PSIDWiki - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2021-04-11T15:37:32Z

Talmujah: /* Data Access */

== Welcome to the CDS-TAS User Guide Wiki ==

This is the repository for user guides and related documentation for all waves of the PSID Child Development Supplement and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement. Contents may be saved in whole or in part to a PDF document.

== What are the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS)? ==

The PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS) are longitudinal, multicohort studies to support research on the well-being of US children and young adults over historical and developmental time in family, school, and neighborhood context.

== What is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics? ==

CDS and TAS are embedded in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the world’s longest-running nationally representative household panel survey. With over 50 years of information collected from the same families and their descendants, PSID is a cornerstone of the US data infrastructure for empirically based social science research.

Annually between 1968 and 1997 and biennially since then, PSID has collected data on individuals and families that emphasize the dynamic and interactive aspects of family economics, demography, and health. When paired with CDS and TAS, the design and content of PSID enable research on the intergenerational influence of family on child and young adult outcomes and on how childhood and young adulthood shape later health and well-being.

== Are you new to CDS or TAS? ==

Visit the [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/GettingStarted.aspx Getting Started] page at the CDS-TAS Data Center for a list of resources that provide a general introduction to CDS and TAS.

These video tutorials offer an introduction to PSID, CDS, and TAS.

=====An Introduction to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnZD895rr7w&feature=emb_logo}}

=====The 2014 PSID Child Development Supplement=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NQY1w35pnQ&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing CDS=====
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPrrnWRnbJY&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing TAS=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFb9Bka4Zk&feature=emb_logo}}

==[[Study Design]]==

==[[Child Development Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 3.0.

==[[ Transition into Adulthood Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 4.0.

==[[Data Access]]==

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. The PSID data archive, spanning nearly five decades of data collection, contains over 95,000 variables on a diverse set of topics, including the dynamics of family composition change, marital and birth histories, housing, income, wealth, welfare participation, health status of family members, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 individuals have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family.

PSID is the longest running panel on family and individual (including child) dynamics and has achieved wave-to-wave reinterview response rates of 93-95 percent in recent waves. More information about the study and its instruments can be obtained from its website:

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx]

The PSID’s online bibliography provides references to studies using the data for many research topics (including a keyword index):

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx]

For TAS data users, the rich family data in the core PSID provide a valuable opportunity to explore the effects of family environmental factors in analyses of young adult outcomes. For a more comprehensive look at the PSID, please see the 2017 PSID User Guide:

[https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/data/Documentation/UserGuide2017.pdf TAS User Guide 2017]

'''''<u>PSID Data Center Files</u>'''''

Most of the family and individual-level data on all waves of the PSID, CDS, and TAS are housed in the PSID’s Online Data Center. There are [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/VideoTutorial.aspx tutorials] that provide a guided overview to using the data.
Customized data sets and codebooks can be generated through the easy-to-use Online Data Center: http://simba.isr.umich.edu/default.aspx

'''''<u>Data Files – Individual, Family, CDS, and TAS</u>'''''

In the Online Data Center, the data are grouped by PSID main study data and by CDS and TAS data. Within the PSID data group, the data are clustered by individual-level files and family level files. The individual level files include both wave-specific and time-invariant data. The family-level files include not only “raw” interview data but also complex generated variables on income, work, wealth, sample weights, and other measures. Data, by wave of the study, are provided as the next level within each of the data groupings. In the CDS and TAS data group, the data are clustered by child-level files, which include all of the interview modules, and by time diary activity files, which are at the activity level.

Main Page

2021-04-11T15:36:54Z

Talmujah: /* Data Access */

== Welcome to the CDS-TAS User Guide Wiki ==

This is the repository for user guides and related documentation for all waves of the PSID Child Development Supplement and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement. Contents may be saved in whole or in part to a PDF document.

== What are the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS)? ==

The PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS) are longitudinal, multicohort studies to support research on the well-being of US children and young adults over historical and developmental time in family, school, and neighborhood context.

== What is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics? ==

CDS and TAS are embedded in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the world’s longest-running nationally representative household panel survey. With over 50 years of information collected from the same families and their descendants, PSID is a cornerstone of the US data infrastructure for empirically based social science research.

Annually between 1968 and 1997 and biennially since then, PSID has collected data on individuals and families that emphasize the dynamic and interactive aspects of family economics, demography, and health. When paired with CDS and TAS, the design and content of PSID enable research on the intergenerational influence of family on child and young adult outcomes and on how childhood and young adulthood shape later health and well-being.

== Are you new to CDS or TAS? ==

Visit the [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/GettingStarted.aspx Getting Started] page at the CDS-TAS Data Center for a list of resources that provide a general introduction to CDS and TAS.

These video tutorials offer an introduction to PSID, CDS, and TAS.

=====An Introduction to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnZD895rr7w&feature=emb_logo}}

=====The 2014 PSID Child Development Supplement=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NQY1w35pnQ&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing CDS=====
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPrrnWRnbJY&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing TAS=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFb9Bka4Zk&feature=emb_logo}}

==[[Study Design]]==

==[[Child Development Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 3.0.

==[[ Transition into Adulthood Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 4.0.

==[[Data Access]]==

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. The PSID data archive, spanning nearly five decades of data collection, contains over 95,000 variables on a diverse set of topics, including the dynamics of family composition change, marital and birth histories, housing, income, wealth, welfare participation, health status of family members, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 individuals have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family.

PSID is the longest running panel on family and individual (including child) dynamics and has achieved wave-to-wave reinterview response rates of 93-95 percent in recent waves. More information about the study and its instruments can be obtained from its website:

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx]

The PSID’s online bibliography provides references to studies using the data for many research topics (including a keyword index):

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx]

For TAS data users, the rich family data in the core PSID provide a valuable opportunity to explore the effects of family environmental factors in analyses of young adult outcomes. For a more comprehensive look at the PSID, please see the 2017 PSID User Guide:

[https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/data/Documentation/UserGuide2017.pdf TAS User Guide 2017]

'''''PSID Data Center Files'''''

Most of the family and individual-level data on all waves of the PSID, CDS, and TAS are housed in the PSID’s Online Data Center. There are [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/VideoTutorial.aspx tutorials] that provide a guided overview to using the data.
Customized data sets and codebooks can be generated through the easy-to-use Online Data Center: http://simba.isr.umich.edu/default.aspx

'''''Data Files – Individual, Family, CDS, and TAS'''''

In the Online Data Center, the data are grouped by PSID main study data and by CDS and TAS data. Within the PSID data group, the data are clustered by individual-level files and family level files. The individual level files include both wave-specific and time-invariant data. The family-level files include not only “raw” interview data but also complex generated variables on income, work, wealth, sample weights, and other measures. Data, by wave of the study, are provided as the next level within each of the data groupings. In the CDS and TAS data group, the data are clustered by child-level files, which include all of the interview modules, and by time diary activity files, which are at the activity level.

Main Page

2021-04-11T15:34:06Z

Talmujah: /* Data Access */

== Welcome to the CDS-TAS User Guide Wiki ==

This is the repository for user guides and related documentation for all waves of the PSID Child Development Supplement and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement. Contents may be saved in whole or in part to a PDF document.

== What are the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS)? ==

The PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) and Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS) are longitudinal, multicohort studies to support research on the well-being of US children and young adults over historical and developmental time in family, school, and neighborhood context.

== What is the Panel Study of Income Dynamics? ==

CDS and TAS are embedded in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the world’s longest-running nationally representative household panel survey. With over 50 years of information collected from the same families and their descendants, PSID is a cornerstone of the US data infrastructure for empirically based social science research.

Annually between 1968 and 1997 and biennially since then, PSID has collected data on individuals and families that emphasize the dynamic and interactive aspects of family economics, demography, and health. When paired with CDS and TAS, the design and content of PSID enable research on the intergenerational influence of family on child and young adult outcomes and on how childhood and young adulthood shape later health and well-being.

== Are you new to CDS or TAS? ==

Visit the [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/GettingStarted.aspx Getting Started] page at the CDS-TAS Data Center for a list of resources that provide a general introduction to CDS and TAS.

These video tutorials offer an introduction to PSID, CDS, and TAS.

=====An Introduction to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnZD895rr7w&feature=emb_logo}}

=====The 2014 PSID Child Development Supplement=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NQY1w35pnQ&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing CDS=====
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPrrnWRnbJY&feature=emb_logo}}

=====Comparing the Original and Ongoing TAS=====

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFb9Bka4Zk&feature=emb_logo}}

==[[Study Design]]==

==[[Child Development Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 3.0.

==[[ Transition into Adulthood Supplement]]==

Insert this sentence as a placeholder at the top of page 4.0.

