Skip to main content

Re: AHS: Opinions sought on proposed changes.

HUD.GOV HUDUser.gov
eList
AHS
I strongly advocate retaining these questions about structural conditions.
Has there been careful statistical work done on the cost/benefit of
retention versus deletion
from such perspectives as analyses of key policy questions and the
reliability and validity of scales? (You mention one, but there are others
where these items are used. Previous work has shown big variations across
different versions of housing quality or adequacy scales. Not retaining
the ability to measure this concept in alternative ways would be a major
problem to future analysts. It would also compromise trend analyses.)

Can you also let us know the changes being made to the income module? It is
good news to hear that it will be improved--a long overdue change.

Thanks.

Sandee


At 01:53 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, ahslistserv@huduser.gov wrote:
>From: American Housing Survey (AHS) ListServ <ahs@huduser.gov>
>
>We are working on changes to the content of the 2005 national survey. As I
>have mentioned here before, the 2005 survey will feature sampling
improvements
>designed to do a better job of reaching manufactured housing and assisted
>living units. We are also going to make some changes to the income module
>because of what Scott Susin found in his recent paper comparing AHS and CPS
>income meas ures.
>
>While we're at it, we are looking at a few other areas to see if we can
>rephrase questions to make them work better, and we are considering dropping
>some questions that don't yield useful information. I would like your
opinion
>on one of these proposed changes.
>
>We have a series of questions about structural conditions. At one time these
>were "observation" items, in which the interviewer would fill in the answer
>based on what he saw. After 1997, they became respondent questions. They
are
>not used in the ZADEQ recode of "adequate housing." We are considering
>dropping them to reduce respondent burden. These are the variables:
>
>EMISSR: missing roof materials
>EHOLER: holes in roof
>ESAGR: sagging roof
>EMISSW: missing wall materials
>ESLOPW: sloping walls
>EBOARD: windows boarded up
>EBROKE: broken windows
>EBAR: windows covered with metal bars
>ECRUMB: crumbling foundation
>
>An alternative to dropping these completely would be to replace them with
three
>questions, one each on roofs, windows, and walls.
>
>Are the current questions important to anyone's work? Would the proposed
>alternative do as well? Please reply to me or to the mailing list, as you
>like. Remember, to reply to the mailing list you have to include
>ahs@huduser.gov in your address header.
>
>Oh, by the way: the 2003 survey goes into the field today!
>
>Dav Vandenbroucke
>Economist
>U.S. Dept. HUD
>david_a._vandenbroucke@hud.gov
>202-708-1060 ext. 5890
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>This message was forwarded to you by the Listserv ahs@huduser.gov because
>you had expressed an interest.
>To stop receiving these messages send an email to ahs@huduser.gov
>with "unsubscribe" as the SUBJECT of your message.
>To reply to all members of the list address your reply to ahs@huduser.gov.
>Message archives are at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/elist/archive.html
>For help send an email to helpdesk@huduser.gov
>
>
>
Sandra J. Newman, Ph.D.
Director
Professor of Policy Studies
Institute for Policy Studies
Johns Hopkins University
Wyman Park Building
3400 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
(410) 516-4614 (phone)
(410) 516-8233 (fax)
*Please contact me for different street address if sending overnight mail.