| Data Dictionary: | Census 1990 on 2010 Geographies |
you are here:
choose a survey
survey
data set
table details
Survey: Census 1990 on 2010 Geographies
| Data Source: | U.S. Census Bureau & Social Explorer |
| Table: | P134. Imputation Of Hispanic Origin [3] |
Universe: Persons
Table Details
| P134. | Imputation Of Hispanic Origin | ||||||||
| Universe: Persons | |||||||||
|
Relevant Documentation:
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix C. Accuracy of the Data -> Confidentiality of the Data |
To maintain the confidentiality required by law (Title 13, United States Code), the Bureau of the Census applies a confidentiality edit to the 1990 census data to assure that published data do not disclose information about specific individuals, households, or housing units. As a result, a small amount of uncertainty is introduced into the estimates of census characteristics. The sample itself provides adequate protection for most areas for which sample data are published since the resulting data are estimates of the actual counts; however, small areas require more protection. The edit is controlled so that the basic structure of the data is preserved.
The confidentiality edit is implemented by selecting a small subset of individual households from the internal sample data files and blanking a subset of the data items on these household records. Responses to those data items were then imputed using the same imputation procedures that were used for nonresponse. A larger subset of households is selected for the confidentiality edit for small areas to provide greater protection for these areas. The editing process is implemented in such a way that the quality and usefulness of the data were preserved.
The confidentiality edit is implemented by selecting a small subset of individual households from the internal sample data files and blanking a subset of the data items on these household records. Responses to those data items were then imputed using the same imputation procedures that were used for nonresponse. A larger subset of households is selected for the confidentiality edit for small areas to provide greater protection for these areas. The editing process is implemented in such a way that the quality and usefulness of the data were preserved.
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix C. Accuracy of the Data -> Editing of Unacceptable Data |
The objective of the processing operation is to produce a set of data that describes the population as accurately and clearly as possible. To meet this objective, questionnaires were edited during field data collection operations for consistency, completeness, and acceptability. Questionnaires also were reviewed by census clerks for omissions, certain specific inconsistencies, and population coverage. For example, write-in entries such as Dont know or NA were considered unacceptable. For some district offices, the initial edit was automated; however, for the majority of the district offices, it was performed by clerks. As a result of this operation, a telephone or personal visit followup was made to obtain missing information. Potential coverage errors were included in the followup, as well as a sample of questionnaires with omissions and/or inconsistencies. Subsequent to field operations, remaining incomplete or inconsistent information on the questionnaires was assigned using imputation procedures during the final automated edit of the collected data. Imputations, or computer assignments of acceptable codes in place of unacceptable entries or blanks, are needed most often when an entry for a given item is lacking or when the information reported for a person or housing unit on that item is inconsistent with other information for that same person or housing unit. As in previous censuses, the general procedure for changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry for a person or housing unit that was consistent with entries for persons or housing units with similar characteristics. The assignment of acceptable codes in place of blanks or unacceptable entries enhances the usefulness of the data.
Another way in which corrections were made during the computer editing process was through substitution; that is, the assignment of a full set of characteristics for a person or housing unit. When there was an indication that a housing unit was occupied but the questionnaire contained no information for the people within the household or the occupants were not listed on the questionnaire, a previously accepted household was selected as a substitute, and the full set of characteristics for the substitute was duplicated. The assignment of the full set of housing characteristics occurred when there was no housing information available. If the housing unit was determined to be occupied, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed occupied unit. If the housing unit was vacant, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed vacant unit.
Another way in which corrections were made during the computer editing process was through substitution; that is, the assignment of a full set of characteristics for a person or housing unit. When there was an indication that a housing unit was occupied but the questionnaire contained no information for the people within the household or the occupants were not listed on the questionnaire, a previously accepted household was selected as a substitute, and the full set of characteristics for the substitute was duplicated. The assignment of the full set of housing characteristics occurred when there was no housing information available. If the housing unit was determined to be occupied, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed occupied unit. If the housing unit was vacant, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed vacant unit.
