Weighting Strategies for Disaggregated Racial-Ethnic Data

WEIGHTING STRATEGIES FOR DISAGGREGATED
RACIAL-ETHNIC DATA
National Network of Health Surveys
Workshop Series
Tara Becker, PhD; Brian Wells, PhD; Ninez Ponce, PhD, MPP
UCLA Center for Health Policy Research
Outline of what we will cover
Purpose of weighting
Limitations of Weighting
Weighting Considerations
Benchmark Population
Weighting Dimensions
Coding of Race-ethnicity
Why Is a Weighting Session Included In Data
Disaggregation Series?
Population Estimates
THE PURPOSE OF WEIGHTING
 
Why do we weight survey data?
Weights help us to reflect the complexities of sample design
Weights are used for bias reduction
Weighting ensures that:
Data is representative of the target population
Estimates will be generalizable to the target population
When are weights unnecessary?
When 
all
 of these conditions hold:
All members of target population have equal probability of appearing
on list from which sample is drawn
Participants are randomly sampled with equal probability
Participants have equal probability of responding
The resulting sample of respondents is a simple random
sample that is representative of the full population
Why we need survey weights
Weights are used when the
sample or respondent
distribution is not aligned with
the population distribution
Can be attributed to any
transition from the population
to the respondents
Population 
 Frame
Frame 
 Sample
Sample 
 Respondents
Conditions that affect representativeness
Sampling frame is incomplete or contains errors
Unequal probability of being sampled
Nonresponse error
General form of weights
Most weights have three components
Selection probabilities
Adjustments for nonresponse of the sample
Adjustments to the population for coverage, sampling, and
nonresponse
Selection probabilities
A simple (random sample) example
Selection probabilities for complex designs
Sample designs are rarely simple
Sample designs can be complex due to:
Stratification and/or clustering
Multilevel or multistage
Oversampling
The selection probabilities (and thus selection weights) are a
product of all stages of selection
For example, selecting a census block in a census tract in a county
Selection probability and data
disaggregation
If a study oversamples a small group, we want to account for
this difference from the population. For example:
Koreans make up about 1.3% of California’s population
Say we oversample so that the final sample has 2.6% Korean
We want our final estimates to reflect the actual population of 1.3%
and not mistake it for being 2.6%
Larger sample helpful to disaggregate Koreans from other Asians,
but don’t want to over-represent Koreans in final estimates
Sampling frame limitations
If the sampling frame...
Underrepresents a subpopulation within the target population, the
sample will underrepresent that group
Ex: landline frame will underrepresent Mexicans who are more likely to own a
cell phone
Excludes a subpopulation, the sample will also exclude that group
Ex: homeless or transient population in an address-based sample
Covers more than the desired population, the sample will not reflect
our population
Ex: cell phone numbers from previous CA residents now living outside CA
Adjusting for nonresponse
Failure to measure information
on each sampled unit
Might be due to:
Inability to contact or find unit
Unit is uncooperative
Unit is ineligible or unable to
participate
Nonresponse can be due to
respondent characteristics or
design choices
Nonresponse and data disaggregation
If a subgroup of interest responds to a survey at a lower
(or higher) rate, we want to account for this difference.
For example:
Central Americans may be less likely to participate in surveys
Maybe more resistant to participate out of fear (political climate)
Maybe survey not available in Spanish or indigenous language
If Central Americans have a 30% response rate and non-Central
Americans have a 50% response rate, we need to account for this
shortage in our final sample
Limitation of sample-based adjustments
Sample-based adjustments require knowing information
about 
both
 respondents and nonrespondents
Sampling frame often does not provide this kind of information
If unable to account for nonresponse based on individual-level
characteristics, these can be covered through population-
based adjustments
Population-based adjustments
Use information known about
the population to make the
respondent pool look like the
population
We obtain population
characteristics from a
benchmark, often from a census
or a well-conducted survey
Must also collect these
characteristics in your survey
Benchmark comparison example
United States Decennial Census
Census covering full population
Complete coverage of US
Conducted every 10 years
Accuracy diminishes with each year
Limited set of characteristics
Age, gender, race/ethnicity
American Community Survey
Large, well-conducted survey
Millions sampled every year
Conducted annually
Up-to-date counts and estimates
Larger set of characteristics
Age, gender, race/ethnicity,
marital status, education, income,
home ownership, health insurance, etc.
Population adjustments and data disaggregation
Regardless of what our final sample looks like, we want it to
reflect the population. For example:
We want our small sample of Cambodians (n≈20) to reflect the
approximately 87,000 Cambodians in California despite the
difficulties in finding and completing interviews with Cambodians
What weighting does
Standardizes the survey sample to make their characteristics
match those of a relevant benchmark population
Effectiveness of weighting depends on:
Selection of the benchmark population
Characteristics (dimensions) adjusted through weighting
Sample size within subgroups
LIMITATIONS OF WEIGHTING
 
