Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Previous studies have demonstrated both large efficiency gains and reductions in bias by incorporating population information in regression estimation with sample survey data. These studies, however, assume the population values are exact. This assumption is relaxed here through a Bayesian extension of constrained Maximum Likelihood estimation, applied to 1990s Hispanic fertility. Traditional elements of subjectivity in demographic evaluation and adjustment of survey and population data sources are quantified by this approach, and the inclusion of a larger set of objective data sources is facilitated by it. Compared to estimation from sample survey data only, the Bayesian constrained estimator results in much greater precision in the age pattern of the baseline fertility hazard and, under all but the most extreme assumptions about the uncertainty of the adjusted population data, substantially greater precision about the overall level of the hazard.

This paper series was made possible by the NIA funded RAND Center for the Study of Aging and the NICHD funded RAND Population Research Center.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.