l e i t h e r h a s unique, p e r s o n a l knowledge of t h e s u b j e c t under i n q u i r y ,
such as a b o u t s u b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g s t a t e s o r a t t i t u d e s towards v a r i o u s i s s u e s ,
o r because t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e c a l l of e v e n t s and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s i s
l i k e l y t o be more complete and d e t a i l e d .
By f a r t h e most work h a s been done i n t h e a r e a of h e a l t h c a r e .
Numerous s t u d i e s r e p o r t t h a t i n c i d e n t s of i l l n e s s , d i s a b i l i t y , p h y s i c i a n c a r e ,
and even h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n a r e u n d e r r e p o r t e d b y ' i n f o r m a n t s ( C a r t w r i g h t , 1957;
C a n n e l l and Fowler, 1963; Haase and Wilson, 1972; Kovar and Wilson, 1976;
Kovar and Wright, 1973; N i s s e l s o n and Woolsey, 1959; Marquis and C a n n e l l ,
1971; and C a n n e l l , Marquis, and Laurent, 1977-but s e e t h e p a r t i a l c h a l l e n g e t o
t h i s i n Andersen, Karper, F r a n k e l and A s s o c i a t e s , 1979).
Various o t h e r
s t u d i e s r e p o r t n o t a b l e v a r i a t i o n between proxy and s e l f r e p o r t s , b u t w i t h o u t
t h e p r e s e n c e of v a l i d a t i o n c r i t e r i a t h a t makes it p o s s i b l e t o know which a r e
a c t u a l l y more a c c u r a t e ( B a i l o r and Rothwell, 1984; Scanzoni; 1965; F e r b e r ,
1955; Ballweg, 1969; C l a r k and Wallin, 1964; Brooks and B a i l o r , 1978; Haberman
and E l i n s o n , 1967; and L e v i n g e r ) .
S t u d i e s t h a t f i n d no d i f f e r e n c e between
i n f o r m a n t and s e l f - r e p o r t s on some o r a l l v a r i a b l e s a r e comparatively r a r e
(Ballweg, 1969; S i n g e r , 1972-73; and F e r b e r , 1955).
Yet d e s p i t e t h e acknowledged s u p e r i o r i t y of s e l f - r e p o r t s ,
r e s e a r c h f r e q u e n t l y c o l l e c t s proxy i n f o r m a t i o n from informants.
survey
I n two
s i t u a t i o n s proxy r e p o r t s a r e a c t u a l l y considered p r e f e r a b l e t o s e l f - r e p o r t s .
They a r e favored when i n d i v i d u a l s a r e unable o r u n l i k e l y t o g i v e a s a c c u r a t e
i n f o r m a t i o n a s an informed person c l o s e t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l .
Most f r e q u e n t l y .
GSS :62
-2-
t h i s i n v o l v e s having p a r e n t s r e p o r t on t h e experiences (e.g.
t h e i r minor c h i l d r e n ( N i s s e l s o n and Woolsey, 1959).
h e a l t h c a r e ) of
Similarly, caretakers a r e
o f t e n interviewed about p a t i e n t s and charges who a r e p h y s i c a l l y o r mentally
i n c a p a c i t a t e d (Singer, 1972-73).
Second, i t i s believed ( b u t n o t a s f i r m l y
e s t a b l i s h e d ) t h a t informant r e p o r t s about behaviors t h a t a r e t h r e a t e n i n g t o a
respondent w i l l be more complete than s e l f - r e p o r t s
(Bradburn, Sudman, and
Associates, 1979; Sudman and Bradburn, 1982; Marquis and Cannell, 1971).
It
i s thought t h a t s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y e f f e c t s w i l l cause respondents t o
underreport t h e n e g a t i v e behavior (e.9.
drug use, temper o u t b u r s t s , non-
v o t i n g ) , while informants w i l l be less l i k e l y t o suppress t h e d e v i a n t
behavior.
These two circumstances however account f o r only a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of
t h e i n s t a n c e s where surveys r e s o r t t o proxy r e p o r t s i n l i e u of s e l f - r e p o r t s .
Overwhelmingly t h e motivation f o r using proxy r e p o r t s i s t h e i r g r e a t
convenience and low
cost.
