Documentation: | Census 1960 (US, County & State) |

you are here:
choose a survey
survey
document
chapter

Publisher: U.S. Census Bureau

Survey: Census 1960 (US, County & State)

Document: | Persons of Spanish Surname (Volume II, Part I - Subject Reports) |

citation: | U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Subject Reports, Persons of Spanish Surname. Final Report PC(2)-1B. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1963. |

Chapter Contents

Persons of Spanish Surname (Volume II, Part I - Subject Reports)

For persons in housing units at the time of the 1960 Census, the sampling unit was the housing unit and all its occupants; for persons in group quarters, it was the person. On the first visit to-an address, the enumerator assigned a sample key letter (A, B, C, or D) to each housing unit sequentially in the order in which he first visited the' units, whether or not he completed an interview. Each enumerator was given a random key letter to start his assignment, and the order of canvassing was indicated in advance, although these Instructions allowed some latitude in the order of visiting addresses. Each housing unit which was assigned the key letter "A" was designated as a sample unit and all persons enumerated in the unit were included in the sample. In every group quarters, the sample consisted of every fourth person in the order listed.

Although the sampling procedure did not automatically insure an exact 25-percent sample of persons or housing units in each locality, the sample design was unbiased if carried through according to instructions; and, generally, for large areas the deviation from 25 percent was found to be quite small. Biases may have arisen, however, when the enumerator failed to follow his listing and sampling instructions exactly. (For discussion of 5-percent sample.)

Although the sampling procedure did not automatically insure an exact 25-percent sample of persons or housing units in each locality, the sample design was unbiased if carried through according to instructions; and, generally, for large areas the deviation from 25 percent was found to be quite small. Biases may have arisen, however, when the enumerator failed to follow his listing and sampling instructions exactly. (For discussion of 5-percent sample.)

The statistics based on the sample of the 1960 Census returns are estimates that have been developed through the use of a ratio estimation procedure. This procedure was carried out for each of HH groups of persons in each of the smallest areas for which sample data are published.2^{2} (For a more complete discussion of the ratio estimation procedure, see __1960 Census of Population__, Volume I, __Characteristics of the Population__, Part 1, __United States Summary.__)

These ratio estimates reduce the component of sampling error arising from the variation in the size of household and achieve some of the gains of stratification in the selection of the sample, with the strata being the groups for which separate ratio estimates are computed. The net effect is a reduction in the sampling error and bias of most statistics below what would be obtained by weighting the results of the 25-percent sample by a uniform factor of four. The reduction in sampling error is trivial for some items and substantial for others. A byproduct of this estimation procedure, in general, is that estimates for this sample are consistent with the complete count with respect to the total population and for the subdivisions used as groups in the estimation procedure.

These ratio estimates reduce the component of sampling error arising from the variation in the size of household and achieve some of the gains of stratification in the selection of the sample, with the strata being the groups for which separate ratio estimates are computed. The net effect is a reduction in the sampling error and bias of most statistics below what would be obtained by weighting the results of the 25-percent sample by a uniform factor of four. The reduction in sampling error is trivial for some items and substantial for others. A byproduct of this estimation procedure, in general, is that estimates for this sample are consistent with the complete count with respect to the total population and for the subdivisions used as groups in the estimation procedure.

The figures from the 25-percent sample tabulations are subject to sampling variability, which can be estimated roughly from the standard errors shown in tables C and D. These tables^{3} do not reflect the effect of response variance, processing variance, or bias arising in the collection, processing, and estimation steps. Estimates of the magnitude of some of these factors in the total error are being evaluated and will be published at a later date. The chances are about 2 out of 3 that the difference due to sampling variability between an estimate and the figure that would have been obtained from a complete count of the population is less than the standard error. The chances are about 19 out of 20 that the difference is less than twice the standard error and about 99 out of 100 that it is less than 2 Â½ times the standard error. The amount by which the estimated standard error must be multiplied to obtain other odds deemed more appropriate can be found in most statistical text bodies.

