Abstract
When developing new estimation or projection methods or assessing current techniques, demographers must deal with evaluating several options for constructing estimates for national and sub-national areas, such as states, counties, tracts, etc. Assessing an option for the estimation involves evaluating the estimates as a set rather than one at a time. A technique often used is to compare the estimates against a standard, such as recent census counts, believed to be more accurate than the estimates under evaluation. To do this, it is necessary to summarize the errors into performance measures that can be applied to a sub-national level. These measures need to reflect the different uses of the estimates. Usually several measures need to be examined because a single one is not able to capture all the different accuracy requirements for the varied uses of the estimates, such as fixed pie allocations or absolute numbers of the population. Different measures have evolved to reflect the accuracy requirements, some focus on the accuracy of the distribution of the population across areas while others focus on numerical accuracy in the sub-national areas. Some measures give all component error estimates equal weight while others weight the error estimate by population size. This paper presents a systematic overview of these methods. It explores the relationship between the population estimates and their important uses, such as fund allocations. Included is a demonstration of the properties of the measures and an illustration of the necessity of understanding the role of error in the standard of comparison when forming the measures. Finally, the paper presents a method to facilitate comparisons across measures when assessing a set of population estimates or studying a proposed estimation methodology.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This report is released to inform interested parties and encourage discussion of work in progress. The views expressed on statistical, methodological, and operational issues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alho, J. M., & Spencer, B. D. (2005). Statistical demography and forecasting. New York: Springer.
Bolender, B C., Dokko, I., Lewis, J. (2012). Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties: Evaluation of Postcensal Population Estimates and Census 2010 Results. Poster presented at the Population Association Annual Meetings, 2–3 May, 2012, San Francisco, CA.
Fellegi, I. (1980). Should the Census Count Be Adjusted for Allocation Purposes—Equity Considerations. Conference on Census Undercount: Proceedings of the 1980 Conference. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, pp. 193–203.
Hogan, H., & Robinson, J. G. (1993). What the Census Bureau’s Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us about Differential Undercount. Proceedings of the U.S Census Bureau 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations, 5–7 May, 1993. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
Jones-Putoff, A., & Yowell., T. (2012). 2010 Estimates Evaluations: Overview and County Results. Paper presented at the 2010 Estimates Evaluations: Research, Results, and Direction Conference. 30 March, 2012, Suitland, MD.
Mayol-Garcia, Y., & Robinson, J. G. (2011). 2010 Census Counts Compared to the 2010 Population Estimates by Demographic Characteristics. Paper presented at the 2012 Southern Demographic Association Annual Meeting, 10–12 October, 2012, Williamsburg, VA.
Mulry, M. H., & Hogan, H. (1986). Research Plan on Census Adjustment Standards. Proceedings of the section on Survey Research Methods. American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, pp. 566–570. http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/papers/1986_106.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2012.
Panel on Small-Area Estimates of Population and Income. (1980). Estimating Population and Income of Small Areas. Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Siegel, J. S. (1974). Estimates of coverage of the population by sex, race, and age in the 1970 census. Demography, 11(1), 1–23
Spencer, B. D. (1980a) Implications of Equity and Accuracy for Undercount Adjustment: A Decision-Theoretic Approach. Conference on Census Undercount: Proceedings of the 1980 Conference. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, pp. 204–216.
Spencer, B. D. (1980b). Benefit-cost analysis of data used to allocate funds. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Spencer, B. D. (1980c). Effect of biases in census estimates on evaluation of postcensal estimates. Appendix I in estimating population and income of small areas (pp. 232–236). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
The Demographic Analysis Research Team. (2010). The Development and Sensitivity Analysis of the 2010 Demographic Analysis Estimates. Report dated 16 December, 2010. Population Division. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1977). Developmental estimates of the coverage of the population of states in the 1970 census: demographic analysis. Current population reports, Series P-23, No. 65. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). Technical Assessment of the Accuracy of Unadjusted Versus Adjusted 1990 Census Counts. Report of the Undercount Steering Committee, 21 June, 1991. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001). Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy on Adjustment for Non-Redistricting Uses. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/Recommend2.pdf. Accessed 3 October 2012.
Yowell, T., & Devine, J. (2012). Overview and county level results. Population division. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hogan, H., Mulry, M. (2015). Assessing Accuracy in Postcensal Estimates: Statistical Properties of Different Measures. In: Hoque, M., B. Potter, L. (eds) Emerging Techniques in Applied Demography. Applied Demography Series, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8990-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8990-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8989-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8990-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)