| Data Dictionary: | Census 2000 |
you are here:
choose a survey
survey
data set
table details
Survey: Census 2000
| Data Source: | U.S. Census Bureau |
Data set: Summary File 3 (SF3)
| Table: | PCT67H. Age by Types of Disability for the Civ Noninstit Population 5+ Years with Disabilities (Hispanic) [19] |
Universe: Total disabilities tallied for the civilian noninstitutionalized Hispanic or Latino population 5 years and over with disabilities
Table Details
| PCT67H. | Age by Types of Disability for the Civ Noninstit Population 5+ Years with Disabilities (Hispanic) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Universe: Total disabilities tallied for the civilian noninstitutionalized Hispanic or Latino population 5 years and over with disabilities | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Relevant Documentation:
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: Technical Documentation, 2002. |
| Summary File 3 Technical Documentation -> Appendix B. Definitons of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Age |
The data on age, which was asked of all people, were derived from answers to the long-form questionnaire Item 4 and short-form questionnaire Item 6. The age classification is based on the age of the person in complete years as of April 1, 2000. The age of the person usually was derived from their date of birth information. Their reported age was used only when date of birth information was unavailable.
Data on age are used to determine the applicability of some of the sample questions for a person and to classify other characteristics in census tabulations. Age data are needed to interpret most social and economic characteristics used to plan and examine many programs and policies. Therefore, age is tabulated by single years of age and by many different groupings, such as 5-year age groups.
Data on age are used to determine the applicability of some of the sample questions for a person and to classify other characteristics in census tabulations. Age data are needed to interpret most social and economic characteristics used to plan and examine many programs and policies. Therefore, age is tabulated by single years of age and by many different groupings, such as 5-year age groups.
Median age divides the age distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the cases falling below the median age and one-half above the median. Median age is computed on the basis of a single year of age standard distribution (see the "Standard Distributions" section under "Derived Measures"). Median age is rounded to the nearest tenth. (For more information on medians, see "Derived Measures".)
The most general limitation for many decades has been the tendency of people to overreport ages or years of birth that end in zero or 5. This phenomenon is called "age heaping." In addition, the counts in the 1970 and 1980 censuses for people 100 years old and over were substantially overstated. So also were the counts of people 69 years old in 1970 and 79 years old in 1980. Improvements have been made since then in the questionnaire design and in the imputation procedures that have minimized these problems.
Review of detailed 1990 census information indicated that respondents tended to provide their age as of the date of completion of the questionnaire, not their age as of April 1, 1990. One reason this happened was that respondents were not specifically instructed to provide their age as of April 1, 1990. Another reason was that data collection efforts continued well past the census date. In addition, there may have been a tendency for respondents to round their age up if they were close to having a birthday. It is likely that approximately 10 percent of people in most age groups were actually 1 year younger. For most single years of age, the misstatements were largely offsetting. The problem is most pronounced at age zero because people lost to age 1 probably were not fully offset by the inclusion of babies born after April 1, 1990. Also, there may have been more rounding up to age 1 to avoid reporting age as zero years. (Age in complete months was not collected for infants under age 1.)
The reporting of age 1 year older than true age on April 1, 1990, is likely to have been greater in areas where the census data were collected later in calendar year 1990. The magnitude of this problem was much less in the 1960, 1970, and 1980 censuses where age was typically derived from respondent data on year of birth and quarter of birth.
These shortcomings were minimized in Census 2000 because age was usually calculated from exact date of birth and because respondents were specifically asked to provide their age as of April 1, 2000. (For more information on the design of the age question, see the section below that discusses "Comparability.")
Review of detailed 1990 census information indicated that respondents tended to provide their age as of the date of completion of the questionnaire, not their age as of April 1, 1990. One reason this happened was that respondents were not specifically instructed to provide their age as of April 1, 1990. Another reason was that data collection efforts continued well past the census date. In addition, there may have been a tendency for respondents to round their age up if they were close to having a birthday. It is likely that approximately 10 percent of people in most age groups were actually 1 year younger. For most single years of age, the misstatements were largely offsetting. The problem is most pronounced at age zero because people lost to age 1 probably were not fully offset by the inclusion of babies born after April 1, 1990. Also, there may have been more rounding up to age 1 to avoid reporting age as zero years. (Age in complete months was not collected for infants under age 1.)