Interviewing each a d u l t i n a household i s u s u a l l y
considered unnecessary when t h e information being sought is e i t h e r 1 )
household l e v e l information a c c e s s i b l e t o any a d u l t family member (e.g.
family
income, home tenancy, automobile ownership), 21 a j o i n t behavior shared w i t h
t h e informant (e.g.
number of hours s p e n t t o g e t h e r , d a t e of a c o u p l e ' s
m a r r i a g e ) , o r 3 ) a b a s i c demographic o r observed behavior t h a t i s commonly
known by household members (e.9.
spouse's r e l i g i o n , employment s t a t u s , tobacco
use, age).
PROXY REPORTS FOR SPOUSES
The General S o c i a l Surveys (GSS), which a r e n a t i o n a l f i l l 1 p r o b a b i l i t y
samples of households, have followed t h e s e standard p r a c t i c e s .
one random respondent per household ( u s i n g a Kish t a b l e ) .
The GSS s e l e c t
The s e l e c t e d
respondents r e p o r t mostly on p e r s o n a l demographics, behaviors, and
-3-
GSS: 6 2
attitudes.
Respondents a l s o r e p o r t on a s e t of household v a r i a b l e s (e.9.
number of e a r n e r s , family income) and c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r
spouses.
1
While t h e GSS does n o t c o l l e c t any information t o v a l i d a t e t h e
i n d i v i d u a l accuracy of proxy r e p o r t s about spouses, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o judge
t h e i r aggregate accuracy by comparing them with s e l f - r e p o r t s .
For married
couples, t h e s e l f - r e p o r t s of t h e randomly s e l e c t e d respondents and of
respondents1 spouses r e p r e s e n t t h e same u n i v e r s e (married p e o p l e ) and
t h e r e f o r e t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s should be t h e same.
For example, f o r married
couples t h e e d u c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n r e p o r t e d by respondents should be t h e
same a s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t respondents r e p o r t f o r t h e i r
spouses.
Using t h i s a s o u r s t a n d a r d of judgment, we compared s e l f and spouse
r e p o r t s on t h e GSS.
F i r s t , w e examined t h e completeness of information from respondents
and spouses (Table 1 ) .
Except f o r one t i e , more missing information o c c u r s
f o r spouse r e p o r t s than s e l f - r e p o r t s .
The higher l e v e l of missing information
comes about e q u a l l y from more "no answers"
-
r e s u l t i n g from f a i l u r e t o ask
follow-up q u e s t i o n s about t h e spouse, and higher l e v e l s of " d o n ' t knows"
r e s u l t i n g from r e s p o n d e n t ' s l a c k of knowledge about t h e spouse.
-
On t h e o t h e r
hand, even among spouse r e p o r t s , t h e l e v e l of information i s s o n e a r l y
complete t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e l o s s of information i s t r i v i a l .
Second, among t h o s e g i v i n g responses we compared d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
Overall, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s were very c l o s e .
Only f i v e of s i x t e e n comparisons
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t and given t h a t most comparisons involved s i x t o
eleven thousand c a s e s , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of unimpressive magnitude can
'Additional information i s c o l l e c t e d on p a r e n t s and respondent's
family of o r i g i n , b u t we w i l l n o t be d e a l i n g with t h i s information.
be d e t e c t e d .
No d i f f e r e n c e s were d e t e c t e d on any df t h e SES v a r i a b l e s and
r e l i g i o n showed no n o t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s .
some l a b o r f o r c e and e t h n i c i t y v a r i a b l e s .
D i f f e r e n c e s d i d o c c u r , however, among
mre
f u l l - t i m e employment was
r e p o r t e d f o r spouses t h a n f o r r e s p o n d e n t s (55.2% vs. 48.2%).
S i m i l a r l y , more
p e o p l e working over 34 hours i n the p r e v i o u s week are r e p o r t e d f o r spouses
t h a n r e s p o n d e n t s (84.1% vs. 80.6%).