Limitations of weighting
The effectiveness of weighting is constrained by survey
methodology and content
Can only adjust for under/overrepresentation of a population, cannot
make the sample representative of a missing subpopulation
Small samples of subpopulations may not reflect the diversity within those
populations even if the overall estimates for that subpopulation are
representative
Can only adjust based on characteristics that are measured
Potential inflation in standard errors or variances
Example: American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN)
Oversamples in the CA Health Interview Survey (CHIS)
CHIS 2001
Sampling list developed with input
from AIAN tribal organizations
Large fraction from Indian Health
Services clinic users
Sampling stratified by urban/rural
status
CHIS 2012
Sampling list based on Indian
Health Services clinic users
Eligibility for Indian Health Services is based on membership in a federally
recognized tribe
Percent AIAN Enrolled in a Recognized Tribe
Percent AIAN with California Tribal Heritage
% AIAN with CA Tribal Heritage
% AIAN with Non-CA Tribal Heritage
Source: California Health Interview Survey
WEIGHTING CONSIDERATIONS
 
Benchmark Population
 
Why do we need a benchmark population?
Tells us what the population 
should
 look like absent
Coverage bias in sampling frame
Oversampling other design effects
Nonresponse
Bias can enter final sample in many ways and it’s difficult to
measure them all
How is the benchmark population used?
Weighting process forces sample to look like the benchmark
population on selected characteristics
Any limitations of benchmark data will be imposed on final
weights
Choosing Benchmark Data
Similarity to target population
Considerations:
Policy relevance
Comparability to other data sources
Quality of benchmark data
Representativeness of relevant populations
Availability of relevant characteristics
Commonly Used Benchmark Data
Decennial census
U.S. Census Bureau intercensal population estimates
American Community Survey (ACS)
State government estimates (e.g., California Dept of Finance)
Commercial population data (e.g., Claritas)
Example: Coverage of AIANs in the ACS
The ACS has historically undercounted AIANs (Luhan, 2014)
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines AIAN as
persons:
 
having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America
 
(including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community
 
attachment.
American Community Survey undersamples from tribal lands
ACS uses bridged-race estimates for weighting
Multiracial individuals are redistributed into a single-race category
Benchmark data from multiple sources
Benchmark information can be drawn from multiple sources
Sources may differ in small ways that create inconsistencies
Must be brought in alignment with each other
Example: CHIS Asian ethnic subgroup benchmarks
Primary source (CA Dept of Finance [CA DOF] population
estimates) does not include Asian ethnicities
Asian ethnic subgroup distribution drawn from American
Community Survey (ACS)
Overall Asian population size differs between CA DOF and
ACS
ACS within-Asian ethnic subgroup distribution applied to CHIS
Asian population estimates
Example: 2012 California Race-Ethnicity
2012 American Community Survey
2012 CHIS
Weighting Dimensions
 
What are Weighting Dimensions?
The set of characteristics that are used to standardize the
sample data
After weighting, the respondents in the data will resemble
benchmark(s) on these characteristics
Choosing characteristics for weighting
Characteristics associated
with differential response rates
Available in benchmark source
and in data to be weighted
High-quality measures with
low complexity and rates of
missing
Examples:
Gender
Age
Race-ethnicity
Education
Home ownership
Urbanicity
Defining dimensions
Adjust for each characteristic independently
Overall population distributions will match benchmark
Adjust for characteristics within subgroups
Ensure subgroup characteristics also match benchmark
Appropriate when nonresponse patterns differ within groups
Examples:
Race-ethnicity within gender and/or age
Race-ethnicity within U.S. state or other geographic region
Sample size constraints
Ideally, would like to make all subgroups representative
Need “enough” respondents within subgroup
With small number of respondents:
Individual responses can be too influential in estimates
Not enough variation to allow convergence across all dimensions
Small samples may require collapsing categories, preventing
adjustments for disaggregated categories
Limitations of weighting dimensions
Weighting dimensions might not fully account for differential
nonparticipation
Unmeasured characteristics associated with survey participation
Lack of detail or precision in benchmark may restrict what can be
adjusted
Sample size constraints may prevent fully adjusting for or within
disaggregated groups
Coding Race-Ethnicity
 
