Resumen
Los datos censolee pueden obtenerse enviando el cuestionario al jefe del hogar, quien delvolverá la información por Correo, 0 por medio de la visita de un enumerador al hogar, quien obtiene personalmente la información. Los méritos de cada uno de eetos metodoe han dado lugar a una amplia discusión sobre el particular. El primer método mencionado, de uso comun en Europa, fué adoptado por la Ojicina de Censo de los Estados Unidos, en 1960. Este artículo pretende resumir que efectos, tuvo esta decisión en la precisión de los datos censoles. Se concluye que este método de enumeración no cubre una mayor cantidad, produce una tasa mayor de no-respuesta, y no reduce los errores de clasificación. De hecho, esia tasa parece aumentar en los grupos socio-económicos mas bajos de la población. Se concluye que ambos mótodos, tal como han sido usados en el pasado, producen estadísticas menos precisas que las que se necesitan para las investigaciones demográficas; debe prestarse apoyo a estudios que hagan relación con maneras de mejorar estos sistemas. Se sugiere que para obtener en ellargo plazo mayor precisión con el metodo de enumeradores, la selección, entrenamiento y supervisión de los mismos debe ser en extremo rigurosa. Sin embargo, una respuesta definitiva sólo podrá darse, cuando se sepa más de los errores cometidos tanto por los J efes del Hogar como por los enumeradores.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Akers, Donald S. “Estimating Net Census Undercount in 1960, Using Analytical Techniques.” Presented at the Annual Population Association of America meetings in May, 1962.
Bogue, Donald J., andMurphy, Edmund M. “The Effect of Classification Errors upon Statistical Inferences: A Case Analysis with Census Data,”Demography, I (1964), 42–56.
Bradshaw, Benjamin S., and Akers, Donald S. “Age Heaping in the 1960 Census of Population.” U.S. Bureau of the Census (processed), 1962.
Deming, W. E. “On Errors in Surveys,”American Sociological Review, IX (1944) 359–70.
Eckler, A. Ross, and Hurwitz, William N. “Response Variance and Biases in Censuses and Surveys,”Bulletin of the International Statistical Instiute, XXXVI, No. 2 (Stockholm, 1958), 12–35.
Fasteau, Hermann H., Ingram, Jack, andMills, Ruth H. “Study of the Reliability of Coding of Census Returns,” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section (American Statiscal Association, 1962).
Fellegi, I. P. “Response Variance and Its Estimation,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, LIX (1963), 1016–41.
Gales, Kathleen, andKendall, M. G. “Inquiry Concerning Interviewer Variability,”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. A, CXX (1957), 121–47.
Gray, Percy G. “Examples of Interviwer Variability Taken from Two Sample Surveys,”Applied Statistics, V (1956), 73–85.
Hansen, M. H., Hurwitz, W. N., andBershad, M. A. “Measurement Errors in Censuses and Surveys,”Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute (32d Sess., Part II), XXXVIII (1960), 359–74.
Hanson, Robert H., andMarks, Eli S. “Influence of the Interviewer on the Accuracy of Survey Results,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, LIII (1958), 635–55.
Kish, Leslie. “Studies of Interviewer Variance for Attitudinal Variables,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, XLIX (1954), 520–38.
Kish, Leslie, andLansing, John B. “Response Errors in Estimating Value of Homes,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, LVII (1954), 520–38.
Marks, Eli S., andMauldin, Parker W. “Response Errors in the Census Research,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, XLV (September, 1950), 424–38.
Miller, Hermann P. “New Evidence Regarding Errors in Income Size Distributions.” U.S. Bureau of the Census (processed), 1962.
Nam, Charles B. “Some Comparisons of Office of Education and Census Bureau Statistics on Education,”Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section (American Statistical Association, 1962), pp. 258–69.
Pritzker, L., And Hanson, R. H. “Measurement Errors in the 1960 Census of Population,”Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section (American Statistical Association, 1962), 8090.
Pritzker, Leon, And Hansen, Morris H. “The Post-enumeration Survey of the 1950 Census of Population: Some Results, Evaluation, and Implications.” U.S. Bureau of the Census (processed), 1956.Rice,Stuart A. “Contagious Bias in the Interview,”American Journal of Sociology, XXXV (1929), 420-23.
Steinberg, Joseph, Gurney, Margaret, and Perkins, Walter. “The Accuracy of the 1960 Census Count,”Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section (American Statistical Association, 1962), pp. 76–79.
Stock, J. S., andHochstim, J. R. “A Method of Measuring Interviewer Variability,”Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (1951), 322–34.
Taeuber, Conrad, andHansen, Morris H. “A Preliminary Evaluation of the 1960 Census of Population and Housing,”Demography, I (1964), 1–14.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 1960 (Series ER60, Washington, D.C.); No.1,Background, Procedures, and Forms (1963); No.2,Record Check Studies of Population Coverage (1964); No.3,Accuracy of Data on Housing Characteristics (1964); No. 4,Accuracy of Data on Population Characteristics as Measured by Re-interviews (1964); No. 5,Accuracy of Data on Population Characteristics as Measured by CPS-Census Match (1964).
—.The Current Population Survey Re-interview Program: Some Notes and Discussion (Technical Paper No. 6; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1963).
U.S. Bureau of the Census.The Post Enumeration Survey: 1950 (Technical Paper No.4, 1960).
U.S. Bureau of the Census.Procedural Studies of the 1950 Censuses, No.1:Infant Enumeration Study, 1950.
—.U.S. Census of Population, 1960: Number of Inhabitants, United States Summary (Final Report PC (1)-IA; Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 11.
Veroff, J., Atkinson, J. W., Feld, S. C., and Gurin, G. “The Use of Thematic Apperception to Assess Motivation in a Nationwide Interview Study,”Psychological Monographs: General and Applied (Fall, 1960), pp. 1–32.
Zelnik, Melvin. “Errors in the 1960 Census Enumeration of Native Whites,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, LIX (June, 1964), 437–59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research reported here was performed as part of a program of studies in demography under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Much of the background information is based upon service as a consultant on population to the Office of Statistical Standards, United States Bureau of the Budget. Sincere thanks are due many members of the United States Bureau of the Census and Office of Statistical Standards who gave most generously of their time in discussing an earlier draft of this paper. Morris Hansen, Conrad Taeuber, Margaret Martin, Howard Brunsman, Henry S. Shryock, Jr., Paul C. Glick, Wilson Grabill, David Kaplan, Joseph Steinberg, Joseph Waxburg, and Calvin L. Beale were especially helpful in making comments and correcting misstatements of fact and interpretation. The opinions expressed, however, are those of the author and do not reflect the policy of any government agency or of these experts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bogue, D.J. The Pros and Cons of “Self-Enumeration”. Demography 2, 600–626 (1965). https://doi.org/10.2307/2060143
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2060143