==[[Data Access]]==

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. The PSID data archive, spanning nearly five decades of data collection, contains over 95,000 variables on a diverse set of topics, including the dynamics of family composition change, marital and birth histories, housing, income, wealth, welfare participation, health status of family members, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 individuals have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family.

PSID is the longest running panel on family and individual (including child) dynamics and has achieved wave-to-wave reinterview response rates of 93-95 percent in recent waves. More information about the study and its instruments can be obtained from its website:

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Studies.aspx]

The PSID’s online bibliography provides references to studies using the data for many research topics (including a keyword index):

[http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx/ http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Bibliography/Search.aspx]

For TAS data users, the rich family data in the core PSID provide a valuable opportunity to explore the effects of family environmental factors in analyses of young adult outcomes. For a more comprehensive look at the PSID, please see the 2017 PSID User Guide:

[https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/data/Documentation/UserGuide2017.pdf/ TAS User Guide 2017]

'''''PSID Data Center Files'''''

Most of the family and individual-level data on all waves of the PSID, CDS, and TAS are housed in the PSID’s Online Data Center. There are [tutorials: https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/VideoTutorial.aspx] that provide a guided overview to using the data.
Customized data sets and codebooks can be generated through the easy-to-use Online Data Center: http://simba.isr.umich.edu/default.aspx

Main Page

2021-04-11T15:25:40Z

Talmujah:

Main Page

2021-04-11T15:25:26Z

Talmujah:

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:21:34Z

Talmujah: /* Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

'''Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights'''

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

'''Summary of CDS-2014 Weights'''

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

'''Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights'''

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:21:20Z

Talmujah: /* Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

'''Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights'''

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

'''Summary of CDS-2014 Weights'''

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:20:38Z

Talmujah: /* Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

'''Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights'''

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:20:20Z

Talmujah: /* Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

'''Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

'''Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:20:04Z

Talmujah: /* Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

'''Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights'''

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:19:42Z

Talmujah: /* Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

=====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights=====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:17:32Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:17:06Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:16:47Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-11T15:16:02Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:40:30Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
!colspan| <center>Description</center>
!<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644)<ref>The cumulative response rate is defined as a ratio of the number of cases that were successfully interviewed in TAS-2017 to the number of cases that were projected to be eligible for TAS-2017 in 1997, excluding deceased and non-sample individuals.</ref>. See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 6: TAS-2017 Sample Disposition
|-
!<center>Sample Count</center>
!<center>Description</center>
|-
|<center>2,268</center>
|<center>Total projected eligible</center>
|-
|<center>1,410 </center>
|<center>Completed TAS-2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>780</center>
|<center>Non-response</center>
|-
|<center>577</center>
|<center>Non-response before the 2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>172</center>
|<center>Non-response in 2017</center>
|-
|<center>31</center>
|<center>Difficult to access/outside of the U.S.</center>
|-
|<center>78</center>
|<center>No longer eligible</center>
|-
|<center>71</center>
|<center>Not a sample person</center>
|-
|<center>7</center>
|<center>Deceased</center>
|}

<u>'''''Methodological Approach'''''</u>

Sample survey data are typically provided with weights designed to compensate for unequal probabilities of sample selection and non-response or data that is missing at random (MAR; Little and Rubin, 2002)<ref> Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). <u>Statistical Analysis with Missing Data</u>, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.</ref>. These weights are inversely proportional to the probability that each observation is selected and, conditional on selection, that individuals respond to the survey questions. With longitudinal data, this joint probability at time t, where the study has started at t-1 or earlier, can be expressed as the following

''P(St=1)=P(St-1=1)*P(Rt=1|St-1=1),'' (1)

where St is an indicator of participation in the study at time t and Rt is an indicator of response at time t. Under this quasi-random model of the survey response process, the probability of being a participant at time t is the product of the probability of participating in the previous period and the conditional “probability” of responding in the current period. Because the first term on the right-hand side of Equation (1) is proportional to the reciprocal of the weight in the previous period, the weight in the current period is a product of the weight in the previous period and the inverse of the probability of response (the second term on the right hand side of Equation (1)). We will refer to ''1/ P(Rt=1|St-1=1)'' as the attrition adjustment factor.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, nonresponse adjustment classes are created by grouping the probability of response (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 20025) and then the inverse of the mean predicted probability of response of each adjustment class is used as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that class.

<u>'''''TAS-2017 Individual Longitudinal Weight for Original CDS-I participants'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 individual longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants was designed to account for the differential attrition between the baseline CDS-I (in 1997) and TAS-2017, i.e. t=2017 and t-1=1997. Thus, the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is a product of the CDS-I weight, i.e., the individual-level primary caregiver/child weight (stored in the weight variable named ‘CH97PRWT’), and the attrition adjustment factor<ref>For a description of the 1997 CDS-I weights, see [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/weightsdoc.pdf].</ref>.

To obtain the attrition adjustment classes, the probability that a sample person was nonresponse in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this nonresponse propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a nonrespondent in 2017 and Y=0 if they were a respondent. The estimated parameters and standard errors for the logistic model of nonresponse attrition are reported in Table 7. For example, the results indicate that the odds of attrition between 1997 and 2017 were significantly higher among males as compared to females, white respondents as compared to non-white respondents, those in Northeast and South regions as compared to the West region, and significantly lower among older respondents, SRC sample as compared to non-SRC sample, and those whose reference person was male as compared to female reference persons, holding all else equal.

For the TAS-2017 attrition adjustment for original CDS-I participants, 10 nonresponse weighting classes were defined based on deciles of the predicted probability of CDS-I to TAS-2017 attrition estimated using the logistic model in Table 3. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final longitudinal weight for TAS-2017 respondents who were original CDS-I participants was constructed as the product of their CDS-I base weight and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.

As the final step in weight development, the newly constructed TAS-2017 longitudinal weight was trimmed to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. The cases with the weight values in the top one percent and in the bottom one percent of the weight distribution were assigned values corresponding to the 99th and 1st percentiles of the weight distribution, respectively. Table 8 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 8: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
!colspan| <center>Description</center>
!<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>1,410</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>1.27</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88.34</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>21.70</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>18.96</center>
|-
|}

To examine the properties of the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight, we compared weighted estimates for selected demographic, geographic, and socio-economic variables in the CDS-I data computed in two ways. The first set of estimates is based on the full CDS-I sub-sample that remained eligible for TAS-2017. The CDS-I weight was used to create these estimates for the full TAS-2017 sample. The second set of estimates is based only on the TAS-2017 respondent cases and employs the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight that adjusts for longitudinal nonresponse among the eligible cases in the TAS-2017 wave of data collection. The results are provided in Table 9 and show that the distributions of the selected characteristics are similar in the appropriately-weighted TAS-2017 eligible sub-sample of CDS-I original respondents and in the TAS-2017 interview sample, suggesting that the attrition adjustment for the TAS-2017 weight compensates for potential attrition bias for variables included in the analysis. It is important to note, however, that this comparison does not necessarily rule out the possibility of selection bias associated with other characteristics of the respondents.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:39:44Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:39:02Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644)<ref>The cumulative response rate is defined as a ratio of the number of cases that were successfully interviewed in TAS-2017 to the number of cases that were projected to be eligible for TAS-2017 in 1997, excluding deceased and non-sample individuals.</ref>. See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 6: TAS-2017 Sample Disposition
|-
!<center>Sample Count</center>
!<center>Description</center>
|-
|<center>2,268</center>
|<center>Total projected eligible</center>
|-
|<center>1,410 </center>
|<center>Completed TAS-2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>780</center>
|<center>Non-response</center>
|-
|<center>577</center>
|<center>Non-response before the 2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>172</center>
|<center>Non-response in 2017</center>
|-
|<center>31</center>
|<center>Difficult to access/outside of the U.S.</center>
|-
|<center>78</center>
|<center>No longer eligible</center>
|-
|<center>71</center>
|<center>Not a sample person</center>
|-
|<center>7</center>
|<center>Deceased</center>
|}

<u>'''''Methodological Approach'''''</u>

Sample survey data are typically provided with weights designed to compensate for unequal probabilities of sample selection and non-response or data that is missing at random (MAR; Little and Rubin, 2002)<ref> Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). <u>Statistical Analysis with Missing Data</u>, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.</ref>. These weights are inversely proportional to the probability that each observation is selected and, conditional on selection, that individuals respond to the survey questions. With longitudinal data, this joint probability at time t, where the study has started at t-1 or earlier, can be expressed as the following

''P(St=1)=P(St-1=1)*P(Rt=1|St-1=1),'' (1)

where St is an indicator of participation in the study at time t and Rt is an indicator of response at time t. Under this quasi-random model of the survey response process, the probability of being a participant at time t is the product of the probability of participating in the previous period and the conditional “probability” of responding in the current period. Because the first term on the right-hand side of Equation (1) is proportional to the reciprocal of the weight in the previous period, the weight in the current period is a product of the weight in the previous period and the inverse of the probability of response (the second term on the right hand side of Equation (1)). We will refer to ''1/ P(Rt=1|St-1=1)'' as the attrition adjustment factor.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, nonresponse adjustment classes are created by grouping the probability of response (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 20025) and then the inverse of the mean predicted probability of response of each adjustment class is used as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that class.