Measuring Race-Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
Separate dimension/measure
Racial-ethnic category, i.e., “Hispanic/Latino trumps all”
Treatment of multiracial respondents
Multiracial category
Bridged-race reassignment
Indicators for race report
Recode of “other” race reports
Ethnic subgroups within racial groups
Constraints on Coding Race-Ethnicity
Oversamples of specific racial or ethnic groups
Ability to match to benchmark population
Sample size within racial-ethnic categories
Collapsing categories with small numbers of respondents
Collapsed categories will be adjusted to match benchmark as a group, not
individually
Ability to adjust for other characteristics within race-ethnicity
Sample size (again!)
Example: AIAN in Federal Survey Data
Differences in:
Data collection methodologies
Non-response
Benchmark data
Inclusion of AIAN in weighting
Importance of:
Hispanic/Latino status
Multiracial identity
Weighting Characteristics: 6 Federal Surveys
Percent AIAN Adults in Federal Surveys
2.5%
2.3%
1.6%
1.7%
2.7%
1.5%
Example: AIAN Subgroups in CHIS
Only one AIAN subgroup is included in the weighting
dimensions: non-Hispanic single-race AIAN
Hispanic/Latino AIAN included with Latino/Hispanic
Non-Hispanic multiracial AIAN included with multiracial
CHIS AIAN Population: Unweighted vs Weighted
Potential Solutions for Small Groups
Coding of weighting dimensions
Broader measures
Indicators for race that are inclusive of multiracial reports
Simplify dimensions:
Adjust at national level rather than at U.S. state
Increase sample size
Pooling across multiple waves of data
SUMMARY
 
Weighting and Disaggregated Racial-Ethnic Data
Data is weighted to allow generalization of estimates from the
data to the population, but weighting usually does not
account for small and hard-to-survey populations
When data is disaggregated, resulting estimates may not be
representative of disaggregated groups
Limits users’ ability to draw conclusions about these populations
Weighting Methodologies Matter
Weighting for these subpopulations can improve estimates
but the methods we use to do so matter
Data will reflect frame, sampling, and data collection
methodologies
May lead to differential participation within subpopulation
Weighting can only adjust for populations that are under-/over-
represented in the data
The Process of Weighting Survey Data
Source of benchmark data
Differences can be small, but meaningful for small populations that
are measured imprecisely
Weighting dimensions
Adequate to capture differential participation
Differential participation within categories vs between categories
Coding of race-ethnicity in weighting dimensions
Categories not explicitly adjusted are still affected
Thank you!
Support for this workshop series was provided by a grant
from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Next Seminar:
Collection and Reporting of Data on the Multiracial
Population
Jacqueline Lucas, National Center for Health Statistics & Neil Ruiz, PEW Research Center
CHIS: Korean/Vietnamese (K/V) Oversample
Surname List
Oversamples from matched phone
number list based on surname
Landline only prior to 2017
Screened for Asian ethnicity
Non-List
Oversamples areas with larger
Korean and Vietnamese populations
Landline and cell-phone
No screen
K/V Surname List vs Non-List: Unweighted
Source: 2016 California Health Interview Survey
K/V Surname List vs Non-List: Weighted
Source: 2016 California Health Interview Survey
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Delve into the importance of weighting strategies for disaggregated racial-ethnic data in health policy research. Learn about the purpose of weighting, considerations, and when weights are unnecessary. Discover how survey weights ensure the representativeness and generalizability of data to target populations.