I n c o n t r a s t t o the h i g h e r l e v e l of
c u r r e n t l a b o r f o r c e involvement r e p o r t e d f o r s p o u s e s than f o r r e s p o n d e n t s ,
among t h o s e n o t c u r r e n t l y i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e r e s p o n d e n t s were more l i k e l y t o
r e p o r t having worked f o r a y e a r o r more t h a n s p o u s e s (82.1% vs.
76.9%).
The
h i g h e r labor f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of spouses r e s u l t s from two forms of nonresponse bias:
a n undersampling o f f u l l - t i m e employees i n t h e e a r l y block
q u o t a s u r v e y s and an u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of males on t h e f u l l - p r o b a b i l i t y
surveys.
Full-time employed people are u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d on t h e block q u o t a
samples t h a t were used i n 1972-1974 and on h a l f samples i n 1975 and 1976
(Stephenson, 1979).
Conversely, males a r e u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d on f u l l -
p r o b a b i l i t y s u r v e y s t h a t were used on half-samples
1977-1 985 (Smith, 1979)
.
i n 1975 and 1976 and i n
C o r r e c t i n g f o r e i t h e r t h e block q u o t a undersampling
of f u l l - t i m e employees o r t h e f u l l p r o b a b i l i t y u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of males
r e d u c e s t h e g a p between spouse r e p o r t s and s e l f - r e p o r t s and when both a r e
a d j u s t e d f o r s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e gap f a l l s from 4.0% t o 1.6% and becomes
insignificant.
For e t h n i c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d "From what c o u n t r i e s or p a r t of
t h e world d i d your a n c e s t o r s come?"
Up t o t h r e e mentions were recorded.
p a r a l l e l q u e s t i o n was asked f o r spouses.
A
Considerably more e t h n i c i t i e s were
mentioned by r e s p o n d e n t s t h a n they mentioned f o r t h e i r spouses.
Respondents
mention a n a v e r a g e of 1.54 c o u n t r i e s w h i l e f o r s p o u s e s o n l y 1.24 mentions were
given.
When w e used mentions a s t h e u n i t of a n a l y s i s , r e s p o n d e n t s mentioned
-5-
GSS: 62
more c o u n t r i e s from t h e f i r s t wave of immigrants (English, S c o t s , French,
e t c . ) and fewer from l a t e r waves.
s i g n i f i c a n t a t only the . I 1
d i f f e r e n c e t o be r e l i a b l e ) .
(Although t h e d i f f e r e n c e of 4.1% i s
l e v e l , w e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e 1986 GSS w i l l show this
However, when w e used p r e f e r r e d e t h n i c i t y , t h e
d i f f e r e n c e disappeared ( t o a d i f f e r e n c e of only 0.6%).
I t appears t h a t
respondents l a c k complete knowledge of t h e e t h n i c complexity and d i v e r s i t y of
t h e i r p a r t n e r s (and t h e r e f o r e mention fewer e t h n i c backgrounds f o r t h e i r
s p o u s e s ) , b u t t h a t they do know t h e i r p a r t n e r ' s main e t h n i c i t y ( t h e omitted
e t h n i c i t i e s a s a group appear t o be minor o r secondary i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ) .
s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s s e e Smith, 1983).
(For
We s u s p e c t t h a t t h e lower l e v e l of e v e r
working r e p o r t e d f o r spouses i s a l s o t h e r e s u l t of t h e proxy having l e s s
complete information about t h e spouse.
Respondents may n o t know o r n o t
remember t h e i r spouse was employed e i t h e r f o r a s h o r t d u r a t i o n o r long ago
( p o s s i b l y even b e f o r e they met).
Overall, it appears t h a t spouse r e p o r t s on b a s i c demographics produce
d i s t r i b u t i o n s u n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from s e l f - r e p o r t s .
2
The d i f f e r e n c e s on l a b o r
f o r c e s t a t u s do n o t . r e s u l t from t h e lower accuracy of proxy r e p o r t s , b u t
r a t h e r from two forms of non-response b i a s .
Only on e t h n i c i t y (and p o s s i b l y
ever worked) a r e spouse r e p o r t s c l e a r l y i n f e r i o r , producing less complex
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of e t h n i c d i v e r s i t y and probably undercounting t h e p r o p o r t i o n
of people with a n c e s t o r s from t h e f i r s t immigrant wave.