The reporting of age 1 year older than true age on April 1, 1990, is likely to have been greater in areas where the census data were collected later in calendar year 1990. The magnitude of this problem was much less in the 1960, 1970, and 1980 censuses where age was typically derived from respondent data on year of birth and quarter of birth.
These shortcomings were minimized in Census 2000 because age was usually calculated from exact date of birth and because respondents were specifically asked to provide their age as of April 1, 2000. (For more information on the design of the age question, see the section below that discusses "Comparability.")
Age data have been collected in every census. For the first time since 1950, the 1990 data were not available by quarter year of age. This change was made so that coded information could be obtained for both age and year of birth. In 2000, each individual has both an age and an exact date of birth. In each census since 1940, the age of a person was assigned when it was not reported. In censuses before 1940, with the exception of 1880, people of unknown age were shown as a separate category. Since 1960, assignment of unknown age has been performed by a general procedure described as "imputation." The specific procedures for imputing age have been different in each census. (For more information on imputation, see "Accuracy of the Data.")
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: Technical Documentation, 2002. |
| Summary File 3 Technical Documentation -> Appendix B. Definitons of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Disability Status |
The data on disability status were derived from answers to long-form questionnaire Items 16 and 17. Item 16 was a two-part question that asked about the existence of the following long-lasting conditions: (a) blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment (sensory disability) and (b) a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying (physical disability). Item 16 was asked of a sample of the population 5 years old and over.
Item 17 was a four-part question that asked if the individual had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities. The four activity categories were: (a) learning, remembering, or concentrating (mental disability); (b) dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home (self-care disability); (c) going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctors office (going outside the home disability); and (d) working at a job or business (employment disability). Categories 17a and 17b were asked of a sample of the population 5 years old and over; 17c and 17d were asked of a sample of the population 16 years old and over.
For data products that use the items individually, the following terms are used: sensory disability for 16a, physical disability for 16b, mental disability for 17a, self-care disability for 17b, going outside the home disability for 17c, and employment disability for 17d. For data products that use a disability status indicator, individuals were classified as having a disability if any of the following three conditions were true: (1) they were 5 years old and over and had a response of "yes" to a sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; (2) they were 16 years old and over and had a response of "yes" to going outside the home disability; or (3) they were 16 to 64 years old and had a response of "yes" to employment disability.
Item 17 was a four-part question that asked if the individual had a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities. The four activity categories were: (a) learning, remembering, or concentrating (mental disability); (b) dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home (self-care disability); (c) going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctors office (going outside the home disability); and (d) working at a job or business (employment disability). Categories 17a and 17b were asked of a sample of the population 5 years old and over; 17c and 17d were asked of a sample of the population 16 years old and over.
For data products that use the items individually, the following terms are used: sensory disability for 16a, physical disability for 16b, mental disability for 17a, self-care disability for 17b, going outside the home disability for 17c, and employment disability for 17d. For data products that use a disability status indicator, individuals were classified as having a disability if any of the following three conditions were true: (1) they were 5 years old and over and had a response of "yes" to a sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability; (2) they were 16 years old and over and had a response of "yes" to going outside the home disability; or (3) they were 16 to 64 years old and had a response of "yes" to employment disability.
The 1990 census data products did not include a general disability status indicator. Furthermore, a comparable indicator could not be constructed since the conceptual framework of the 1990 census was more limited. The questionnaire included only three types of disability in questions with four subparts. The questions asked about whether an individual had a condition that had lasted for 6 months or more and that (1) limited the kind or amount of work that he or she could do at a job, (2) prevented the individual from working at a job, (3) made it difficult to go outside the home alone (for example, to shop or visit a doctors office), and (4) made it difficult to take care of his or her own personal needs, such as bathing, dressing, or getting around inside the home. The 1990 disability questions were asked on the long form questionnaire of the population 15 years old and over.
