MEPS Panel Sample Clauses

MEPS Panel. 23 Weight Development Process The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 23 was developed using the 2018 full year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for survey participants present in 2018. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU some time in 2019 after being out-of-scope in 2018, the initially assigned person-level weight was the corresponding 2018 family weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for person-level nonresponse over Rounds 4 and 5 as well as raking to population control totals for December 2019 for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2019. These control totals were derived by projecting forward the population distribution obtained from the March 2019 CPS to reflect the December 31, 2019 estimated population total (estimated based on Census projections for January 1, 2020). Variables used for person-level raking included: educational attainment of the reference person (no degree, high school/GED no college, some college, bachelor’s degree or higher); census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black non-Hispanic; Asian non- Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. The final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2019 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment. Note that the 2018 full-year weight that was used as the base weight for Panel 23 was derived as follows; adjustment of the MEPS Round 1 weight for nonresponse over the remaining data collection rounds in 2018; and raking the resulting nonresponse adjusted weight to December 2018 population control figures. It should also be noted that rather than projecting the March 2019 CPS population distribution estimates forward, the standard approach for MEPS has been to scale back from the following year’s CPS estimates. In this case, it would have been the March 2020 CPS estimates. However, there was evidence that the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 in the U.S. affected estimates associated with income and education (Rothbaum & Bee, 2020). Since education was planned as one of the variables to be used for raking, it was decided to use the 2019 March CPS data to establish the population estimates for the FY 2019 weights.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
MEPS Panel. 24 Weight Development Process‌ The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 24 was developed using the 2019 MEPS Round 1 person-level weight as a “base” weight. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU after Round 1, the Round 1 family weight served as a “base” weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for nonresponse over the remaining data collection rounds in 2019 as well as raking to the same population control figures for December 2019 used for the MEPS Panel 23 weights for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2019. The same six variables employed for Panel 23 raking (educational attainment of the reference person, census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were used for Panel 24 raking. Again, the final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2019 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment. Note that the MEPS Round 1 weights for Panel 24 incorporated the following components: the original household probability of selection for the NHIS and for the NHIS sample reserved for MEPS; adjustment for NHIS nonresponse; the probability of selection of NHIS responding households for MEPS; an adjustment for nonresponse at the dwelling unit level for Round 1; and poststratification to U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population estimates at the family and person levels obtained from the corresponding March CPS databases.
Sample 1
MEPS Panel. 23 Weight Development Process‌ The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 23 was developed using the 2020 full-year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for 2020 survey participants present in 2021. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU some time in 2021 after being out-of-scope in 2020, the initially assigned person-level weight was the corresponding 2020 family weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for person-level nonresponse over Rounds 8 and 9 as well as raking to population control figures for December 2021 for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2021. These control totals were derived by scaling back the population distribution obtained from the March 2022 CPS to reflect the December 31, 2021 estimated population total (estimated based on Census projections for January 1, 2022). Variables used for person-level raking included: education of the reference person (three categories: no degree; high school/GED only or some college; Bachelor’s or higher degree); Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non- Hispanic; Asian, non-Hispanic; and other); sex; and age. (It may be noted that for confidentiality reasons, the MSA status variables are no longer released for public use.) The final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2021 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the nonresponse-adjusted person weight without raking. The 2020 full-year weight used as the base weight for Panel 23 was derived from the 2018 MEPS Round 1 weight and reflected adjustment for nonresponse over the remaining data collection rounds in 2018, 2019, and 2020 as well as raking to the December 2018, December 2019, and December 2020 population control figures.
Sample 1
MEPS Panel. 26 Weight Development Process‌ The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 26 was developed using the 2021 MEPS Round 1 person-level weight as a “base” weight. The MEPS Round 1 weights incorporated the following components: the original household probability of selection for the NHIS and for the NHIS subsample reserved for MEPS and an adjustment for NHIS nonresponse, the probability of selection for MEPS from NHIS, an adjustment for nonresponse at the dwelling unit level for Round 1, and poststratification to control figures at the person level obtained from the March CPS of the corresponding year. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU after Round 1, the Round 1 DU weight served as a “base” weight. The weighting process also included an adjustment for nonresponse over the remaining data collection rounds in 2021 as well as raking to the same population control figures for December 2021 used for the MEPS Panel 23, Panel 24, and Panel 25 weights for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2021. The same six variables employed for Panel 23, Panel 24, and Panel 25 raking (education level of the reference person, census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were also used for Panel 26 raking. Similar to Panel 23, Panel 24, and Panel 25, the Panel 26 final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2021 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the nonresponse-adjusted person weight without raking.
Sample 1

Related to MEPS Panel

  • Joint Job Evaluation Committee The parties entered into agreement December 17, 1992, to ensure the Joint Gender- Neutral Job Evaluation Plan remains current and operational and to that end endorsed the Joint Gender-Neutral Job Evaluation Maintenance Agreement. The parties agree that a guiding principle for the Committee is that there shall be no discrimination between male and female employees wherein a person of one sex is paid more than a person of the other sex for similar or substantially similar work.

  • Training Committee The parties to this Agreement may form a Training Committee. The Training Committee will be constituted by equal numbers of Employer nominees and ETU employee representatives and have a charter which clearly states its role and responsibilities. It shall monitor the clauses of this Agreement which relate to training and ensure all employees have equal access to training.

  • Study Committee The parties shall utilize the Benefits Advisory Committee, with equal membership by the State and the VSEA, for the purpose of reviewing all issues related to health care and prescription drugs, and recommending changes to the bargaining committees. The parties shall also establish a special study committee to evaluate the current health plans, and make recommendations to the bargaining committees of the State and employees for sustainable savings in the health care plans.

  • Search Committee Where the search is to be both internal and external, when there are two or more candidates, or when the sole candidate does not receive majority endorsement of the eligible members of the Department, the Xxxx/University Librarian shall convene a search committee having the following membership:

  • Local Professional Development Committee 1. The Local Professional Development Committee (LPDC) shall be established to oversee and review professional development plans pursuant to ORC 3319.22.

  • Consultative Committee 26.1 The parties agree to establish a consultative committee to assist the parties improve productivity, efficiency and to provide for the effective involvement of employees in decision making processes. The committee will consist of an equal number of company and elected employee representatives.

  • Selection Committee A. Each building site will appoint a selection committee for the TLS. The committee shall be comprised of equal numbers of teachers and administrators and at least one teacher will be appointed by the Des Moines Education Association.

  • Staffing Committee A. Responsibilities. The Nurse Staffing Committee (“NSC”) shall be responsible for determining the Institute’s staffing plan and resolving complaints raised by nurses regarding the implementation of the plan as well as those activities required of it under RCW 70.41, et seq and its successors.

  • Curriculum Committee The Curriculum Committee shall consist of sixteen (16) members of the bargaining unit, three (3) students, and three (3) administrators; provided, however, that in the case of the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, the Curriculum Committee shall be composed of ten (10) members of the bargaining unit, two (2) students, and two (2) administrators.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.