Y e t even i n t h i s
s i t u a t i o n no d i f f e r e n c e appear on t h e main e t h n i c i t y of respondents and
spouses.
2 ~ and d i t i o n a comparison of b i v a r a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s between respondent
v a r i a b l e s and spousal v a r i a b l e s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , suggesting
t h a t random e r r o r i s n o t g r e a t e r among spouse r e p o r t s than s e l f - r e p o r t s .
REPORT BY WSBANDS AND WIVES OF JOINT AND BOUSELIOLD CONDITIONS
Next, we examined how t h e r e p o r t s of husband and wives d i f f e r e d on
e i t h e r j o i n t o r household v a r i a b l e s .
In t h i s comparison we a r e n o t e v a l u a t i n g
whether s e l f - r e p o r t s d i f f e r from proxy r e p o r t s , b u t whether r e p o r t s by
husbands d i f f e r from r e p o r t s by wives on t h e same a t t r i b u t e .
A s above, t h i s
comparison i s n o t done on the micro l e v e l , s i n c e we d o n o t have s e p a r a t e
r e p o r t s f o r t h e same c o u p l e s , b u t by a g g r e g a t e l e v e l comparison of t h e r e p o r t s
of husbands and wives as a group.
W e f i r s t examined whether i t e m non-response d i f f e r e d between husbands
and wives.
Only on one v a r i a b l e o u t of t h e 18 h o u s e h o l d / j o i n t v a r i a b l e s d i d
t h e amount of m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ' d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
Wives were less
l i k e l y t o r e p o r t f a m i l y income t h a n husbands (91.7% vs. 94.7%).
This
d i f f e r e n c e r e s u l t s e n t i r e l y from h i g h e r d o n ' t knows among wives.
This
p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t s the lower l e v e l of female l a b o r f o r c e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and
p e r h a p s a r e l u c t a n c e among a p o r t i o n o f male breadwinners t o d i s c u s s their
e a r n i n g s with t h e i r wives.
(Women who d i d not' g i v e income i n f o r m a t i o n a r e
o l d e r , l e s s i n v o l v e d i n t h e l a b o r f o r c e , and more from t h e South t h a n women
who gave f a m i l y income.)
Looking a t t h e s u b s t a n t i v e r e s p o n s e t o t h e h o u s e h o l d / j o i n t v a r i a b l e s
we f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s on n i n e of 20 comparisons.
r e p o r t s l i g h t l y l a r g e households t h a n husbands.
Wives tend t o
However s i n c e t h e a c t u a l
i n f o r m a t i o n on household s i z e i s r e p o r t e d by a n i n f o r m a n t on t h e household
enumeration form who may n o t be t h e r e s p o n d e n t , we can n o t c l e a r l y c r e d i t
t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s t o v a r i a n t r e p o r t i n g p a t t e r n s of husbands and wives.
a l s o r e p o r t more e a r n e r s per household t h a n husbands (1.69 vs. 1.64).
Wives
W
e
s u s p e c t t h a t t h i s r e s u l t s from husbands being more l i k e l y t o f o r g e t p a r t - t i m e
or d i s c o n t i n u e d employment by wives d u r i n g t h e p r e v i o u s year.
Conversely men
GSS: 62
r e p o r t more households having guns and h u n t e r s than wives do.
Since hunting
and gun ownership a r e h e a v i l y concentrated among men, w e b e l i e v e t h a t wives
a r e probably f o r g e t t i n g some i n s t a n c e s ( % with hunter: husbands-35.2,
32.5;
%
results.
with guns:
husbands-57.2,
wives-54.5).
wives-
On income we g e t mixed
For a 12 c a t e g o r y income c l a s s i f i c a t i o n employed from 1973 t o 1985
and a 17 category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n used s i n c e 1982 we f i n d no n o t a b l e
differences.
But f o r a 16 c a t e g o r y s c a l e used from 1977 t o 1981 men r e p o r t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r incomes than wives (mean c a t e g o r i e s :
wives-10.84).
husbands-11.25,
Some two p a r t n e r i n t e r v i e w s t u d i e s have a l s o found a n e t
tendency f o r wives t o r e p o r t lower incomes than husbands, s o w e b e l i e v e t h a t
t h e r e i s probably a r e a l difference.