  • Weighting Strategies
  • Racial-Ethnic Data
  • Health Policy Research
  • Survey Weights
  • Population Estimates

Uploaded on Apr 16, 2024 | 3 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH National Network of Health Surveys Workshop Series WEIGHTING STRATEGIES FOR DISAGGREGATED RACIAL-ETHNIC DATA Tara Becker, PhD; Brian Wells, PhD; Ninez Ponce, PhD, MPP UCLA Center for Health Policy Research healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  2. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Outline of what we will cover Purpose of weighting Limitations of Weighting Weighting Considerations Benchmark Population Weighting Dimensions Coding of Race-ethnicity healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  3. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Why Is a Weighting Session Included In Data Disaggregation Series? Granular collection Granular tabulation Survey weights? Population Estimates healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  4. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH THE PURPOSE OF WEIGHTING healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  5. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Why do we weight survey data? Weights help us to reflect the complexities of sample design Weights are used for bias reduction Weighting ensures that: Data is representative of the target population Estimates will be generalizable to the target population healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  6. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH When are weights unnecessary? When all of these conditions hold: All members of target population have equal probability of appearing on list from which sample is drawn Participants are randomly sampled with equal probability Participants have equal probability of responding The resulting sample of respondents is a simple random sample that is representative of the full population healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  7. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Why we need survey weights Weights are used when the sample or respondent distribution is not aligned with the population distribution Can be attributed to any transition from the population to the respondents Population Frame Frame Sample Sample Respondents healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  8. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Conditions that affect representativeness Sampling frame is incomplete or contains errors Unequal probability of being sampled Nonresponse error healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  9. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH General form of weights Most weights have three components Selection probabilities Adjustments for nonresponse of the sample Adjustments to the population for coverage, sampling, and nonresponse ???? ? = ????????? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  10. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Selection probabilities From a sampling frame, we select a scientific sample where all units have a nonzero probability of selection, or ?? ?? depends of the sample design The selection weight = the inverse of the selection probability or ??=1 ?? healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  11. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH A simple (random sample) example In a simple random sample, ??=? ? for all ? If N = 20, n = 5 5 20=1 4 So ??=1 ?? This means each person represents 4 people of the original population ??= 1 = 1 4= 4 healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  12. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Selection probabilities for complex designs Sample designs are rarely simple Sample designs can be complex due to: Stratification and/or clustering Multilevel or multistage Oversampling The selection probabilities (and thus selection weights) are a product of all stages of selection For example, selecting a census block in a census tract in a county healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  13. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Selection probability and data disaggregation If a study oversamples a small group, we want to account for this difference from the population. For example: Koreans make up about 1.3% of California s population Say we oversample so that the final sample has 2.6% Korean We want our final estimates to reflect the actual population of 1.3% and not mistake it for being 2.6% Larger sample helpful to disaggregate Koreans from other Asians, but don t want to over-represent Koreans in final estimates healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  14. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Sampling frame limitations If the sampling frame... Underrepresents a subpopulation within the target population, the sample will underrepresent that group Ex: landline frame will underrepresent Mexicans who are more likely to own a cell phone Excludes a subpopulation, the sample will also exclude that group Ex: homeless or transient population in an address-based sample Covers more than the desired population, the sample will not reflect our population Ex: cell phone numbers from previous CA residents now living outside CA healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  15. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Adjusting for nonresponse Failure to measure information on each sampled unit Might be due to: Inability to contact or find unit Unit is uncooperative Unit is ineligible or unable to participate Nonresponse can be due to respondent characteristics or design choices healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  16. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Nonresponse and data disaggregation If a subgroup of interest responds to a survey at a lower (or higher) rate, we want to account for this difference. For example: Central Americans may be less likely to participate in surveys Maybe more resistant to participate out of fear (political climate) Maybe survey not available in Spanish or indigenous language If Central Americans have a 30% response rate and non-Central Americans have a 50% response rate, we need to account for this shortage in our final sample healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  17. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Limitation of sample-based adjustments Sample-based adjustments require knowing information about both respondents and nonrespondents Sampling frame often does not provide this kind of information If unable to account for nonresponse based on individual-level characteristics, these can be covered through population- based adjustments healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  18. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Population-based adjustments Use information known about the population to make the respondent pool look like the population We obtain population characteristics from a benchmark, often from a census or a well-conducted survey Must also collect these characteristics in your survey healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  19. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Benchmark comparison example United States Decennial Census Census covering full population Complete coverage of US Conducted every 10 years Accuracy diminishes with each year Limited set of characteristics Age, gender, race/ethnicity American Community Survey Large, well-conducted survey Millions sampled every year Conducted annually Up-to-date counts and estimates Larger set of characteristics Age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, income, home ownership, health insurance, etc. healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  20. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Population adjustments and data disaggregation Regardless of what our final sample looks like, we want it to reflect the population. For example: We want our small sample of Cambodians (n 20) to reflect the approximately 87,000 Cambodians in California despite the difficulties in finding and completing interviews with Cambodians healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  21. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH What weighting does Standardizes the survey sample to make their characteristics match those of a relevant benchmark population Effectiveness of weighting depends on: Selection of the benchmark population Characteristics (dimensions) adjusted through weighting Sample size within subgroups healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  22. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH LIMITATIONS OF WEIGHTING healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  23. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Limitations of weighting The effectiveness of weighting is constrained by survey methodology and content Can only adjust for under/overrepresentation of a population, cannot make the sample representative of a missing subpopulation Small samples of subpopulations may not reflect the diversity within those populations even if the overall estimates for that subpopulation are representative Can only adjust based on characteristics that are measured Potential inflation in standard errors or variances healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  24. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Oversamples in the CA Health Interview Survey (CHIS) CHIS 2001 Sampling list developed with input from AIAN tribal organizations Large fraction from Indian Health Services clinic users Sampling stratified by urban/rural status CHIS 2012 Sampling list based on Indian Health Services clinic users Eligibility for Indian Health Services is based on membership in a federally recognized tribe healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  25. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Percent AIAN Enrolled in a Recognized Tribe 45% Unweighted 38.3% 40% Weighted 35% Percent of AIAN 30% 25% 19.0% 20% 13.3% 15% 11.9% 11.8% 11.4% 9.6% 9.5% 10% 5% 0% 2001 Oversample Source: California Health Interview Survey 2003 No Oversample 2012 Oversample 2013 No Oversample healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  26. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Percent AIAN with California Tribal Heritage Unweighted Weighted 65.9% 70% 65.7% 64.0% 62.4% 61.9% 60% 55.4% 50% 40% 30% 25.5% 20% 9.4% 8.6% 8.1% 7.6% 6.2% 10% 0% 2001 2003 No Oversample 2012 2001 2003 No Oversample 2012 Oversample Oversample Oversample Oversample % AIAN with CA Tribal Heritage % AIAN with Non-CA Tribal Heritage Source: California Health Interview Survey healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  27. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH WEIGHTING CONSIDERATIONS healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  28. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Benchmark Population healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  29. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Why do we need a benchmark population? Tells us what the population should look like absent Coverage bias in sampling frame Oversampling other design effects Nonresponse Bias can enter final sample in many ways and it s difficult to measure them all healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  30. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH How is the benchmark population used? Weighting process forces sample to look like the benchmark population on selected characteristics Any limitations of benchmark data will be imposed on final weights healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  31. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Choosing Benchmark Data Similarity to target population Considerations: Policy relevance Comparability to other data sources Quality of benchmark data Representativeness of relevant populations Availability of relevant characteristics healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  32. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Commonly Used Benchmark Data Decennial census U.S. Census Bureau intercensal population estimates American Community Survey (ACS) State government estimates (e.g., California Dept of Finance) Commercial population data (e.g., Claritas) healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  33. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: Coverage of AIANs in the ACS The ACS has historically undercounted AIANs (Luhan, 2014) The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines AIAN as persons: having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. American Community Survey undersamples from tribal lands ACS uses bridged-race estimates for weighting Multiracial individuals are redistributed into a single-race category healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  34. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Benchmark data from multiple sources Benchmark information can be drawn from multiple sources Sources may differ in small ways that create inconsistencies Must be brought in alignment with each other healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  35. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: CHIS Asian ethnic subgroup benchmarks Primary source (CA Dept of Finance [CA DOF] population estimates) does not include Asian ethnicities Asian ethnic subgroup distribution drawn from American Community Survey (ACS) Overall Asian population size differs between CA DOF and ACS ACS within-Asian ethnic subgroup distribution applied to CHIS Asian population estimates healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  36. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: 2012 California Race-Ethnicity 2012 American Community Survey 2012 CHIS Population 9,536,000 12,111,000 1,549,000 3,980,000 108,000 741,000 28,025,000 Percent 34.0% 43.2% 5.5% 14.2% 0.4% 2.6% 100% Population 9,517,000 12,094,000 1,566,000 3,846,000 122,000 652,000 27,796,000 Percent 34.2% 43.5% 5.6% 13.8% 0.4% 2.3% 100% Hispanic/Latino NH White NH Black NH Asian NH AI/AN Other NH Total Hispanic/Latino NH White NH Black NH Asian NH AI/AN Other NH Total healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  37. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Weighting Dimensions healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  38. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH What are Weighting Dimensions? The set of characteristics that are used to standardize the sample data After weighting, the respondents in the data will resemble benchmark(s) on these characteristics healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  39. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Choosing characteristics for weighting Characteristics associated with differential response rates Available in benchmark source and in data to be weighted High-quality measures with low complexity and rates of missing Examples: Gender Age Race-ethnicity Education Home ownership Urbanicity healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  40. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Defining dimensions Adjust for each characteristic independently Overall population distributions will match benchmark Adjust for characteristics within subgroups Ensure subgroup characteristics also match benchmark Appropriate when nonresponse patterns differ within groups Examples: Race-ethnicity within gender and/or age Race-ethnicity within U.S. state or other geographic region healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  41. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Sample size constraints Ideally, would like to make all subgroups representative Need enough respondents within subgroup With small number of respondents: Individual responses can be too influential in estimates Not enough variation to allow convergence across all dimensions Small samples may require collapsing categories, preventing adjustments for disaggregated categories healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  42. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Limitations of weighting dimensions Weighting dimensions might not fully account for differential nonparticipation Unmeasured characteristics associated with survey participation Lack of detail or precision in benchmark may restrict what can be adjusted Sample size constraints may prevent fully adjusting for or within disaggregated groups healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  43. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Coding Race-Ethnicity healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  44. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Measuring Race-Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Separate dimension/measure Racial-ethnic category, i.e., Hispanic/Latino trumps all Treatment of multiracial respondents Multiracial category Bridged-race reassignment Indicators for race report Recode of other race reports Ethnic subgroups within racial groups healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  45. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Constraints on Coding Race-Ethnicity Oversamples of specific racial or ethnic groups Ability to match to benchmark population Sample size within racial-ethnic categories Collapsing categories with small numbers of respondents Collapsed categories will be adjusted to match benchmark as a group, not individually Ability to adjust for other characteristics within race-ethnicity Sample size (again!) healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  46. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: AIAN in Federal Survey Data Differences in: Data collection methodologies Non-response Benchmark data Inclusion of AIAN in weighting Importance of: Hispanic/Latino status Multiracial identity healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  47. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Weighting Characteristics: 6 Federal Surveys Survey American Community Survey Benchmark Data U.S. Census Bureau Bridged- Race Population Estimates Claritas Population Data AIAN in Weighting? Yes AIAN Subgroups Non-Hispanic AIAN Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey National Health Interview Survey In states with sufficient AIAN No Non-Hispanic single- race AIAN None American Community Survey one-year data file U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates American Community Survey one-year data file No None National Survey of Drug Use and Health Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health In states with sufficient AIAN No Single-race AIAN None healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  48. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Percent AIAN Adults in Federal Surveys 2.5% Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health 0.3% 0.7% 1.5% 2.3% National Survey of Drug Use and Health 0.5% 0.6% 1.2% National Health Interview Survey 0.6% 0.3% 0.7% 1.6% National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 0.6% 0.1% 1.0% 1.7% Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 2.7% American Community Survey 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% Single-Race Latino AIAN 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Multiracial AIAN 2.5% 3.0% Single-Race Non-Latino AIAN healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  49. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH Example: AIAN Subgroups in CHIS Only one AIAN subgroup is included in the weighting dimensions: non-Hispanic single-race AIAN Hispanic/Latino AIAN included with Latino/Hispanic Non-Hispanic multiracial AIAN included with multiracial healthpolicy.ucla.edu

  50. THE UCLA CENTER FOR HEALTH POLICY RESEARCH CHIS AIAN Population: Unweighted vs Weighted 2012 oversample vs 2013-2014 100% 36.1% 37.7% 80% 41.2% 53.0% 60% 23.2% 40% 47.2% 43.6% 21.6% 20% 39.0% 25.4% 16.7% 15.1% 0% 2012 OS: Unweighted 2013-2014: Unweighted 2012 OS: Weighted 2013-2014: Weighted Non-Latino Single Race Latino Single Race AIAN in combination healthpolicy.ucla.edu

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#