<u>'''''TAS-2017 Individual Longitudinal Weight for Original CDS-I participants'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 individual longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants was designed to account for the differential attrition between the baseline CDS-I (in 1997) and TAS-2017, i.e. t=2017 and t-1=1997. Thus, the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is a product of the CDS-I weight, i.e., the individual-level primary caregiver/child weight (stored in the weight variable named ‘CH97PRWT’), and the attrition adjustment factor<ref>For a description of the 1997 CDS-I weights, see [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/weightsdoc.pdf].</ref>.

To obtain the attrition adjustment classes, the probability that a sample person was nonresponse in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this nonresponse propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a nonrespondent in 2017 and Y=0 if they were a respondent. The estimated parameters and standard errors for the logistic model of nonresponse attrition are reported in Table 7. For example, the results indicate that the odds of attrition between 1997 and 2017 were significantly higher among males as compared to females, white respondents as compared to non-white respondents, those in Northeast and South regions as compared to the West region, and significantly lower among older respondents, SRC sample as compared to non-SRC sample, and those whose reference person was male as compared to female reference persons, holding all else equal.

For the TAS-2017 attrition adjustment for original CDS-I participants, 10 nonresponse weighting classes were defined based on deciles of the predicted probability of CDS-I to TAS-2017 attrition estimated using the logistic model in Table 3. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final longitudinal weight for TAS-2017 respondents who were original CDS-I participants was constructed as the product of their CDS-I base weight and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.

As the final step in weight development, the newly constructed TAS-2017 longitudinal weight was trimmed to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. The cases with the weight values in the top one percent and in the bottom one percent of the weight distribution were assigned values corresponding to the 99th and 1st percentiles of the weight distribution, respectively. Table 8 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 8: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
!colspan| <center>Description</center>
!<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>1,410</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>1.27</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88.34</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>21.70</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>18.96</center>
|-
|}

To examine the properties of the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight, we compared weighted estimates for selected demographic, geographic, and socio-economic variables in the CDS-I data computed in two ways. The first set of estimates is based on the full CDS-I sub-sample that remained eligible for TAS-2017. The CDS-I weight was used to create these estimates for the full TAS-2017 sample. The second set of estimates is based only on the TAS-2017 respondent cases and employs the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight that adjusts for longitudinal nonresponse among the eligible cases in the TAS-2017 wave of data collection. The results are provided in Table 9 and show that the distributions of the selected characteristics are similar in the appropriately-weighted TAS-2017 eligible sub-sample of CDS-I original respondents and in the TAS-2017 interview sample, suggesting that the attrition adjustment for the TAS-2017 weight compensates for potential attrition bias for variables included in the analysis. It is important to note, however, that this comparison does not necessarily rule out the possibility of selection bias associated with other characteristics of the respondents.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:37:17Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644)<ref>The cumulative response rate is defined as a ratio of the number of cases that were successfully interviewed in TAS-2017 to the number of cases that were projected to be eligible for TAS-2017 in 1997, excluding deceased and non-sample individuals.</ref>. See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 6: TAS-2017 Sample Disposition
|-
!<center>Sample Count</center>
!<center>Description</center>
|-
|<center>2,268</center>
|<center>Total projected eligible</center>
|-
|<center>1,410 </center>
|<center>Completed TAS-2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>780</center>
|<center>Non-response</center>
|-
|<center>577</center>
|<center>Non-response before the 2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>172</center>
|<center>Non-response in 2017</center>
|-
|<center>31</center>
|<center>Difficult to access/outside of the U.S.</center>
|-
|<center>78</center>
|<center>No longer eligible</center>
|-
|<center>71</center>
|<center>Not a sample person</center>
|-
|<center>7</center>
|<center>Deceased</center>
|}

<u>'''''Methodological Approach'''''</u>

Sample survey data are typically provided with weights designed to compensate for unequal probabilities of sample selection and non-response or data that is missing at random (MAR; Little and Rubin, 2002)<ref> Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). <u>Statistical Analysis with Missing Data</u>, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.</ref>. These weights are inversely proportional to the probability that each observation is selected and, conditional on selection, that individuals respond to the survey questions. With longitudinal data, this joint probability at time t, where the study has started at t-1 or earlier, can be expressed as the following

''P(St=1)=P(St-1=1)*P(Rt=1|St-1=1),'' (1)

where St is an indicator of participation in the study at time t and Rt is an indicator of response at time t. Under this quasi-random model of the survey response process, the probability of being a participant at time t is the product of the probability of participating in the previous period and the conditional “probability” of responding in the current period. Because the first term on the right-hand side of Equation (1) is proportional to the reciprocal of the weight in the previous period, the weight in the current period is a product of the weight in the previous period and the inverse of the probability of response (the second term on the right hand side of Equation (1)). We will refer to ''1/ P(Rt=1|St-1=1)'' as the attrition adjustment factor.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, nonresponse adjustment classes are created by grouping the probability of response (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 20025) and then the inverse of the mean predicted probability of response of each adjustment class is used as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that class.

<u>'''''TAS-2017 Individual Longitudinal Weight for Original CDS-I participants'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 individual longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants was designed to account for the differential attrition between the baseline CDS-I (in 1997) and TAS-2017, i.e. t=2017 and t-1=1997. Thus, the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is a product of the CDS-I weight, i.e., the individual-level primary caregiver/child weight (stored in the weight variable named ‘CH97PRWT’), and the attrition adjustment factor<ref>For a description of the 1997 CDS-I weights, see [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/weightsdoc.pdf].</ref>.

To obtain the attrition adjustment classes, the probability that a sample person was nonresponse in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this nonresponse propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a nonrespondent in 2017 and Y=0 if they were a respondent. The estimated parameters and standard errors for the logistic model of nonresponse attrition are reported in Table 7. For example, the results indicate that the odds of attrition between 1997 and 2017 were significantly higher among males as compared to females, white respondents as compared to non-white respondents, those in Northeast and South regions as compared to the West region, and significantly lower among older respondents, SRC sample as compared to non-SRC sample, and those whose reference person was male as compared to female reference persons, holding all else equal.

For the TAS-2017 attrition adjustment for original CDS-I participants, 10 nonresponse weighting classes were defined based on deciles of the predicted probability of CDS-I to TAS-2017 attrition estimated using the logistic model in Table 3. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final longitudinal weight for TAS-2017 respondents who were original CDS-I participants was constructed as the product of their CDS-I base weight and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.

As the final step in weight development, the newly constructed TAS-2017 longitudinal weight was trimmed to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. The cases with the weight values in the top one percent and in the bottom one percent of the weight distribution were assigned values corresponding to the 99th and 1st percentiles of the weight distribution, respectively. Table 8 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 8: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>1,410</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>1.27</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88.34</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>21.70</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>18.96</center>
|-
|}

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:33:05Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644)<ref>The cumulative response rate is defined as a ratio of the number of cases that were successfully interviewed in TAS-2017 to the number of cases that were projected to be eligible for TAS-2017 in 1997, excluding deceased and non-sample individuals.</ref>. See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 6: TAS-2017 Sample Disposition
|-
!<center>Sample Count</center>
!<center>Description</center>
|-
|<center>2,268</center>
|<center>Total projected eligible</center>
|-
|<center>1,410 </center>
|<center>Completed TAS-2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>780</center>
|<center>Non-response</center>
|-
|<center>577</center>
|<center>Non-response before the 2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>172</center>
|<center>Non-response in 2017</center>
|-
|<center>31</center>
|<center>Difficult to access/outside of the U.S.</center>
|-
|<center>78</center>
|<center>No longer eligible</center>
|-
|<center>71</center>
|<center>Not a sample person</center>
|-
|<center>7</center>
|<center>Deceased</center>
|}

<u>'''''Methodological Approach'''''</u>

Sample survey data are typically provided with weights designed to compensate for unequal probabilities of sample selection and non-response or data that is missing at random (MAR; Little and Rubin, 2002)<ref> Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). <u>Statistical Analysis with Missing Data</u>, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.</ref>. These weights are inversely proportional to the probability that each observation is selected and, conditional on selection, that individuals respond to the survey questions. With longitudinal data, this joint probability at time t, where the study has started at t-1 or earlier, can be expressed as the following

''P(St=1)=P(St-1=1)*P(Rt=1|St-1=1),'' (1)

where St is an indicator of participation in the study at time t and Rt is an indicator of response at time t. Under this quasi-random model of the survey response process, the probability of being a participant at time t is the product of the probability of participating in the previous period and the conditional “probability” of responding in the current period. Because the first term on the right-hand side of Equation (1) is proportional to the reciprocal of the weight in the previous period, the weight in the current period is a product of the weight in the previous period and the inverse of the probability of response (the second term on the right hand side of Equation (1)). We will refer to ''1/ P(Rt=1|St-1=1)'' as the attrition adjustment factor.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, nonresponse adjustment classes are created by grouping the probability of response (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 20025) and then the inverse of the mean predicted probability of response of each adjustment class is used as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that class.