One s t u d y (Haberman and Elinson, 1967)
c r e d i t s such d i f f e r e n c e s t o housewives r e p o r t i n g take-home pay r a t h e r than
g r o s s income and from wives underestimating t h e income of husbands working on
commission.
F i n a l l y , comparatively l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e observed on two of t h e
t h r e e s u b j e c t i v e measures we included i n t h e a n a l y s i s .
Wives a r e more l i k e l y
t o r a t e t h e f a m i l i e s f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n a s average (60.9% vs. 51.5%) and less
l i k e l y t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r marriages a s very happy (64.1% vs. 67.2%).
I n each
of t h e s e c a s e s respondents g i v e t h e i r s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of a family
f i n a n c i a l or marital matter.
similar levels.
Thus, we would n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e x p e c t t o f i n d
While i n t h e aggregate t h e marriages and incomes being
evaluated r e p r e s e n t t h e same universe, t h e s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e
c o n d i t i o n do n o t have t o match.
( S i m i l a r l y s u b j e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s about s e x u a l
i n t e r c o u r s e tend t o show more disagreement than o b j e c t i v e f a c t s about
i n t e r c o u r s e , although t h e s e t o o seem t o d i v e r g e because of s e l e c t i v e
perception-Levinger,
1966 and Clark and Wallin, 1964).
This f i n d i n g confirms
previous i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t s p o u s a l r e p o r t s tend t o a g r e e more on hard q u e s t i o n s
and vary more on s o f t i t e m s (Ballweg, 1969 and Scanzo, 1965).
GSS: 6 2
No d i f f e r e n c e s a r e found on s e v e r a l of the age c a t e g o r i e s of household
composition, home ownership, presence of telephone, r a c i a l composition of
3
neighborhood, o r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h family income.
C(HJCLus1m
O v e r a l l proxy r e p o r t s f o r spouses were a s a c c u r a t e a s s e l f - r e p o r t s .
S i g n i f i c a n t l y higher l e v e l s of i t e m non-response were found f o r proxy r e p o r t s ,
b u t t h e l e v e l of missing d a t a was n e v e r t h e l e s s n e g l i g i b l e .
Proxy r e p o r t s were
probably s u f f i c i e n t because t h e a t t r i b u t e s measured ( r e l i g i o n , education,
occupation, e t c . ) were major, b a s i c demographics.
On t h e one a t t r i b u t e
( e t h n i c i t y ) t h a t involved complex and less s a l i e n t information, proxy r e p o r t s
proved t o be l e s s complete.
S i m i l a r l y , r e p o r t s of husbands and wives tended
t o diverge i n two circumstances.
On household a t t r i b u t e s t h a t t h e husband was
probably more knowledgable about and o r more i n t e r e s t e d i n (guns, hunting, and
family income) r e p o r t s . d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (although i n each c a s e t h e
d i s c r e p a n c i e s were n o t l a r g e ) .
And on s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s d i f f e r e n c e s
appeared.
When d e a l i n g w i t h major, concrete a t t r i b u t e s , proxy r e p o r t s a r e t h e
p r e f e r a b l e method of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n because they a r e a s a c c u r a t e and l e s s
costly.
But when proxy r e p o r t s a r e extended i n t o complex and d e t a i l e d a r e a s
about which t h e spouse has e i t h e r s u p e r i o r knowledge o r an unique p e r s p e c t i v e ,
proxy r e p o r t s a r e less a c c u r a t e ' t h a n s e l f - r e p o r t s .
3 ~ d d i t i o n a l l y , a comparison of nine b i v a r i a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s showed no
notable d i f f e r e n c e between husbands and wives.
