Skip to main content

Humanities Doctorates in the United States 1991 Profile (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

APPENDIX C: 1991 SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Pages 53-66

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 53...
... , an ongoing census of all research doctorates earned in the United States since 1920. For the 1991 Survey of Humanities Doctorates, the sampling frame was selected from the- DRF to include individuals who field; I
Read the entire page →
From page 55...
... Further computer checks were performed to test for inconsistent values, corrections were made, and the process was repeated until no inconsistencies remained. Weighting and Estimation The general purpose of weighting survey data is to compensate for unequal probabilities of selection to the sample and to adjust for the effects of nonresponse (see the section in this appendix on Reliability of the 1991 Survey Estimates for a discussion of nonresponse)
Read the entire page →
From page 56...
... Estimates in this report were developed by summing the final integer weights of the respondents selected for each analysis. Reliability of the 1991 Survey Estimates Because the estimates shown in this report are based on a sample, they may vary from those that would have been obtained if all members of the target population had been surveyed (using the same questionnaire and data collection methods)
Read the entire page →
From page 57...
... Weighted response rates take into account the unequal probabilities of selection to the sample and show what the response rate might have been if everyone in the population had been surveyed. Weighted response rates indicate the potential for nonresponse bias in the survey estimates, and unweighted response rates indicate how successful the data collection protocol was in getting responses.
Read the entire page →
From page 58...
... Standard Errors of Estimated Totals Tables C-3 and C-4 show approximate standard errors for the humanities doctoral population overall, for field groupings used in the report (e.g., American history, '3Approximately 90 percent of the intervals from 1.64 standard errors above and below the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples; or, if more precision is required, approximately 99 percent of the intervals from 2.58 standard errors above and below the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples. inconsideration of the complex sample design and estimation procedure of the 1991 STIR suggested that a balanced replication procedure (with 16 replicates)
Read the entire page →
From page 64...
... 64 Cat :~ o = ~ ~ ~ A o ~ Cot 4 o CQ ._ 4 ._ o Cat _ Cat o Cat o Cal V' o ¢ 1 u m ¢ I ~ 1 ,= 5.~ _ ~ ¢ c U
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • response rate
  • standard error
  • approximate standard
  • response rates
  • survey estimates

  • humanities doctorates
  • weighted response
  • percent confidence
  • confidence interval
  • nonsampling error

  • error estimates
  • sample design
  • survey estimate
  • usable responses
  • unweighted response

  • nonresponse bias
  • sampling frame
  • average result
  • basic weight
  • errors shown

  • initial sample
  • unequal probabilities
  • doctorate recipients
  • survey results
  • sampling error

  • design weight
  • doctorate records
  • records file
  • nonresponse adjustment
  • rates indicate


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.