where x

x

y

Y

Table C. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Number (25-Percent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

Estimated number | Standard error |

50 | 20 |

100 | 30 |

250 | 40 |

500 | 60 |

1,000 | 70 |

2,500 | 110 |

5,000 | 150 |

10,000 | 220 |

15,000 | 270 |

25,000 | 350 |

50,000 | 490 |

Table D. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Percentage (25-Percent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

Estimated number | Base of percentage | |||||

500 | 1,000 | 2,500 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 100,000 | |

2 or 98 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 |

5 or 95 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 |

10 or 90 | 3.9 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.3 |

25 or 75 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 |

50 | 6.2 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 |

Table C shows rough standard errors of estimated numbers up to 50,000. The relative sampling errors of larger estimated numbers are somewhat smaller than for 50,000. For estimated numbers above 50,000, however, the nonsampling errors, e.g., response errors and. processing errors, may have an increasingly important effect on the total error. Table D shows rough standard errors of data in the form of percentages. Linear interpolation in tables C and D will provide approximate results that are satisfactory for most purposes.

For a discussion of the sampling variability of medians and means and of the method for obtaining standard errors of differences between two estimates, see

The data presented in tables A-1 and A-2 of the appendix are based on a 5-percent sample of the 1960 Census. The 5-percent sample is a subsample of the original 25-percent sample schedules. This subsample was selected on the computer using a stratified systematic sample design. The strata were made up as follows: For persons in regular housing units there were 36 strata, i.e., 9 household size groups by 2 tenure groups by 2 color groups; for persons in group quarters, there were 2 strata, i.e., the 2 color groups.

The ratio estimation procedure for the 5-percent sample was basically the same as that used for the 25-percent sample. The requirements for combining the Mf ratio estimate groups for the 5-percent sample, however, specified that the complete count in a group could not be fewer than 275 persons, or the resulting weight could not be greater than 80. (See section above on ratio estimation for the corresponding requirements for the 25-percent sample.) For a more complete discussion of the ratio estimation procedure used in the 5-percent sample, the reader is referred to__1960 Census of Population__, __Subject Reports__, __Occupation by Industry__, PC(2)-7C.

Tables E and F below give rough standard errors for absolutes and percentages, respectively, for the 5-percent sample data shown in appendix tables A-1 and A-2. These tables are used in the same way as tables C and D.

Table E. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Number (5-Eercent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

Table F. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Percentage (5-Percent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

The ratio estimation procedure for the 5-percent sample was basically the same as that used for the 25-percent sample. The requirements for combining the Mf ratio estimate groups for the 5-percent sample, however, specified that the complete count in a group could not be fewer than 275 persons, or the resulting weight could not be greater than 80. (See section above on ratio estimation for the corresponding requirements for the 25-percent sample.) For a more complete discussion of the ratio estimation procedure used in the 5-percent sample, the reader is referred to

Tables E and F below give rough standard errors for absolutes and percentages, respectively, for the 5-percent sample data shown in appendix tables A-1 and A-2. These tables are used in the same way as tables C and D.

Table E. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Number (5-Eercent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

Estimated number | Standard error |

50 | 40 |

100 | 60 |

250 | 80 |

500 | 130 |

1,000 | 170 |

2,500 | 280 |

5,000 | 390 |

10,000 | 550 |

15,000 | 670 |

25,000 | 870 |

50,000 | 1,230 |

Table F. Rough Approximation to Standard Error of Estimated Percentage (5-Percent Sample)

(Range of 2 chances out of 3)

Estimated number | Base of percentage | |||||

500 | 1,000 | 2,500 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 100,000 | |

2 or 98 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 |

5 or 95 | 7.0 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 |

10 or 90 | 9.8 | 7.0 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.7 |

25 or 75 | 14.0 | 9.5 | 5.3 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 0.7 |

50 | 15.4 | 10.9 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.1 |