Conclusion
The DJN sample comes consistently closest to the RDD sample, and the federation sample is consistently the furthest off. The combination list sample falls in the middle but is more similar to the federation sample. The limitations of list samples (even expensive comprehensive ones) are so great as to rule them out of serious consideration in communities such as Denver. The DJN sample, while accurately depicting the community in two areas (age and income), was seriously off in enough of the others to approach it only with great caution. Lazerwitz’s cautions about the representativeness of DJN sample on a national scale are even more true in Denver and other new Jewish communities in the Southwest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Goldstein, Sidney, and Goldscheider, Calvin. 1968.Jewish Americans: Three Generations in a Jewish Community. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Himmelfarb, Harold S., Loar, R. Michael, and Mott, Susan H. 1983. “Sampling by Ethnic Surnames: The Case of American Jews.”Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (Summer): 247–60.
Tobin, Gary. 1982.A Demographic and Attitudinal Study of the Jewish Community of St. Louis. St. Louis: Jewish Federation of St. Louis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Phillips, B.A. DJN and list samples in the Southwest: Addendum to Lazerwitz. Cont Jewry 7, 103–109 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967947
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967947