<u>'''''TAS-2017 Individual Longitudinal Weight for Original CDS-I participants'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 individual longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants was designed to account for the differential attrition between the baseline CDS-I (in 1997) and TAS-2017, i.e. t=2017 and t-1=1997. Thus, the TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is a product of the CDS-I weight, i.e., the individual-level primary caregiver/child weight (stored in the weight variable named ‘CH97PRWT’), and the attrition adjustment factor<ref>For a description of the 1997 CDS-I weights, see [https://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/CDS/weightsdoc.pdf].</u>.

To obtain the attrition adjustment classes, the probability that a sample person was nonresponse in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this nonresponse propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a nonrespondent in 2017 and Y=0 if they were a respondent. The estimated parameters and standard errors for the logistic model of nonresponse attrition are reported in Table 7. For example, the results indicate that the odds of attrition between 1997 and 2017 were significantly higher among males as compared to females, white respondents as compared to non-white respondents, those in Northeast and South regions as compared to the West region, and significantly lower among older respondents, SRC sample as compared to non-SRC sample, and those whose reference person was male as compared to female reference persons, holding all else equal.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:22:51Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644).3 See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 6: TAS-2017 Sample Disposition
|-
!<center>Sample Count</center>
!<center>Description</center>
|-
|<center>2,268</center>
|<center>Total projected eligible</center>
|-
|<center>1,410 </center>
|<center>Completed TAS-2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>780</center>
|<center>Non-response</center>
|-
|<center>577</center>
|<center>Non-response before the 2017 interview</center>
|-
|<center>172</center>
|<center>Non-response in 2017</center>
|-
|<center>31</center>
|<center>Difficult to access/outside of the U.S.</center>
|-
|<center>78</center>
|<center>No longer eligible</center>
|-
|<center>71</center>
|<center>Not a sample person</center>
|-
|<center>7</center>
|<center>Deceased</center>
|}

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T16:05:37Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

{|class="wikitable"
!colspan="2"|Table 5: Summary Statistics for the TAS-2017 Sample Weights
|-
|colspan| <center>Description</center>
|<center>Value</center>
|-
|<center>N</center>
|<center>2,526</center>
|-
|<center>Minimum</center>
|<center>394.34</center>
|-
|<center>Maximum</center>
|<center>88,725.97</center>
|-
|<center>Mean</center>
|<center>19,716.88</center>
|-
|<center>Standard Deviation</center>
|<center>21,805.82</center>
|-
|}

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight is stored in the variable TA171987.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Longitudinal Weights'''</u>

To account for differential probabilities of selection due to the original PSID sample design and subsequent attrition since CDS-I, the TAS-2017 data are provided with a longitudinal weight for original CDS-I participants. The construction of this TAS-2017 longitudinal weight is described in this section.

<u>'''''Sample Transition from CDS-I to TAS-2017'''''</u>

Most of the TAS-2017 respondents were all originally selected for CDS-I in 1997 when they were 0-8 years of age. CDS-I selected sample children between the ages of 0-12 in 1997, and those who were aged 9-12 in 1997 aged out of the TAS age eligible range by 2017. Of the 3,563 children who participated in the original 1997 CDS-I interview, 2,268 were projected to be eligible for participation in TAS-2017, based on their participation in the CDS, TAS, and Core PSID studies. For these 2,268 cases, Table 6 summarizes the final contact and interview dispositions in TAS-2017.

Among the projected eligible sample, which excludes deceased (n=7) and non-sample individuals (n=71), a total of 1,410 interviews were completed, resulting in a cumulative unweighted response rate of 64.4% (i.e., 1,410/(1,410+780) =0.644).3 See Chapter 5 for a description of the TAS-2017 wave-specific response rate (87%) and data collection procedures and outcomes.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T15:48:14Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sampling Weights */

===An Introduction to the TAS===

Over the past several decades, the U.S. and other countries have seen a lengthening of the period between childhood and adulthood—the “transition into adulthood.” Youth no longer move quickly from secondary education into the labor force and independent economic living. Based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), less than 50% of individuals will form their own independent family unit before they reach their mid-20s.

Scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the period between the ages of 18 and 28 years are critical for life span development. It is during this period that major investments are made in education, crucial decisions are made regarding partnering and childbearing, and careers are planned and initiated. For PSID, this means that important educational and occupational transitions are often made while young adults are still dependent on their parents and are not primary respondents themselves.

The “Transition into Adulthood Supplement” (TAS) is part of PSID and may include individuals from the PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). Although PSID collects some information about everyone who is a co-resident member of each family in the study, considerably more information is collected on the Reference Person and Spouse Partner (R-S/P). The TAS is intended to fill in the gap of time and information collected about youth experiences and the first interview as a PSID R-S/P.

The launching of TAS in 2005 was motivated by recognition that these years are marked by choices, changes, and transitions that have profound life-long consequences, but would be missed by the sample design of the PSID prior to 2005. To bridge this gap, TAS was initially tied to the Original CDS cohort, which began with children ages 0-12 in 1997, and was launched in 2005 when the oldest members of the Original CDS cohort reached 18 to 20 years of age. TAS has subsequently been conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. By the 2015 wave of TAS, all members of the Original CDS had reached adulthood and were eligible for at least one wave of TAS. In 2017, TAS was relaunched to capture information on the transition into adulthood ''all'' young adults in the PSID, not just those who participated in the Original CDS.

Based on current literature and theories guiding research on the adult transitional years, the TAS interview builds on the information collected from some of these young adults when they themselves were interviewed as children and adolescents in the CDS, and, at the same time, harmonized and coordinated with data to be collected on them when they are interviewed as adults in future waves of Core PSID.

The <u>Panel Study of Income Dynamics</u> is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families. Since 1968, PSID has collected data on family composition changes, housing and food expenditures, marriage and fertility histories, employment, income, wealth, time spent in housework, health, expenditures, philanthropy, and more. Over 100,000 people have ever participated in the panel, which includes up to seven generations within a family. PSID is the longest running panel on family dynamics, and is considered one of the most important data archives in the world. The PSID now is conducted biennially, primarily via telephone with data collection commencing in March and ending by December of odd-numbered years.

In 1997, PSID supplemented its main survey with collection of additional data on a cohort of 0-12 year- old children in the study and their parents. The objective of this supplement—<u>the Original Child Development Supplement</u>—was to provide researchers with comprehensive, nationally representative, and longitudinal data on children and their families with which to study the dynamic process of early human capital formation. Two additional waves of the Original CDS were conducted in 2002-2003 (CDS-II), when the children were 5-17 years of age, and in 2007-2008 (CDS-III) for children in the cohort who were under 18 years of age.

Within the context of family, neighborhood, and school environments, CDS gathered information about a broad array of developmental outcomes including (but not limited to) physical health, emotional well-being, cognitive skills, education achievement, and social relationships with family and peers. Each Original CDS child could have up to eight modules of data collected from three different family members (primary and secondary caregivers and the target child) and a school information source (teacher and/or school administrative data).

<u>The Ongoing Child Development Supplement</u> collects data on children’s health, development, and well-being within the children’s family and neighborhood context. In 2014, CDS was relaunched to collect data from all children in PSID households aged 0–17 years. Detailed information is collected on the same topics as in the Original CDS, including time diaries, assessments of reading and math skills, interviews with children’s primary caregivers and direct interviews with older children themselves. Because the CDS is a supplement to the PSID, an extensive amount of family demographic and economic data about the CDS child’s family is collected in PSID, providing more extensive family data than any other nationally-representative longitudinal survey of children and youth in the U.S.

<u>'''''Bridging the Gap'''''</u>
Through the Original and Ongoing CDS, detailed information has been collected on participants during their childhood and adolescence. CDS youth will eventually become the future “active panel” of Core PSID when they move out of (or “split-off”) from their parents’ home and establish an independent household of their own. Under the current design of the TAS, CDS young adults will participate in TAS data collection until they reach age 28, regardless of whether they have become members of Core PSID. When they join Core PSID, they will participate in that study every other year from that point forward.

