Abstract
Larry Huff, Diem-Tran Kratzke, Gordon Mikkelson, and Sandra West. (1995) "A Comparison Of
Estimators For The Mean Of A Finite Population, Based On A
Systematic Sample," Proceedings of the Section on Survey
Research Methods, American Statistical Association.
In this paper we empirically compare several mean
estimators for a finite population based on a systematic
sample. This research began with a quality improvement
project for two Bureau of Labor Statistics'
establishment programs that collect monthly employment data:
the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (ES-202) program and the
Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey. The ES-202
program is compiled using data from quarterly reports of
business establishments that are covered under the
Unemployment Insurance laws in the United States. The CES
survey collects monthly employment from a voluntary sample of
business firms and uses the ES-202 universe employment data
to annually adjust its industry employment totals. A Response
Analysis Survey (RAS) was conducted in order to determine the
comparability and accuracy of employment data reported to
these two programs. Each sample unit was asked several
questions pertaining to their response practices for both of
these programs. The samples were selected from among the CES
reporters of ten participating states. The sample consisted
of four panels that were selected approximately three months
apart. The panel samples were selected with probability
proportional to a measure of size based on size of firm and
percent difference between reported employment to the CES and
ES-202 programs.
Various characteristics of the population are estimated based
on their responses to four specific RAS questions.
Alternative mean estimators and their estimated standard
errors are compared in order to determine the most
appropriate estimation techniques. We compare the estimators
that treat all four panels separately, as well as estimators
that combine the four panels.
The general sampling design issues are discussed in Section
2. Background information about the RAS, including a
description of the population and sample design, is given in
Section 3. The estimation techniques and specific estimators
tested are presented in Section 4. Section 5 provides the
empirical results. The conclusions of the study are
summarized in Section 6.
Last Modified Date: January 6, 2004
|
Bureau of Labor Statistics
