Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of methods of preparing postcensal population estimates for states and local areas

  • Published:
Demography

Resumen

Las estimaciones de la población total por Estado obtenidas mediante varios métodoe fueron comparadas con los recuentos del Censo de 1960. Como en el pasado, el Método de Componentes II de la Dirección de los Censos parece dar los resultados más exactos, en término medio. En general, otros método que usan datos continuos sintomáticos del crecimiento de la población (Tasas Vitales, Compuestos, Regresión) también tienden a ser mejores que los métodos que son esencialmente extrapoblaciones matemáticas. La excepción es el Método de Componentes I, el cual resultó pobre con respecio a esta última década. El promedio de dos o más método tendió a reducir los errors. Casi todos dieron resultados más exactos para 1960 que para 1950. Por ejemplo, el Método II, mostró errores promedio de 2.0 y de 3.2 respectivamente. Parece haber también poca correlación entre los errores por Estado en 1960 y 1950.

El Método II no se comportó tan bien (ni absolutamente ni en relación a otros métodos), sin embargo, en el caso de áreas metropolitanas seleccionadas y sus condados componentes. Para 1960 el Método de Tasas Vitales parece dar mejores resultados. Estas pruebas de exactitud, como también aquellas realizadas por otros, indican que en el caso de condados y áreas metropolitanas estadísticas estándare, las estimaciones basadas en los promedios de dos o más métodos son todavía las que deben preferirse a cualquier otra obtenida mediante un método solo.

La experimentación con un métoda de regresión múltiple por nosotros y otros ha producido resultados promisorios. Este será uno de los métodos que la Dirección de los Censos planea explorar más.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

o

  1. (a) Jacob S. Siegel, “Status of Research on Methods of Estimating State and Local Population,” inProceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association (Washington, D.C., 1960), pp. 172–79; (b) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Development of Postcensal Population Estimates for Local Areas,” with discussion by John N. Webb and Ormond C. Corry, in National Bureau of Economic Research, “Studies in Income and Wealth,” Vol. XXI,Regional Income (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 377–99; (c) Jacob S. Siegel, Henry S. Shryock, Jr., and Benjamin Greenberg, “Accuracy of Postcensal Estimates of Population for States and Cities,”American Sociological Review, XIX, No. 4 (August 1954), 440–46; (d) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Coordination of Population Estimates Used by Federal, State, and Local Agencies,” in U.S. Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 81 (October 12, 1953); (e) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., and Norman Lawrence, “The Current Status of State and Local Estimates in the Census Bureau,”Journal of the American Statistical Association XLIV, No. 246 (June 1949), 157–73; (j) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Postcensal Population Data for Cities,”American Journal of Public Health, XXXVII, No. 11 (November 1947), 145–46; (g) Hope Tisdale Eldridge, “Problems and Methods of Estimating Postcensal Population,” Social Forces, XXIV, No.1 (October 1945), 41–46; (h) Philip M. Hauser and Benjamin J. Tepping, “Evaluation of Census Wartime Population Estimates and of Predictions of Postwar Population Prospects for Metropolitan Areas,”American Sociological Review, IX, No.5 (October 1944), 473–80; (i) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Methods of Estimating Postcensal Population,”American Journal of Public Health. XXVIII, No. 9 (September 1928), 1042–47; (j) Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Population Estimates in Postcensal Years,”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CLXXXVII (November 1936), 167–76.

  2. Henry S. Shryock, Jr., Jacob S. Siegel, and Benjamin Greenberg, “Current Research on Population Estimates for States and Local Areas” (paper read at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, Pa., May 4, 1957 [unpublished]).

  3. Conrad Taeuber and Morris H. Hansen, “A Preliminary Evaluation of the 1960 Census of Population and Housing”,Demography, Vol 1, 1964.

  4. U.S. Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 265, “Estimates of the Population of the United States, by Age, Color, and Sex: July 1, 1950 to 1962, May 1963.

  5. U.S. Bureau of the Census,Current Population Repon, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 244, “Local Population Estimates Prepared by State and City Agencies: Mail Survey of 1960,” March 8, 1962.

  6. Donald J. Bogue, “A Technique for Making Extensive Population Estimates,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, XLV, No. 250 (June 1950), 149–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Donald J. Bogue and Beverly Duncan, “A Composite Method for Estimating Postcenaal Population of Small Areas by Age, Sex, and Color,” in National Office of Vital Statistics,Vital Statistics-Special Reports, Vol. XLVII, No.6 (August 24, 1959).

  8. David Goldberg, Allen Feldt, and J. William Smit,Estimates of Population Change in Michigan 8 1950–1960, in “Michigan Population Studies,” No. 1 Ann Arbor, Mich. (University of Michigan, 1960); Robert C. Schmitt and Albert H. Crosetti, “Accuracy of the Ratio-Correlation Method for Estimating Postcensal Population,” inLand Economics, Vol. XXX, No.3 (August 1954), 279–80.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Henry S. Shryock, Jr., “Development of Postcensal Population Estimates for Local Areas,”op, cit. (paper read at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, Pa., May 4, 1957 [unpublished]).

  10. National Vital Statistics Division,Preliminary Report of the Study Group on Posicensal Population Estimates, the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics (Washington D.C., June 11, 1962).

  11. David Goldberg and T. R. Balakrishnan,A Partial Evaluation of Four Estimating Techniques (“Michigan Population Studies No. 2” [Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1961]).

    Google Scholar 

  12. George A. Hillery, Jr.,Postcensal Population Estimates for Small Areas: An Evaluation of Selected Techniques (Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, KAES RS-17, September 1962).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, USA

    Meyer Zitter & Henry S. Shryock

Authors
  1. Meyer Zitter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry S. Shryock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Staff members of the Population Estimates and Projections Branch, Population Division, assisting with this article are Jerome M. Glynn, Donald E. Starsinic, and Mildred R. Stanback.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zitter, M., Shryock, H.S. Accuracy of methods of preparing postcensal population estimates for states and local areas. Demography 1, 227–241 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03208463

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03208463

Keywords

Search

Navigation