The <u>Transition into Adulthood Supplement</u> thus serves as a “bridge of information” between the rich data collected in the CDS on the years between birth and age 18 years, and the rich data collected in the PSID on the years after economic independence is established.

===TAS Questionnaire Content===

The TAS questionnaire comprises 10 sections, each of which represents a specific area of interview content. A summary of each section is provided below.

<u>'''''Section A: Community Engagement and Technology Use'''''</u>

Questions in Section A focus on involvement over the last 12 months in the community including volunteering and community service, group organizations, and sports participation, as well as the type of organization and frequency of participation.
A question series on technology use asks about the access and ownership of cell phones, computers, tablets, and the internet. Frequency and type of technological use is also collected.
Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions A10a-A10e, which asked about internet use, were replaced by questions A17-A25, which gathered in depth information on the ownership of cell phones, smart phones, computers, tablets, types of internet use, and technological literacy.

<u>'''''Section B: Family Relationships, Personality, and Mental Health'''''</u>

Section B assesses the individual’s relationship with his or her parents. Respondents are also asked a series of questions which comprehensively assessed adult well-being in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Questions also included measures of self-rated levels of skill in areas such as leadership, intelligence, independence, confidence, and problem solving, as well as self-rated psychosocial measures about worries and discouragement.

The level of responsibility that the respondent assumes for living arrangements and money management including earning their own living, making rent or mortgage payments, paying their bills, and managing their personal finances is also assessed. Respondents were asked to rate their abilities to manage their money and solve day-to-day problems. Information about living arrangements during a typical school year and during the summer was also collected.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions B6a-B6d about responsibility and C2d-C2f pertaining to worry were removed and questions B27a-B27k were added. These questions comprise the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a “10 item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self.”<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</ref>

<u>'''''Section C: Interpersonal Relationships'''''</u>

This section obtained information about the current marital and cohabitation status of the individual and subjective evaluations of all romantic/intimate relationships through questions about living arrangements, general satisfaction with relationships, time spent with partner, future expectations of relationship duration, and the likelihood of marriage and divorce. Information was collected on past, present, and future childbearing and fertility expectations, gender roles, biological/adopted child rearing/family values, and parenting skills and experiences.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was revised substantially to align more closely with measures of cohabitation, marriage, and sexual behavior collected in the National Survey of Family Growth. Questions C4-C11 were added to capture detailed dating information on cohabitation and marriage, while questions C20-23, C32-C34, and C42-C43 were added to obtain information on sexual experiences and pregnancy.

<u>'''''Section D: Employment, Military Service, and Time Use'''''</u>

Section D collected detailed information about current employment status and all types of employment and money-earning activities for the previous two years. Measures included salary/wages, hours, experience, and size and type of the employer, reasons for being unemployed and/or not working, as well as the methods and frequencies of job hunting. Moreover, detailed information was collected about service in any branch of the Armed Services, and self-rated satisfaction with military service was obtained.

Information about how individuals spent their time during the past 12 months was collected including time spent on leisure activities, computer/internet use, and community engagement. Certain items from the CDS Primary Caregiver Child file were asked, permitting time-series analysis of activity patterns in organized arts and sport, TV watching, reading, and computer use.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Question series D9a-D9h were added in connection to the 2017 Core PSID, asking questions about hours, weeks, and overtime worked. In addition, questions D77-D81 and D112-D123 were added to both TAS-2017 and PSID-2017 which asked about time spent working, shopping, doing housework, caring for children, caring for adults, volunteering, doing educational activities, and doing leisure activities, as well as stylized time use measures obtaining information on the types of activities done during work.

<u>'''''Section E: Past Year Income and Financial Help'''''</u>

Information was collected on income earned during the previous calendar year from multiple sources, including unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, dividends, interest, trust funds, child support, welfare, as well as financial help received from parents and other relatives for daily living expenses, larger monetary gifts, and inheritances.

Respondents living with their parents or away at college are asked all questions in these sections; respondents living on their own were only asked the latter questions pertaining to financial help, gifts, and wealth because their income and business holdings information was gathered in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section E was expanded to include more detailed questions about financial help received from parents or relatives for housing, education, vehicles, and living expenses. In order to reduce missingness, bracketed amounts were asked in each of these categories to obtain a more accurate value of these types of financial help.

<u>'''''Section F: Wealth'''''</u>

A series of questions estimating the net value of automobiles, stocks and bonds, checking and savings accounts, life insurance policies, and any other assets and investments is asked. Information is also collected about student loans, credit card balances, and other debts.

Respondents living at home or away at college were asked all questions in this section; respondents living on their own were not asked questions about when they were widowed or when they were divorced, as these questions were asked in their 2017 Core PSID interview.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: In Section F, questions pertaining to the Great Recession were removed

<u>'''''Section G: Education'''''</u>

A key marker of the transition into adulthood is attainment of post-secondary educational degrees, which, in turn, feeds into work plans and career aspirations.

In Section G, information is gathered about the amount, dates, and location of education, starting with high school completion or GED attainment, high school GPA, and experience with college entrance exams. Respondents are asked if they had ever attended or are currently attending college and, if not, the reason for not attending.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: This section was streamlined to coordinate with the education section in the Core PSID, asking highest grade of education, degrees, certifications, and licenses obtained, and standardized tests.

<u>'''''Section H: Health'''''</u>

Section H includes a measure of self-rated overall health and whether they have ever been diagnosed with a series of chronic illnesses/conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, any mental health condition, and learning disabilities. Age when first diagnosed and limitations on normal daily activities that resulted from each condition was asked. The section includes a short series of questions about psychological distress (K6) during the past 30 days. These questions are also asked in the Core PSID instrument.

In Section H, questions were asked about routine visits to the doctor and dentist, maintenance of a healthy body weight, and engagement in a number of lifestyle practices such as exercising, eating balanced meals, tobacco use, binge drinking, the use of illegal drugs or misuse of prescription medicines, and unprotected sex.

For respondents living on their own as PSID R-S/Ps, the first part of the section was skipped and started with health behaviors to avoid repeating questions that are collected in the Core PSID interview.

There is no Section I in the TAS-2017 Questionnaire.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section H included a new retrospective childhood health calendar and follow-up questions on the effects of childhood health conditions on schooling and other activities. Conditions include but are not limited to: asthma, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, ear problems, headaches, and more. New questions on drug use were also added, including personal history and frequency of vaping.

In addition to childhood health, questions about parental mental and physical health during different stages of childhood were ascertained. A set of questions on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) were also included in TAS-2017, which collect information on childhood physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect. The ACEs questions are also asked in the 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study.

<u>'''''Section K: Discrimination and Peer Influence'''''</u>

Section K includes questions addressing everyday discrimination, peer influence, assault, risky behavior, and encounters with the law. Day-to-day encounters with discrimination are measured by asking about frequency of experiencing specific types of discrimination. If any experience is endorsed as happening more than once a year, the perceived reason for the discriminatory experience is asked.

Peer influence is assessed using a set of questions about characteristics of friends with respect to school and work-related activities, community involvement, and general outlook and attitudes about the future.
The frequency of engaging in dangerous and risky behaviors over the prior six months is assessed included fighting, damaging property, and drunk driving. Incidents of arrest, probation, and jail time were measured separately through questions on when and why the offense(s) occurred. Respondents are also asked about prior assaults, and the age at which an assault happened.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Section K added streamlined questions about the reasons behind discrimination in daily life.

<u>'''''Section L: Religious and Spiritual Beliefs, Race and Ethnicity'''''</u>

Section L assesses current religious preferences and the importance of religion and spirituality in the respondent’s life, as well as obtaining information on race, ethnicity, and locations of ethnic origin.

<u>Beginning in TAS-2017</u>: Questions on religious preference and religiosity were modified to mirror the questions in the 2017 Core PSID. The race and ethnicity question included new response options, specifically Middle Eastern or North African, and also included follow up items on origin for Hispanics, Asians, Middle Eastern or North Africans, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders. These items on race/ethnicity were asked of all TAS-2017 respondents and were new this wave.

===TAS Sample===

====Eligibility====
<u>''Age eligibility''</u>. Age eligibility at each wave is determined by birth year. Birth cohorts for each wave appear below. Participants are at least 18 years old and no older than 28 years in in the survey year.

TAS 2005: 1984-1987

TAS 2007: 1984-1989

TAS 2009: 1984-1991

TAS 2011: 1984-1993

TAS 2013: 1985-1995

TAS 2015: 1987-1997

TAS 2017: 1989-1999

<u>''Age Requirements''</u>. All potentially-eligible TAS respondents were identified and screened in the Core PSID interview. During the TAS interview, respondents were asked to confirm their date of birth. If, during the TAS interview, the interviewer learned that the respondent was under the age of 18, the interviewer was instructed to code the respondent as non-sample (age ineligible).