| Table A. Unadjusted Standard Error for Estimated Totals [Based on a 1-in-6 simple random sample] | ||||||||||||||
| Estimated Total | Size of publication area2 | |||||||||||||
| 500 | 1,000 | 2,500 | 5,000 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 | 250,000 | 500,000 | 1,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 25,000,000 | |
| 50 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| 100 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 |
| 250 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| 500 | 35 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
| 1,000 | 55 | 65 | 65 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | ||
| 2,500 | 80 | 95 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | |||
| 5000 | 110 | 140 | 150 | 150 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | ||||
| 10,000 | 170 | 200 | 210 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | |||||
| 15,000 | 170 | 230 | 250 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | |||||
| 25,000 | 250 | 310 | 340 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | ||||||
| 75,000 | 310 | 510 | 570 | 590 | 610 | 610 | 610 | |||||||
| 100,000 | 550 | 630 | 670 | 700 | 700 | 710 | ||||||||
| 250,000 | 790 | 970 | 1 090 | 1 100 | 1 100 | |||||||||
| 500,000 | 1120 | 1 500 | 1 540 | 1 570 | ||||||||||
| 1,000,000 | 2 000 | 2 120 | 2 190 | |||||||||||
| 5,000,000 | 3 540 | 4 470 | ||||||||||||
| 10,000,000 | 5 480 | |||||||||||||
1For estimated totals larger than 10,000,000, the standard error is somewhat larger than the table values. The formula given below should be used to calculate the standard error.
2The total count of persons in the area if the estimated total is a person characteristic, or the total count of housing units in the area if the estimated total is a housing unit characteristic.
2The total count of persons in the area if the estimated total is a person characteristic, or the total count of housing units in the area if the estimated total is a housing unit characteristic.
| Table B. Unadjusted Standard Error in Percentage Points for Estimated Percentage [Based on a 1 in-6 simple random sample] | ||||||||||||||
| Estimated percentage | Base of percentage1 | |||||||||||||
| 500 | 750 | 1,000 | 1,500 | 2,500 | 5,000 | 7,500 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 | 250,000 | 500,000 | ||
| 2 or 98 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 5 or 95 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 10 or 90 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 15 or 85 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 20 or 80 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 25 or 75 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 30 or 70 | 4.6 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 35 or 65 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| 50 | 5.0 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix B. Definitions of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Hispanic Origin |
The data on Spanish/Hispanic origin were derived from answers to questionnaire item 7, which was asked of all persons. Persons of Hispanic origin are those who classified themselves in one of the specific Hispanic origin categories listed on the questionnaire--"Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban"--as well as those who indicated that they were of "other Spanish/Hispanic" origin. Persons of "Other Spanish/Hispanic" origin are those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or the Dominican Republic, or they are persons of Hispanic origin identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on. Write-in responses to the "other Spanish/Hispanic" category were coded only for sample data.
Origin can be viewed as the ancestry, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Some tabulations are shown by the Hispanic origin of the householder. In all cases where households, families, or occupied housing units are classified by Hispanic origin, the Hispanic origin of the householder is used. (See the discussion of householder under "Household Type and Relationship.")
During direct interviews conducted by enumerators, if a person could not provide a single origin response, he or she was asked to select, based on self-identification, the group which best described his or her origin or descent. If a person could not provide a single group, the origin of the person's mother was used. If a single group could not be provided for the person's mother, the first origin reported by the person was used.
If any household member failed to respond to the Spanish/Hispanic origin question, a response was assigned by the computer according to the reported entries of other household members by using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. In the processing of sample questionnaires, responses to other questions on the questionnaire, such as ancestry and place of birth, were used to assign an origin before any reference was made to the origin reported by other household members. If an origin was not entered for any household member, an origin was assigned from another household according to the race of the householder. This procedure is a variation of the general imputation process described in Appendix C, Accuracy of the Data.
Origin can be viewed as the ancestry, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Some tabulations are shown by the Hispanic origin of the householder. In all cases where households, families, or occupied housing units are classified by Hispanic origin, the Hispanic origin of the householder is used. (See the discussion of householder under "Household Type and Relationship.")
During direct interviews conducted by enumerators, if a person could not provide a single origin response, he or she was asked to select, based on self-identification, the group which best described his or her origin or descent. If a person could not provide a single group, the origin of the person's mother was used. If a single group could not be provided for the person's mother, the first origin reported by the person was used.
If any household member failed to respond to the Spanish/Hispanic origin question, a response was assigned by the computer according to the reported entries of other household members by using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. In the processing of sample questionnaires, responses to other questions on the questionnaire, such as ancestry and place of birth, were used to assign an origin before any reference was made to the origin reported by other household members. If an origin was not entered for any household member, an origin was assigned from another household according to the race of the householder. This procedure is a variation of the general imputation process described in Appendix C, Accuracy of the Data.
