IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v31y2015i3p357-379n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity of Population Size Estimation for Violating Parametric Assumptions in Log-linear Models

Author

Listed:
  • Gerritse Susanna C.

    (Utrecht University, Methods and Statistics, Padualaan l4, Utrecht 3584 CH, The Netherlands and University of Southampton, UK)

  • Heijden Peter G.M. van der

    (Utrecht University, Methods and Statistics, Padualaan l4, Utrecht 3584 CH, The Netherlands and University of Southampton, UK)

  • Bakker Bart F.M.

    (Statistics Netherlands, Methodology, P.O.Box 24500, 2490 HA, The Hague, The Netherlands and VU University, Netherlands)

Abstract

An important quality aspect of censuses is the degree of coverage of the population. When administrative registers are available undercoverage can be estimated via capture-recapture methodology. The standard approach uses the log-linear model that relies on the assumption that being in the first register is independent of being in the second register. In models using covariates, this assumption of independence is relaxed into independence conditional on covariates. In this article we describe, in a general setting, how sensitivity analyses can be carried out to assess the robustness of the population size estimate. We make use of log-linear Poisson regression using an offset, to simulate departure from the model. This approach can be extended to the case where we have covariates observed in both registers, and to a model with covariates observed in only one register. The robustness of the population size estimate is a function of implied coverage: as implied coverage is low the robustness is low. We conclude that it is important for researchers to investigate and report the estimated robustness of their population size estimate for quality reasons. Extensions are made to log-linear modeling in case of more than two registers and the multiplier method

Suggested Citation

  • Gerritse Susanna C. & Heijden Peter G.M. van der & Bakker Bart F.M., 2015. "Sensitivity of Population Size Estimation for Violating Parametric Assumptions in Log-linear Models," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(3), pages 357-379, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:31:y:2015:i:3:p:357-379:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/jos-2015-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2015-0022
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jos-2015-0022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. J. Brown & I. D. Diamond & R. L. Chambers & L. J. Buckner & A. D. Teague, 1999. "A methodological strategy for a one‐number census in the UK," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 162(2), pages 247-267.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:bla:jorssa:v:167:y:2004:i:2:p:229-248 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fiona Steele & James Brown & Ray Chambers, 2002. "A controlled donor imputation system for a one‐number census," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 165(3), pages 495-522, October.
    3. Philip Redfern, 2004. "An alternative view of the 2001 census and future census taking," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 167(2), pages 209-228, May.
    4. Chipperfield James & Brown James & Bell Philip, 2017. "Estimating the Count Error in the Australian Census," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(1), pages 43-59, March.
    5. Bernard Baffour & Thomas King & Paolo Valente, 2013. "The Modern Census: Evolution, Examples and Evaluation," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 81(3), pages 407-425, December.
    6. Lucie Dostál & Siegfried Gabler & Matthias Ganninger & Ralf Münnich, 2016. "Frame Correction Modelling with Applications to the German Register-Assisted Census 2011," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 43(3), pages 904-920, September.
    7. James Brown & Owen Abbott & Ian Diamond, 2006. "Dependence in the 2001 one‐number census project," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(4), pages 883-902, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:31:y:2015:i:3:p:357-379:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.