<u>''Active sample status''</u>. The young adult’s family participated in the same-year Core PSID interview (either through their own interview as Reference Person or Spouse/Partner or by identification as an “other family unit member” in a household interview).

<u>''Followable sample status''</u>. The young adult is a member of of the PSID Sample, meaning that they are a lineal descendant (natural or adopted) of individuals who were living in the original family unit at the time of the very first interview.

====TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation====

{| class="wikitable"
!rowspan| <center>Age in years/Survey year</center>
!rowspan|2005
!rowspan|2007
!rowspan|2009
!rowspan|2011
!rowspan|2013
!colspan|2015
!colspan|2017
!colspan|2019
|-
|colspan|<center>28</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>27</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-

|colspan|<center>26</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>25</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>24</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>23</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>22</center>
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>21</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>20</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>19</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>18</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>X</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|colspan|<center>Y,Z</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>Total</center>
|colspan|<center>745</center>
|colspan|<center>1,118</center>
|colspan|<center>1,554</center>
|colspan|<center>1,907</center>
|colspan|<center>1,804</center>
|colspan|<center>1,641</center>
|colspan|<center>2,526</center>
|colspan|<center>In process</center>
|-
|colspan|<center>From Original CDS (X)</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>100%</center>
|colspan|<center>48%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> From Ongoing CDS (Y) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>35%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> No CDS Participation (Z) </center>
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|
|colspan|<center>17%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|colspan|<center> Response Rate </center>
|colspan|<center>89%</center>
|colspan|<center>91%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>92%</center>
|colspan|<center>90%</center>
|colspan|<center>87%</center>
|colspan|<center>86%</center>
|colspan|
|-
|}

===TAS Sampling Weights===

This chapter provides an overview of the sample weights for TAS-2017. There will be three weights for TAS-2017, a cross-sectional weight and two longitudinal weights. The cross-sectional weight accounts for unequal selection probabilities due to the PSID sample design, while the longitudinal weights are panel weights for any TAS Respondent who was interviewed in (1) the Original CDS cohort or (2) the Original or Ongoing CDS. The second longitudinal weight will be included in Release 2 of the TAS-2017 data.

<u>'''TAS-2017 Cross-Sectional Weight'''</u>

The TAS-2017 data are provided with a cross-sectional weight for every survey respondent to be used in data analysis and obtain unbiased estimates for population parameters. We describe in this chapter the construction of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

<u>'''''Weighting Methodology'''''</u>

The TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight was designed to account for the unequal selection probabilities, due to the original PSID sample design, and for differential eligibility and nonresponse. These weights were also calibrated to selected demographic variables of the target population to further mitigate any coverage and nonresponse error, and to improve the precision of survey estimates. We describe below the three main components of the TAS-2017 cross-sectional weights.

<u>'''''Base Weights'''''</u>

In order to account for differential selection probability and nonresponse during the PSID recruitment, we used as base weights for TAS-2017 the 2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights. However, due to various eligibility criteria (including, for example, having to respond to both PSID 2013 and 2015), not every sample person at PSID 2017 that belongs to the TAS target population (individuals between 18 and 28 years old by December 31st, 2017) was eligible for TAS-2017. In order to account for this difference, the base weights of such ineligible cases were re-distributed across the eligible sampled individuals, so that the sum of the weights reflects, on average, the size of the target population.

<u>'''''Nonresponse adjustment'''''</u>

Unit nonresponse poses a threat to the quality of survey estimates as respondents and nonrespondents might differ in terms of the study outcomes, which can ultimately cause nonresponse bias in such estimates. If nonresponse follows a missing at random (MAR) mechanism (Little and Rubin, 20024), this nonresponse bias can be attenuated through certain statistical adjustments. To that end, a nonresponse weighting adjustment was performed over the TAS-2017 data using a response propensity procedure. In this approach, the weights are inversely proportional to estimate of the probability of response to the survey. These estimated probabilities of responding the survey, also referred to response propensities, are computed using a logistic regression model of the survey response indicator over a set of covariates available for both respondents and nonrespondents. In order to reduce nonresponse bias while not increasing sampling variance of the survey estimates, the covariates used in this adjustment should be correlated with both the survey response and the study outcomes (Little and Vartivarian, 2003<ref>Little, R.J.A., and Vartivarian, S. (2003). <u>On weighting the rates in nonresponse weights.</u> Statistics in Medicine, 22, 1589-1599.</ref> ). For this reason, the following TAS-2017 outcomes were selected to assist in this adjustment:

*Body Mass Index (BMI),
*Weeks of employment in previous year (WKSEMPPY),
*Weeks of employment in the past two years (WKSEMPPPY),
*Completed education of mother (MOCED),
*Completed education of father (FACED),
*Marital/cohabitation status (TAMS), and
*School enrollment status (EDSTAT)

Ideally, we would like to use these survey outcomes as covariates in the response propensity modelling. However, we only observe them for the survey respondents. Instead, we computed predictions for both nonrespondents and respondents for each of these survey outcomes using regression models over covariates available for every sampled individual, including:

*'''Census variables''': block group or tract level variables from the Census Planning Database that can be appended to the sampling frame, such as percentage and medians of population, households and housing units by socioeconomic characteristics.

*'''Paradata''': variables generated as a byproduct of the data collection itself, such as number of call attempts by survey mode (face-to-face, telephone, e-mail), indicator of refusal in previous waves.

These sets of covariates are typically available for every sampled element. There are a few cases in the TAS-2017 sample with missing values in some of these variables though. Therefore, as a first step in this nonresponse adjustment, we used regression-based single imputation to fill in the missing values in those variables. For the Census variables, the data were aggregated and imputed at the tract-level, such that elements within the same block group or tract received the same imputed values. All other variables were imputed at the element-level.

Next, we fitted a regression model for each of the seven selected outcome variables over the respondents’ data using all the covariates mentioned above. Given the large number of covariates in the models, we used the Lasso (Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator<ref>Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2001). <u>The elements of statistical learning</u>. New York: Springer series in statistics.</ref>) for both variable selection and estimation in each of these models. Using these fitted regression models and the observed/imputed covariates for every sampled individual, we predicted the survey outcomes for both respondents and nonrespondents. These predictions can be seen as proxy summaries of the covariates correlated to the selected survey variables, thus satisfying one of the conditions for a successful nonresponse adjustment (Little and Vartivarian, 20036).
The probability that a sample person was a respondent in TAS-2017 was estimated using a logistic regression model. The dependent variable for this response propensity model is Y=1 if the eligible sample person was a respondent in 2017 and Y=0 otherwise. The independent variables were the predicted values of the selected survey outcomes for numeric variables (BMI, WKSEMPPY, WKSEMPPPY, MOCED and FACED) and predicted probabilities for each category for the categorical variables (TAMS and EDSTAT). The estimated parameters and standard errors for this logistic model are reported in Table 1. For example, the results indicate that the odds of response were significant higher for those with higher chance of were never been married, not cohabiting.

To reduce variation in response propensity weights and lower the reliance on correct model specification of the logistic regression, 10 nonresponse adjustment classes were created based on deciles of the predicted response probability (propensity score stratification; Little and Rubin, 2002<ref>Deville, J. C., & Särndal, C. E. (1992). <u>Calibration estimators in survey sampling</u>. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(418), 376-382.)</ref> estimated using the logistic model in Table 4. The inverse of the mean response probability for TAS-2017 eligible sample cases in each decile was assigned as the nonresponse adjustment factor for that weighting class. The final nonresponse-adjusted weight for TAS-2017 respondents was computed as the product of their base weights (2017 PSID Individual Longitudinal Weights adjusted by eligibility) and their weighting class nonresponse adjustment factor.
''

<u>'''Calibration'''''</u>

As the final step in weight development, the nonresponse-adjusted weights are used as input in a calibration adjustment , in which the TAS-2017 sample weighted distribution are matched to population totals estimated from the ACS 2017 1-year PUMS data for individuals between 18 and 28 years by December 31st, 2017 on selected auxiliary variables. Similar to the nonresponse adjustment, if such variables are predictive of the survey outcomes, this calibration adjustment can reduce non-sampling biases (such as coverage and nonresponse) and improve the precision of the survey estimates. For this reason, we tested the main and interaction effects on the seven selected survey outcomes of the following variables:

*Sex (Male, Female)
*Race/Ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic While Alone, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic Asian alone/AIAN/NHPI/Some other race alone, Non-Hispanic Two or more races)
*Family type and employment status (Married-couple family: Husband and wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband in labor force, wife not in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Husband not in Labor Force, wife in Labor Force; Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, in Labor Force; Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, in Labor Force; Female householder, no husband present, not in Labor Force;)
*Region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West)
*Age (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
*Household size (1, 2, 3, 4 or more)

Due to the high dimensionality that would have been created if we accounted for all the interaction terms, we decided to test only the two-way interactions. We then kept all the main effects (regardless of their level of explanation on the survey outcomes) and only the two-way interactions that were significant, at a 5% level, to at least four of the survey outcomes, which on this case were:

*Sex by Race/Ethnicity
*Sex by Family type and employment status
*Sex by Region

In order to avoid undue increase in the variability of the weights, the following calibration cells with small sample sizes were collapsed for the calibration procedure:

*Gender by Married-couple family: Neither husband nor wife in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)
*Gender by Male householder, no wife present, not in Labor Force (Family type and employment status)

The calibration adjustment was performed using a raking ratio (or iterative proportional fitting) method (Deming and Stephan, 1940<ref>Deming, W. E., & Stephan, F. F. (1940). <u>On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known.</u> The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11(4), 427-444.</ref> through a SAS macro developed by Izrael, Battaglia and Frankel, 2009.<ref> Izrael, D., Battaglia, M. P., & Frankel, M. R. (2009). <u>Extreme survey weight adjustment as a component of sample balancing (aka raking)</u>. In Proceedings from the Thirty-Fourth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference.</ref> An advantage of this SAS implementation is that apart from running the raking procedure to adjust the weights to enforce the weighted sample distribution to match the population margins in the selected calibration dimensions, it also simultaneously trim the weights according to trimming parameters, in order to mitigate the increase of the sampling variance due to the weight variability. The final cross-sectional weight for TAS-2017 respondents was derived from the output weights of this calibration adjustment with trimming. Table 5 reports key summary statistics for the final TAS-2017 cross-sectional weight.

==References==

Transition into Adulthood Supplement

2021-04-03T15:29:19Z

Talmujah: /* TAS Sample by Survey Year, Age in Years, and CDS Affiliation */

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:27:08Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80</center>
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:25:09Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
|X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
|<center>15,239.32</center>
|<center>163,847.80
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
|H14PCGWGT
|2,517
|<center> 465.20 </center>
|<center>11,772.56</center>
|<center>51,226.46</center>
|14,018.62
|12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:18:25Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|<center>467.77</center>
|<center>11,630.53</center>
|<center>52,932.32</center>
|<center>14,061.74</center>
|<center>12,598.15</center>
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
| X14IHWGT
|2,152
|<center>774.08</center>
| <center>15,239.32</center>
| <center>163,847.80
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
| H14PCGWGT
| 2,517
|465.20
|<center>11,772.56</center>
| <center>51,226.46</center>
| 14,018.62
| 12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:13:53Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|467.77
|11,630.53
|52,932.32
|14,061.74
|12,598.15
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
| X14IHWGT
|2,152
|774.08
| 15,239.32
| 163,847.80
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
| H14PCGWGT
| 2,517
|465.20
|11,772.56
| 51,226.46
| 14,018.62
| 12,358.21
|-
|}

The case count for the PCG weight is 2,517 and the mean weight is 14,018.62, which (by construction) is very similar to the mean for Main Child Weight (14,061.74). The weighted total population of PCGs in CDS-2014 is 35 million.

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:11:57Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Weight description'''
!|'''Variable Name'''
!|'''Count'''
!|1st Percentile
!|50th Percentile
!|99th Percentile
!|Mean
!|Std. dev.
|-
|colspan|Main Child Weight
|X14CHWGT
|4,333
|467.77
|11,630.53
|52,932.32
|14,061.74
|12,598.15
|-
|colspan|Child In-Home Weight
| X14IHWGT
|2,152
|774.08
| 15,239.32
| 163,847.80
|28,241.22
|36,175.60
|-
|colspan|PCG Weight
| H14PCGWGT
| 2,517
|465.20
|11,772.56
| 51,226.46
| 14,018.62
| 12,358.21
|-
|}

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:04:07Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

====Recommendations for Using the CDS-2014 Weights====

In this section, we summarize our recommendations for using the CDS-2014 weights. Our basic recommendation is for data users to always use the provided weights in all of their analyses. In addition, we recommend that, when calculating standard errors, data users should wherever possible account for the clustering of the CDS-2014 data by family. Standard errors should reflect the fact that siblings are more likely to have similar outcomes and characteristics than children selected at random. Controlling for family-level clustering of siblings also provides an appropriate correction due to clustering of families by household or neighborhood and recognizes the fact that generally it is only possible to control for a single level of clustering. Furthermore, when analyses focus on a subset of children (from either the full sample or the in-home component), data users should use an appropriate “sub-population” adjustment. Clustering-corrected standard errors and sub-population commands are available in most standard statistical software (including SAS and Stata).

<u>Main Child Weight (X14CHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the full sample of children in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Child Instrument or for data on children aged 12–17 years from the Child Instrument.

<u>Child In-Home Weight (X14IHWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the analysis focuses on measures available only in the in-home component of CDS-2014, which includes the following components: Child Interviews for children aged 8–11 years, the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement in reading and math, and the CDS Time Diaries.

<u>PCG Weight (H14PCGWGT).</u> This weight should be used for all analyses in which the sample of PCGs in CDS-2014 are the focus of the analysis. This is the weight to use with data from the PCG Household Instrument or for other data on PCGs.

Finally, if users have questions about whether their analyses should be weighted or unweighted or about how to reflect the sampling design in their calculation of parameter estimates and standard errors, they should consult with a survey statistician.

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T15:02:15Z

Talmujah: /* Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

Strata defined by the full four-way cross-classification of these categorical variables were collapsed as needed to ensure a minimum count of approximately 15–20 individuals in each cell. Table 5.5 shows the CDS sample count and CDS weighted estimates, the ACS population estimates, and the post-stratification adjustment factors for each of the 105 cells defined by birth year, sex, race/ethnicity, and region. Note that CDS-2014 excluded some children born in early 1997 (who were selected to participate in the original CDS) and some children born in late 2013 (after the 2013 Core PSID interview was completed). The ACS control totals shown in Table 4.5 and used in the post-stratification weighting have been constructed to exclude children born outside the CDS-2014 eligibility window in 1997 and 2013.

The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were computed as the ratio of the ACS control totals to the CDS-2014 weighted population estimate count (using the interim weight from Step 2). The initial post-stratification adjustment factors were then applied to the interim weight to produce an initial post-stratified weight.

<u>Step 5. Trimming of Weights</u>

The distribution of the interim, post-stratified weights was examined and a decision was made to trim extreme values at each end of the distribution. The reason for trimming the weights is to reduce the influence of extreme weight values on the variances of sample estimates of population statistics. Trimming the weight distribution also provides some protection against arbitrary combinations of extreme weights and large or unique values of substantive variables that could exert high leverage on multivariate analyses such as regression modeling. The trimming rule applied to the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight assigned the cases with the weight values in the top two percent and in the bottom two percent of the weight distribution to the 98th and 2nd percentile values of the weight distribution, respectively.

<u>Step 6. Post-Stratification after Trimming of Weights</u>

After trimming the weights, the post-stratification procedure (Step 4) was repeated so that the final trimmed weights again matched the desired ACS population control totals.

<u>Step 7. Combining the U.S. and Non-U.S. Cases</u>

The final step in creating the Main Child Weight is to combine the weights from Step 6 for cases in the U.S with the weights from Step 3 for the non-U.S. cases.

<u>Step 8. Produce the CDS-2014 In-Home Child Weight</u>

Half of the CDS-2014 families were randomly selected to receive an in-home visit. The selection process was probability-based, but all cases did not have an equal chance of selection for the in-home survey administration. To account for the subsampling of CDS families for in-home interview administration, the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight includes an additional sample selection adjustment to the Main Child Weight. These adjusted weights were then post-stratified to the ACS population control totals using a process identical to that described in Steps 4–6 above, except that due the smaller sample size for the in-home interviews a further collapsing of strata was necessary. Census region was dropped entirely from the post-stratification scheme and wider birth-year cells were used. The revised post-stratification scheme is shown in Table 5.6.

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 PCG Weights====

The CDS-2014 PCG weight was derived entirely from the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight. In particular, PCGs in CDS-2014 were assigned the average weight over all children for whom they were the responsible primary caregiver. For PCGs for whom there were no corresponding children in the sample (because no child interview components were completed and hence no child weight was constructed), a PCG weight was calculated based on imputed values for the missing child weights. Missing child weights were imputed based on predicted values from a regression model that included covariates from the child-level non-response model described above and the 2013 Core PSID weight.