GSS :62
Table 1
A Comparison o f
Item Nonresponse from S e l f and Spouse Reports
a Missing
Labor Force S t a t u s
Self
Spouse
Time o f Day Worked
Self
Spouse
Days Worked
Self
spouse
T o t a l Hours Worked
Self .
spouse
Occupation
Self
Spouse
Industry
Self
Spouse
Ever Worked
Self
Spouse
Years of Schooling
Self
Spouse
H i g h e s t Degree Earned
Self
Spouse
Current Religion
Self
Spouse
P r o t e s t a n t Denonmination ( C u r r e n t )
Self
0.5
Spouse
0.9
Religon Raised
Self
spouse
P r o t e s t a n t Denomination ( R a i s e d )
Self
Spouse
0 7
1.3
Probability
GSS: 6 2
-1
G-
Table 2
A Comparison of Response D i s t r i b u t i o n s from S e l f and Spouse Reports
Variables
X2
Probability
Labor Force S t a t u s
Self
Spouse
Time of Day Worked
Self
Spouse
Days Worked
Self
Spouse
T o t a l Hours Worked
Self
Spouse
Occupation
Self
spouse
Prestige
Self
Spouse
Industry
Self
Spouse
Ever Worked
Self
Spouse
Years of Schooling
Self
Spouse
Highest Degree Earned
Self
Spouse
Current Religion
Self
Spouse
P r o t e s t a n t Denonmination ( C u r r e n t )
Self
Spouse
Religon Raised
Self
Spouse
P r o t e s t a n t Denomination (Raised)
Self
Spouse
#Mentions of E t h n i c i t y ( 0- 3
Self
Spouse
Means
T-Tes t P r o b a b i l i t y
GSS :62
Table 2 ( c o n t i n u e d )
A Comparison of Response D i s t r i b u t i o n s from S e l f and Spouse Reports
Variables
E t h n i c i t y (Country)
Self
Spouse
S = Significant
NS = Not S i g n i f i c a n t
x2
Probability
Means
T-Tes t P r o b a b i l i t y
Table 3
A Comparison of Reports on Household and J o i n t Variables
by Husbands and Wives
Variables
Probability
Household s i z e
#
under 6
#
6 t o 12
# 13 t o 17
# Adults
# of Earners
.006
Income (12 Categories, 1973-1985)
.1 55
Income (16 Categories,
1977-1981)
e033
Income ( 1 7 Categories, 1982-1985)
i080
Homeowner s h i p
Phone i n home
Gun Ownership
Union member (R o r Spouse)
Hunter (R o r Spouse)
Blacks l i v e i n neighborhood
Blacks l i v i n g c l o s e
How c l o s e a r e Blacks
M a r i t a l Happiness
S a t i s f a c t i o n with family income
Fami l y r e l a t i v e income rank
GSS: 62
References
-
Andersen, Ronald; Kasper, J u d i t h ; F r a n k e l , Martin R.; and A s s o c i a t e s , T o t a l
Survey E r r o r : A p p l i c a t i o n s t o Improve Health Surveys.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1979.
B a i l a r , Barbara A. and Rothwell, Naomi D., "Measuring Employment and
Unemployment," i n Surveying S u b j e c t i v e Phenomena, e d i t i n g by C h a r l e s F.
Turner and E l i z a b e t h Martin.
2nd Vol., New York: R u s s e l l Sage, 1984.
Ballweg, John A * , "Husband-Wife Response S i m i l a r i t i e s on E v a l u a t i v e and NonE v a l u a t i v e Survey Questions," P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y , 33 (Summer, 1969),
249-254
Bradburn, Norman M. and Sudman, Seymour, and A s s o c i a t e s , Improving I n t e r v i e w
Method and Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Design.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Brooks, Camilla A. and B a i l e r , Barbara A * , "An E r r o r P r o f i l e :
Employment a s
Measured by t h e C u r r e n t P o p u l a t i o n Survey," S t a t i s i c a l P o l i c y Working
Paper 3. Washington, D.C.:
GPO, 1978.
C a n n e l l , C h a r l e s F., and Fowler, Floyd J o t "Comparison of A Self-enumerative
Procedure and a P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w : A V a l i d i t y Study," P u b l i c Opinion
Q u a r t e r l y , 27 (Summer, 19631, 250-264.
C a n n e l l , C h a r l e s F.; Marquis, Kent H.; and Laurent, Andre, "A Summary of
S t u d i e s of I n t e r v i e w i n g Methodology," V i t a l and H e a l t h S t a t i s t i c s , S e r i e s
2 , NO. 69, March, 1977.