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: Technical Documentation, 2002. |
| Summary File 3 Technical Documentation -> Appendix B. Definitons of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Group Quarters -> Noninstitutionalized population |
The noninstitutionalized population includes all people who live in group quarters other than institutions, such as college dormitories, military quarters, and group homes. Also, included are staff residing at institutional group quarters. For a complete description of the types of group quarters included in Census 2000, see the Technical Documentation for Summary File 1, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf.
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary File 3: Technical Documentation, 2002. |
| Summary File 3 Technical Documentation -> Appendix B. Definitons of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Hispanic or Latino |
The data on the Hispanic or Latino population, which was asked of all people, were derived from answers to long-form questionnaire Item 5, and short-form questionnaire Item 7. The terms "Spanish," "Hispanic origin," and "Latino" are used interchangeably. Some respondents identify with all three terms, while others may identify with only one of these three specific terms. Hispanics or Latinos who identify with the terms "Spanish," "Hispanic," or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the questionnaire - "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban" - as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino." People who do not identify with one of the specific origins listed on the questionnaire but indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino" are those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic, or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on. All write-in responses to the "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" category were coded.
Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race.
Some tabulations are shown by the origin of the householder. In all cases where the origin of households, families, or occupied housing units is classified as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino, the origin of the householder is used. (For more information, see the discussion of householder under "Household Type and Relationship.")
If an individual could not provide a Hispanic origin response, their origin was assigned using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if origin was missing for a natural-born daughter in the household, then either the origin of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householder was assigned. If Hispanic origin was not reported for anyone in the household, the origin of a householder in a previously processed household with the same race was assigned. This procedure is a variation of the general imputation procedures described in "Accuracy of the Data," and is similar to those used in 1990, except that for Census 2000, race and Spanish surnames were used to assist in assigning an origin. (For more information, see the "Comparability" section below.)
Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race.
Some tabulations are shown by the origin of the householder. In all cases where the origin of households, families, or occupied housing units is classified as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino, the origin of the householder is used. (For more information, see the discussion of householder under "Household Type and Relationship.")
If an individual could not provide a Hispanic origin response, their origin was assigned using specific rules of precedence of household relationship. For example, if origin was missing for a natural-born daughter in the household, then either the origin of the householder, another natural-born child, or the spouse of the householder was assigned. If Hispanic origin was not reported for anyone in the household, the origin of a householder in a previously processed household with the same race was assigned. This procedure is a variation of the general imputation procedures described in "Accuracy of the Data," and is similar to those used in 1990, except that for Census 2000, race and Spanish surnames were used to assist in assigning an origin. (For more information, see the "Comparability" section below.)
There are two important changes to the Hispanic origin question for Census 2000. First, the sequence of the race and Hispanic origin questions for Census 2000 differs from that in 1990; in 1990, the race question preceded the Hispanic origin question. Testing prior to Census 2000 indicated that response to the Hispanic origin question could be improved by placing it before the race question without affecting the response to the race question. Second, there is an instruction preceding the Hispanic origin question indicating that respondents should answer both the Hispanic origin and the race questions. This instruction was added to give emphasis to the distinct concepts of the Hispanic origin and race questions and to emphasize the need for both pieces of information.
Furthermore, there has been a change in the processing of the Hispanic origin and race responses. In 1990, the Hispanic origin question and the race question had separate edits; therefore, although information may have been present on the questionnaire, it was not fully utilized due to the discrete nature of the edits. However, for Census 2000, there was a joint race and Hispanic origin edit which for example, made use of race responses in the Hispanic origin question to impute a race if none was given.
Furthermore, there has been a change in the processing of the Hispanic origin and race responses. In 1990, the Hispanic origin question and the race question had separate edits; therefore, although information may have been present on the questionnaire, it was not fully utilized due to the discrete nature of the edits. However, for Census 2000, there was a joint race and Hispanic origin edit which for example, made use of race responses in the Hispanic origin question to impute a race if none was given.