There may be differences between the total Hispanic origin population based on 100-percent tabulations and sample tabulations. Such differences are the result of sampling variability, nonsampling error, and more extensive edit procedures for the Spanish/Hispanic origin item on the sample questionnaires. (For more information on sampling variability and nonsampling error, see Appendix C, Accuracy of the Data.)
The 1990 data on Hispanic origin are generally comparable with those for the 1980 census. However, there are some differences in the format of the Hispanic origin question between the two censuses. For 1990, the word "descent" was deleted from the 1980 wording. In addition, the term "Mexican-Amer." used in 1980 was shortened further to "Mexican-Am." to reduce misreporting (of "American") in this category detected in the 1980 census. Finally, the 1990 question allowed those who reported as "other Spanish/Hispanic" to write in their specific Hispanic origin group.
Misreporting in the "Mexican-Amer." category of the 1980 census item on Spanish/Hispanic origin may affect the comparability of 1980 and 1990 census data for persons of Hispanic origin for certain areas of the country. An evaluation of the 1980 census item on Spanish/Hispanic origin indicated that there was misreporting in the Mexican origin category by White and Black persons in certain areas. The study results showed evidence that the misreporting occurred in the South (excluding Texas), the Northeast (excluding the New York City area), and a few States in the Midwest Region. Also, results based on available data suggest that the impact of possible misreporting of Mexican origin in the 1980 census was severe in those portions of the above-mentioned regions where the Hispanic origin population was generally sparse. However, national 1980 census data on the Mexican origin population or total Hispanic origin population at the national level was not seriously affected by the reporting problem. (For a more detailed discussion of the evaluation of the 1980 census Spanish/Hispanic origin item, see the 1980 census Supplementary Reports.)
The 1990 and 1980 census data on the Hispanic population are not directly comparable with 1970 Spanish origin data because of a number of factors: (1) overall improvements in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, (2) better coverage of the population, (3) improved question designs, and (4) an effective public relations campaign by the Census Bureau with the assistance of national and community ethnic groups.
Specific changes in question design between the 1980 and 1970 censuses included the placement of the category "No, not Spanish/Hispanic" as the first category in that question. (The corresponding category appeared last in the 1970 question.) Also, the 1970 category "Central or South American" was deleted because in 1970 some respondents misinterpreted the category; furthermore, the designations "Mexican-American" and "Chicano" were added to the Spanish/Hispanic origin question in 1980. In the 1970 census, the question on Spanish origin was asked of only a 5-percent sample of the population.
The 1990 data on Hispanic origin are generally comparable with those for the 1980 census. However, there are some differences in the format of the Hispanic origin question between the two censuses. For 1990, the word "descent" was deleted from the 1980 wording. In addition, the term "Mexican-Amer." used in 1980 was shortened further to "Mexican-Am." to reduce misreporting (of "American") in this category detected in the 1980 census. Finally, the 1990 question allowed those who reported as "other Spanish/Hispanic" to write in their specific Hispanic origin group.
Misreporting in the "Mexican-Amer." category of the 1980 census item on Spanish/Hispanic origin may affect the comparability of 1980 and 1990 census data for persons of Hispanic origin for certain areas of the country. An evaluation of the 1980 census item on Spanish/Hispanic origin indicated that there was misreporting in the Mexican origin category by White and Black persons in certain areas. The study results showed evidence that the misreporting occurred in the South (excluding Texas), the Northeast (excluding the New York City area), and a few States in the Midwest Region. Also, results based on available data suggest that the impact of possible misreporting of Mexican origin in the 1980 census was severe in those portions of the above-mentioned regions where the Hispanic origin population was generally sparse. However, national 1980 census data on the Mexican origin population or total Hispanic origin population at the national level was not seriously affected by the reporting problem. (For a more detailed discussion of the evaluation of the 1980 census Spanish/Hispanic origin item, see the 1980 census Supplementary Reports.)
The 1990 and 1980 census data on the Hispanic population are not directly comparable with 1970 Spanish origin data because of a number of factors: (1) overall improvements in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, (2) better coverage of the population, (3) improved question designs, and (4) an effective public relations campaign by the Census Bureau with the assistance of national and community ethnic groups.
Specific changes in question design between the 1980 and 1970 censuses included the placement of the category "No, not Spanish/Hispanic" as the first category in that question. (The corresponding category appeared last in the 1970 question.) Also, the 1970 category "Central or South American" was deleted because in 1970 some respondents misinterpreted the category; furthermore, the designations "Mexican-American" and "Chicano" were added to the Spanish/Hispanic origin question in 1980. In the 1970 census, the question on Spanish origin was asked of only a 5-percent sample of the population.
