This report describes how Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) was designed, planned, and implemented. The NSFG is a national survey of women and men 15-44 years of age designed to provide national estimates of factors affecting pregnancy and birth rates; men's and women's health; and parenting. Cycle 6, conducted in 2002, was the first time the NSFG included a sample of males.
The survey used in-person, face-to-face interviews conducted by trained female interviewers. One person per household was interviewed from a national area probability sample in about 120 sample areas, with oversamples of teenagers, African Americans, and Hispanics. The data collection used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). Separate questionnaires were used for female and male respondents. The last section of the questionnaires used a technique called audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI). In order to control costs and nonresponse errors, survey managers statistically analyzed results from interviewers' visits to sampled households each day, and used those results to allocate interviewer labor and other resources more efficiently. This management improved response rates and made the sample more representative.
Over 12,500 interviews were completed, about 7,600 with females and about 4,900 with males. The response rate was about 80 percent for females and about 78 percent for males. The survey procedures were adapted during the fieldwork to achieve the desired response rates and to control costs.
"Parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained for adolescents 15 to 17 years old in the NSFG (Groves et al., 2005; Lepkowski et al., 2013). Consent was obtained from adolescents older than or equal to 18 years old. "
"We use data from Cycle 6, the 2002 round of the NSFG, which included 4,928 completed interviews of men 15-44 years of age and an overall male response rate of 78%. For a detailed discussion of sampling procedures and study design see Groves et al. (2005) and Lepkowski et al. (2006). We analyze data from the 4,109 men who reported having had sexual intercourse with opposite-sex partners. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper reports results from a unique experiment conducted in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) to gauge the effect of question format on men's reports of contraceptive use at last sexual intercourse. Respondents received separate questions about their own and their partners' contraceptive use or one combined question about either partner's contraceptive use. We examine whether receiving separate questions, as opposed to one combined question, is related to higher reports of using any contraceptive method, specific methods, female methods in addition to male methods, and the number of methods reported. We find that reports of any contraceptive use at last sex and use of the most common methods, condoms and the pill, were stable across question formats. However, we find significantly higher reports of withdrawal, combining male and female methods, and multiple method use among men who received the separate-question format. We also find that characteristics of the sexual experience in question condition the effect of question format on men's reports.
Social Science Research 09/2012; 41(5):1028-36. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.04.004 · 1.27 Impact Factor
"The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is a large federal survey for studying family growth and family relationships and because of its importance it has been subject to considerable methodological scrutiny (Fu et al., 1998; Hewitt, 2002; Jones and Forrest, 1992; Jones and Kost, 2007). The questionnaire for the female respondents covers a broad range of topics, including the woman's pregnancy history, marital and other relationships, sterilization and contraceptive use, family planning and medical services, birth intentions and attitudes, and infertility and reproductive health (see Groves et al., 2005, for a thorough description of the questionnaires and field procedures for Cycle 6). A unique feature of the NSFG interview is that it uses two modes of data collection. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Latent class analysis (LCA) has been hailed as a promising technique for studying measurement errors in surveys, because the models produce estimates of the error rates associated with a given question. Still, the issue arises as to how accurate these error estimates are and under what circumstances they can be relied on. Skeptics argue that latent class models can understate the true error rates and at least one paper (Kreuter et al., 2008) demonstrates such underestimation empirically. We applied latent class models to data from two waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), focusing on a pair of similar items about abortion that are administered under different modes of data collection. The first item is administered by computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI); the second, by audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI). Evidence shows that abortions are underreported in the NSFG and the conventional wisdom is that ACASI item yields fewer false negatives than the CAPI item. To evaluate these items, we made assumptions about the error rates within various subgroups of the population; these assumptions were needed to achieve an identifiable LCA model. Because there are external data available on the actual prevalence of abortion (by subgroup), we were able to form subgroups for which the identifying restrictions were likely to be (approximately) met and other subgroups for which the assumptions were likely to be violated. We also ran more complex models that took potential heterogeneity within subgroups into account. Most of the models yielded implausibly low error rates, supporting the argument that, under specific conditions, LCA models underestimate the error rates.
Social Science Research 09/2012; 41(5):1017-27. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.006 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.