Papers Containing Tag(s): 'Person Validation System'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Viewing papers 81 through 82 of 82
-
Working PaperThe Nature of the Bias When Studying Only Linkable Person Records: Evidence from the American Community Survey
April 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-08
Record linkage across survey and administrative records sources can greatly enrich data and improve their quality. The linkage can reduce respondent burden and nonresponse follow-up costs. This is particularly important in an era of declining survey response rates and tight budgets. Record linkage also creates statistical bias, however. The U.S. Census Bureau links person records through its Person Identification Validation System (PVS), assigning each record a Protected Identification Key (PIK). It is not possible to reliably assign a PIK to every record, either due to insufficient identifying information or because the information does not uniquely match any of the administrative records used in the person validation process. Non-random ability to assign a PIK can potentially inject bias into statistics using linked data. This paper studies the nature of this bias using the 2009 and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is well-suited for this analysis, as it contains a rich set of person characteristics that can describe the bias. We estimate probit models for whether a record is assigned a PIK. The results suggest that young children, minorities, residents of group quarters, immigrants, recent movers, low-income individuals, and non-employed individuals are less likely to receive a PIK using 2009 ACS. Changes to the PVS process in 2010 significantly addressed the young children deficit, attenuated the other biases, and increased the validated records share from 88.1 to 92.6 percent (person-weighted).View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEstimating Measurement Error in SIPP Annual Job Earnings: A Comparison of Census Bureau Survey and SSA Administrative Data
July 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-20
We quantify sources of variation in annual job earnings data collected by the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to determine how much of the variation is the result of measurement error. Jobs reported in the SIPP are linked to jobs reported in an administrative database, the Detailed Earnings Records (DER) drawn from the Social Security Administration's Master Earnings File, a universe file of all earnings reported on W-2 tax forms. As a result of the match, each job potentially has two earnings observations per year: survey and administrative. Unlike previous validation studies, both of these earnings measures are viewed as noisy measures of some underlying true amount of annual earnings. While the existence of survey error resulting from respondent mistakes or misinterpretation is widely accepted, the idea that administrative data are also error-prone is new. Possible sources of employer reporting error, employee under-reporting of compensation such as tips, and general differences between how earnings may be reported on tax forms and in surveys, necessitates the discarding of the assumption that administrative data are a true measure of the quantity that the survey was designed to collect. In addition, errors in matching SIPP and DER jobs, a necessary task in any use of administrative data, also contribute to measurement error in both earnings variables. We begin by comparing SIPP and DER earnings for different demographic and education groups of SIPP respondents. We also calculate different measures of changes in earnings for individuals switching jobs. We estimate a standard earnings equation model using SIPP and DER earnings and compare the resulting coefficients. Finally exploiting the presence of individuals with multiple jobs and shared employers over time, we estimate an econometric model that includes random person and firm effects, a common error component shared by SIPP and DER earnings, and two independent error components that represent the variation unique to each earnings measure. We compare the variance components from this model and consider how the DER and SIPP differ across unobservable components.View Full Paper PDF
