MEPS Panel 15 Weight Sample Clauses

The 'MEPS Panel 15 Weight' clause defines the method for assigning statistical weights to participants in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) who were part of the 15th panel. These weights are used to ensure that survey results accurately represent the broader population by adjusting for factors such as sampling design and nonresponse. For example, if certain demographic groups are underrepresented in the sample, their responses may be given more weight in the analysis. The core function of this clause is to enhance the validity and reliability of survey findings by correcting for sampling biases and ensuring that estimates reflect the true characteristics of the target population.
MEPS Panel 15 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 15 was developed using the MEPS Round 1 person- level weight as a “base” weight. For key, in-scope RU 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 Round 2 and the 2010 portion of Round 3 as well as raking to the same population control figures for December 2010 used for the MEPS Panel 14 weights. The same five variables employed for Panel 14 raking (census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were used for Panel 15 raking. Again, the final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2010 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment. Note that the MEPS Round 1 weights incorporated the following components: the original household probability of selection for the NHIS; ratio-adjustment to NHIS-based national population estimates at the household (occupied dwelling unit) level; adjustment for nonresponse at the dwelling unit level for Round 1; and poststratification to figures at the family and person level obtained from the March CPS data base of the corresponding year (i.e., 2009 for Panel 14 and 2010 for Panel 15).
View SourceView Similar (7)
MEPS Panel 15 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 15 was developed using the 2010 full year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for survey participants present in 2010. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU sometime in 2011 after being out-of-scope in 2010, the initially assigned person-level weight was the corresponding 2010 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 2011 for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2011. These control totals were derived by scaling back the population distribution obtained from the March 2012 CPS to reflect the December 31, 2011 estimated population total (estimated based on Census projections for January 1, 2011). Variables used for person-level raking included: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non- MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Asian, non-Hispanic; and other); sex; education level; and age. (Poverty status is not included in this version of the MEPS full year database because of the time required to process the income data collected and then assign persons to a poverty status category). The final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2011 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment. It may be noted that the Panel 15 weights reflect additional adjustments not typically implemented in MEPS weights. Additional raking dimensions were added when PERWT10F was being developed, reflecting MEPS 2008-09 estimated average annual distributions of office- based visits and care from home health agencies by age. More details can be found in the MEPS PUF documentation for the 2010 Full Year Consolidated Data file (HC-138).
View SourceView Similar (7)
MEPS Panel 15 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 15 was developed using the 2010 full year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for survey participants present in 2010. For key, in-scope members who joined an RU some time in 2011 after being out-of-scope in 2010, the initially assigned person-level weight was the corresponding 2010 family weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for person-level nonresponse over Rounds 4 and 5 as well as raking to population control figures for December 2011 for key, responding persons in-scope on December 31, 2011. These control figures were derived by scaling back the population distribution obtained from the March 2011 CPS to reflect the December 31, 2011 estimated population total (estimated based on Census projections for January 1, 2011). Variables used for person-level raking included: census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); MSA status (MSA, non-MSA); race/ethnicity (Hispanic, Black but non-Hispanic, Asian but non-Hispanic, and other); sex; education level; and age. The final weight for key, responding persons who were not in-scope on December 31, 2011 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment.
View Source
MEPS Panel 15 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 15 was developed using the 2010 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 2010 as well as raking to the same population control figures for December 2010 used for the MEPS Panel 14 weights for key, responding persons inscope on December 31, 2010. The same five variables employed for Panel 14 raking (census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were used for Panel 15 raking. Again, the final weight for key, responding persons who were not in- scope on December 31, 2010 but were in-scope earlier in the year was the person weight after the nonresponse adjustment. Note that the MEPS Round 1 weights incorporated the following components: the original household probability of selection for the NHIS; ratio-adjustment to NHIS-based national population estimates at the household (occupied dwelling unit) level; adjustment for nonresponse at the dwelling unit level for Round 1; and poststratification to figures at the family and person level obtained from the March CPS data base of the corresponding year (i.e., 2009 for Panel 14 and 2010 for Panel 15).
View Source

Related to MEPS Panel 15 Weight

  • Mileage Measurement Where required, the mileage measurement for LIS rate elements is determined in the same manner as the mileage measurement for V&H methodology as outlined in NECA Tariff No. 4.

  • CFR 200 328. Failure to submit such required Performance Reports may cause a delay or suspension of funding. 30 ILCS 705/1 et seq.

  • Target Population TREATMENT FOR ADULT (TRA) Target Population

  • Temperature Measurement Temperature will be measured by the nearest automatic Melbourne Bureau of Meteorology Monitoring Station for example (but not limited to): Melbourne, Moorabbin, Dunns Hill, Melbourne Airport, Frankston, and Point ▇▇▇▇▇▇. At the commencement of each project, the onsite management and employee representatives shall agree which is to be the applicable automatic weather monitoring station.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.