C a r t w r i g h t , Ann, "The E f f e c t of Obtaining Information From D i f f e r e n t
Informants on a Family Morbidity I n q u i r y , " Applied S t a t i s t i c s 6
arch, 19571, 18-25.
C l a r k , Alexander L. and W a l l i n , P a u l , "The Accuracy of Husband's and Wives'
R e p o r t s of t h e Frequency of M a r i t a l C o i t u s , " P o p u l a t i o n S t u d i e s , 1 8
(November, 19641, 165-173.
F e r b e r , Robert, "On t h e R e l i a b i l i t y of Responses Secured i n Sample Surveys."
Journal of t h e American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 50 (September, 1 9 5 5 ) ,
788-8 1 0.
Haase, Kenneth W. and Wilson, Ronald W., 'The Study Design of an Experiment t o
Measure t h e E f f e c t s of Using Proxy Response i n t h e ~ a t i o n a lHealth
I n t e r v i e w Survey," American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Proceedings, S o c i a l
S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1972, pp. 289-293.
Haberman, P a u l W. and E l i n s o n , J a c k , "Family Income Reported i n Surveys:
Husbands v e r s u s Wives," J o u r n a l of Marketing, 4 (May, 1 9 6 7 ) , 191-194.
Levinger, George, "Systematic D i s t o r t i o n i n Spouses' Reports of P r e f e r r e d and
Actual Sexual Behavior,' sociometry, 29 (September, 1 9 6 6 ) , 291-299.
-
How Good
Kovar, Mary Grace and Wilson, Ronald W., "Perceived Health S t a t u s
i s Proxy Reporting?" American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Proceedings, S o c i a l
S t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1976, P a r t 2, pp. 495-500.
GSS: 62
Kovar, Mary Grace and Wright, Robert A * , "An Experiment w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e
Respondent Rules i n t h e National Health I n t e r v i e w Survey," American
S t a t i s t i c a l Association Proceedings, S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s Section, 1973, pp,
31 1-31 6 .
Marquis, Kent H. and Cannell, Charles F., " E f f e c t of Some Experimental
Interviewing Techniques on Reporting i n t h e Health I n t e r v i e w Surveys,"
vctal and Health S t a t i s t i c s , S e r i e s 2 , No, 41. May, 1971.
Morgan, James N., "Some P i l o t S t u d i e s of Communication and Consensus i n t h e
Family," P u b l i c Opinion Quarterly, 32 (Spring, 1968), 113-121.
Nisselson, Harold and Woolsey, Theodore D., "Some Problems of t h e Household
Interview Design f o r t h e National Health Survey," J o u r n a l of t h e American
S t a t i s t i c a l Association, 54 (March, 19591, 69-87.
Scanzoni, John, " A Note on t h e S u f f i c i e n c y of Wife Responses i n Family
Research," P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 8 ( F a l l , 19651, 109-115.
Singer, Eleanor, "Agreement between " I n a c c e s s i b l e n Respondents and
Informants," P u b l i c Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Winter, 1972-73), 603-611.
Smith, Tom W.,
Report No.
"Sex and t h e GSS: Nonresponses D i f f e r e n c e s , "
17. Chicago: NORC, 1979.
GSS Technical
Smith, Tom W.,
"Problems i n Ethnic Measurement:
Over-, Under- and
M i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " Proceedings of t h e American S t a t i s t i c a l Association,
S o c i a l s t a t i s t i c s S e c t i o n , 1983, pp. 107-116.
Stephenson, C. Bruce, " P r o b a b i l i t y Sampling w i t h Quotas:
P u b l i c Opinion Quarterly, .43 (Winter, 1979), 479-496.
A n Experiment,"
Sudman, Seymour and Bradburn, Norman M., Asking Questions: A P r a c t i c a l Guide
t o Questionnaire Design.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
Thompson, Donovan J. And Tauber, Joseph, "Household Survey, I n d i v i d u a l
Interview, and C l i n i c a l Examination t o Determineprevalence of Heart
Disease," American J o u r n a l of P u b l i c Health, 47 (September 1957),
1131-1140.