MEPS Panel 8 Weight Sample Clauses

MEPS Panel 8 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 8 was developed using the MEPS Round 1 person-level weight as a “base” weight. For key, in-scope respondents 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 2003 portion of Round 3 as well as raking to the same population control figures for December 2003 used for the MEPS Panel 7 weights. The same five variables employed for Panel 7 raking (census region, MSA status, race/ethnicity, sex, and age) were used for Panel 8 raking. Similarly, for Panel 8, key, responding persons not in-scope on December 31, 2003 but in-scope earlier in the year retained, as their final Panel 8 weight, the weight after the nonresponse adjustment. Note that the MEPS Round 1 weights (for both panels with one exception as noted below) 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 2003 CPS data base.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
MEPS Panel 8 Weight. The person-level weight for MEPS Panel 8 was developed using the 2003 full year weight for an individual as a “base” weight for survey participants present in 2003. For key, in-scope respondents who joined an RU some time in 2004 after being out-of-scope in 2003, the 2003 family weight associated with the family the person joined served as a “base” weight. The weighting process included an adjustment for nonresponse over Rounds 4 and 5 as well as raking to population control figures for December 2004. These control figures were derived by scaling back the population totals obtained from the March 2004 CPS to correspond to a national estimate for the civilian noninstitutionalized population provided by the Census Bureau for December 2004. Variables used in the establishment of person-level control figures 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; and age. Overall, the weighted population estimate for the civilian noninstitutionalized population on December 31, 2004 is 289,659,890. Key, responding persons not in-scope on December 31, 2004 but in-scope earlier in the year retained, as their final Panel 8 weight, the weight after the nonresponse adjustment.

Related to MEPS Panel 8 Weight

  • Target Population The Grantee shall ensure that diversion programs and services provided under this grant are designed to serve juvenile offenders who are at risk of commitment to Department.

  • 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.

  • Performance Indicators The HSP’s delivery of the Services will be measured by the following Indicators, Targets and where applicable Performance Standards. In the following table: n/a meanç ‘not-appIicabIe’, that there iç no defined Performance Standard for the indicator for the applicable year. tbd means a Target, and a Performance Standard, if applicable, will be determined during the applicable year. INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD Organizational Health and Financial Indicators Debt Service Coverage Ratio (P) 1 c1 Total Margin (P) 0 cO Coordination and Access Indicators Percent Resident Days – Long Stay (E) n/a n/a Wait Time from LHIN Determination of Eligibility to LTC Home Response (M) n/a n/a Long-Term Care Home Refusal Rate (E) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2/3 INDICATOR CATEGORY Quality and Resident Safety Indicators INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator Percentage of Residents Who Fell in the Last 30 days (M) 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD n/a n/a Percentage of Residents Whose Pressure Ulcer Worsened (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents on Antipsychotics Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents in Daily Physical Restraints (M) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2.0 LHIN-Specific Performance Obligations 3/3

  • Performance Measures and Metrics This section outlines the performance measures and metrics upon which service under this SLA will be assessed. Shared Service Centers and Customers will negotiate the performance metric, frequency, customer and provider service responsibilities associated with each performance measure. Measurements of the Port of Seattle activities are critical to improving services and are the basis for cost recovery for services provided. The Port of Seattle and The Northwest Seaport Alliance have identified activities critical to meeting The NWSA’s business requirements and have agreed upon how these activities will be assessed.

  • Registry Performance Specifications Registry Performance Specifications for operation of the TLD will be as set forth in Specification 10 attached hereto (“Specification 10”). Registry Operator shall comply with such Performance Specifications and, for a period of at least one (1) year, shall keep technical and operational records sufficient to evidence compliance with such specifications for each calendar year during the Term.

  • 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.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria (Reactive Power A wind generating plant shall maintain a power factor within the range of 0.95 leading to 0.95 lagging, measured at the Point of Interconnection as defined in this LGIA, if the ISO’s System Reliability Impact Study shows that such a requirement is necessary to ensure safety or reliability. The power factor range standards can be met using, for example without limitation, power electronics designed to supply this level of reactive capability (taking into account any limitations due to voltage level, real power output, etc.) or fixed and switched capacitors if agreed to by the Connecting Transmission Owner for the Transmission District to which the wind generating plant will be interconnected, or a combination of the two. The Developer shall not disable power factor equipment while the wind plant is in operation. Wind plants shall also be able to provide sufficient dynamic voltage support in lieu of the power system stabilizer and automatic voltage regulation at the generator excitation system if the System Reliability Impact Study shows this to be required for system safety or reliability.

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is an NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram with the exception of the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”) to be completed by the LEA, and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by XXX xxxxxxxx to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. XXX shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by XXX.

  • RE-WEIGHING PRODUCT Deliveries are subject to re- weighing at the point of destination by the Authorized User. If shrinkage occurs which exceeds that normally allowable in the trade, the Authorized User shall have the option to require delivery of the difference in quantity or to reduce the payment accordingly. Such option shall be exercised in writing by the Authorized User.

  • Utilization Scale STATE shall scale logs or portions of logs that are broken, wasted, or not removed by PURCHASER due to: (1) improper felling or bucking of the logs; (2) failure to remove the logs prior to deterioration; and (3) logs remaining on the timber sale area after completion of logging, provided the logs were merchantable prior to breakage or wastage. Material used to meet down material requirements in the section titled, "Reserved Timber," shall not be considered for utilization scale. PURCHASER shall pay for the logs at the contract price designated in Section 44. STATE shall notify PURCHASER of the volume of logs so scaled. Payment shall be considered due on such volume as if the logs were removed on the date of said notification. In the event PURCHASER disagrees with the findings made by STATE under this section, PURCHASER may furnish scaling by a third-party scaling organization acceptable to STATE. Costs and expenses of such third party shall be paid for by PURCHASER, and the findings of the third party shall be final.

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