====Summary of CDS-2014 Weights====

In Table 5.7 we list the CDS-2014 child weights and the PCG weight and present case counts and summary statistics. that the case count for the Main Child Weight (4,333) is approximately twice the count for the Child In-Home Weight, reflecting the fact that approximately half of the CDS-2014 sample was selected for the in-home component. The mean weight for the Child In-Home Weight (28,241.22) is correspondingly about twice as large as the mean weight for the Main Child Weight (14,061.74), reflecting the fact that these two samples both weight to the same national population of children. Note also that the weighted total population from both CDS-2014 samples is approximately 61 million children, which is about 83 percent of the estimated U.S. population of children aged 0–17 years of 73 million in 2013. The PSID count is lower primarily because it excludes children in post-1997 immigrant families and includes only about half of children in the youngest and oldest single-year age groups.

=====Table 5.7. Summary of CDS-2014 Weights=====

==References==

Child Development Supplement

2021-04-03T14:57:58Z

Talmujah: /* Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights */

===Introduction to the CDS===

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is a longitudinal survey of a nationally-representative sample of U.S. families that began in 1968. <ref> McGonagle, K., Schoeni, R., Sastry, N., and Freedman, V. (2012). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 3, 268–284. </ref> The original 1968 PSID sample came from two sources: a nationally representative sample of approximately 3,000 families designed by the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (the “SRC sample”) and an over-sample of approximately 2,000 low-income families from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (the “SEO sample”). PSID interviewed individuals from families in these two samples every year from 1968 to 1996 and biennially thereafter—whether or not they were living together in the same dwelling. In 1997, because of the escalation in costs driven by the doubling of the sample size during its 30-year history, PSID was forced to drop some families from the study. The cuts were made from the SEO sample. Between 1997 and 1999, an immigrant refresher added to PSID a representative sample of families that had moved to the U.S. between 1968 and 1997.

Little information on children in PSID families was obtained until 1997, when extensive data collection began on the original PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS). CDS was launched with the goal of improving the understanding of social, psychological, and economic aspects of childhood within an ongoing nationally-representative, longitudinal study of U.S. families. Information was collected on psychological and social wellbeing, health status and behavior, family environment, education, child care, time use, sibling relationships, caregiver social and psychological resources, absent parents, future work and schooling expectations, and religiosity.

The original CDS began in 1997 with a cohort of 3,563 children from 2,394 families (88% of those selected). Up to two children aged 0–12 years were randomly selected in each family and interviews were conducted with the children’s primary caregivers (PCGs; usually the children’s mother). Eligible CDS participants were descended by blood or adoption from the original 1968 PSID lineage or the 1997 PSID immigrant refresher sample. In most cases, this means that the child’s father or mother is the child or grandchild of an original 1968 PSID respondent.

In 2002/2003, CDS families who participated in the 2001 Core PSID were contacted for a second round of data collection. CDS-II successfully re-interviewed 2,019 families (91%) who provided data on 2,907 children and adolescents aged 5–18 years. During 2007/2008, 1,506 children aged 10–19 years were successfully re-interviewed (90%). For CDS-III, a completed interview as reported by either the child or the PCG constituted a successful re-interview, reflecting older children’s ability to provide self-reported information, as compared with CDS-I and CDS-II when the children were younger requiring a completed interview from the PCG for a case to be considered a completed interview.

By 2014, all of the children in the original 1997 CDS cohort had reached adulthood, and a new generation of children had replaced them in PSID families. The goal for CDS-2014 was to collect information on all PSID children aged 0–17 years in this new generation, and to shift the orientation of CDS from a study of a single cohort—as was done in the original CDS—to a study obtaining information on the childhood experiences of all children in PSID families in 2014 and at planned five-year intervals that will support research based on multiple cohorts of PSID children. These new data will allow studies of health, development, and well-being in childhood;the relationship between children’s characteristics and contemporaneous family decisionmaking and behavior; and the effects of childhood factors on subsequent social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes over the entire life course for these individuals as they are followed into the future as part of the ongoing Core PSID.

The CDS-2014 sample included all PSID families that completed a Core PSID interview in 2013 and had one or more resident children. CDS-2014 participants form a nationally-representative sample of children descended from the original 1968 families and the 1997 new immigrant refresher sample. (The CDS-2014 sample does not cover children from families in which both parents are post-1997 immigrants to the U.S.) All eligible PSID children in each family were selected for CDS-2014, in contrast to the limit of two children per family in the original CDS. Fieldwork began in the fall of 2014 and continued through to the spring of 2015.

CDS-2014 was primarily a telephone interview; however, a random 50 percent of households were selected to receive an in-home visit to collect information that could not be obtained reliably by telephone. The in-home component included reading and math assessments for children (and reading assessments for PCGs), time diaries for a random weekday and a random weekend day, and interviews with children aged 8–11 years. The in-home visits facilitated the collection of other study components that were otherwise collected using a mail-out/mail-back protocol, including saliva samples for subsequent genotyping and anthropometric measurements.

The content of the new, ongoing CDS is similar to that in the original CDS. Interviews were completed with PCGs and with older children themselves.

CDS-2014 provides rich, comprehensive, and up-to-date information on a large, nationally-representative sample of children that includes an over-sample of African American children and a representative sample of immigrant children. Public use data are available free of charge through the PSID Online Data Center (www.psidonline.org), which provides customized extracts and codebooks using a detailed index of variables. Sensitive information from CDS-2014 are designated as restricted data, but are available to researchers through a data contract.

There are several unique features of CDS-2014 that will provide many important research opportunities to analysts. First, because the CDS children’s parents are also participants in PSID, there is an enormous amount of data available from previous waves of Core PSID on many aspects of their lives—as well as the lives of parents’ parents (the CDS-2014 children’s grandparents). These data can be combined to intergenerational transmission of human and social capital as well as health status. Information is available in CDS-2014 on siblings and cousins, providing unique research opportunities. Second, many of the CDS-2014 children were born to members of the original CDS cohort, providing unique opportunities to examine intergenerational connections in child development and behavior. Third, the original CDS and the new CDS-2014 will allow researchers to study cohort differences in development between children born from 1985 to 1996 and those born from 1997 to 2013, as well as differences between younger and older members of these cohorts. Fourth, as CDS-2014 children move into adulthood, they will be interviewed in the PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement in 2017 and beyond, and will also become primary PSID respondents. The information collected in the new CDS will provide invaluable insights into the effects of childhood experiences and circumstances on later adult development and on adult social, demographic, economic, and health outcomes. Finally, the genetic markers from CDS-2014 will allow researchers to address a number of important scientific questions that span the interests of population geneticists and social scientists.

=== Study Components ===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|1997 (CDS-I)
|2002 (CDS-II)
|2007 (CDS-III)
|2014
|2019 (Not yet
released)
|-
!colspan="6"|Survey Interviews
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver (PCG) Household
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|PCG-Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Secondary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|-
|colspan|Absent Father
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Teacher
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|School Administrator
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|
|
|-
|colspan|Child Demographic File
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Household Roster
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive Achievement Assessment
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Time Diary
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
!colspan="6"|Genomic data
|-
|colspan|Primary Caregiver
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Child
|
|
|
|<div style="text-align: center;">X</div>
|
|-
|colspan|Other adults in family
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Questionnaire Content ===

====<u>Primary Caregiver Household Interview</u>====

The PCG Household (PCG-HH) Interview focuses on the characteristics of a child’s family, household, and neighborhood. The interview also collects extensive information on the PCG’s own psychological resources, social support, parenting stress, parenting style, and childrearing values. Unless otherwise noted, items in the PCG-HH interview were administered to all PCGs.

Topics included in the PCG-HH Interview are described below. The measurement resource table in Appendix A documents the source and original author of questionnaire content where appropriate. Note that PCG-HH Interview content begins with Section J (Neighborhood Measurements). Sections A–H appear in the PCG-Child interview.

<u>''Neighborhood Measurements (Section J)''.</u> Eight items assess the PCG’s perception of neighborhood quality, including residential stability, residential satisfaction, neighborhood anonymity, social cohesion, and neighborhood safety. The series appears in the questionnaire as Items J1 to J8.

<u>''Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for Primary Caregivers (Section K)''.</u> The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale describes the degree of approval or disapproval toward oneself.<ref>Rosenberg, M. (1986). ''Conceiving the Self''. New York: Basic Books.</ref>The scale is widely used, with substantial documentation on its validity and reliability. PCGs reported on a series of 10 items using a response scale ranging from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates “Strongly Disagree” and 4 indicates “Strongly Agree.” The series appears in the PCG-HH Instrument as Items K1 to K10. The scale score is computed as an average of responses to these ten items and is available for respondents who have valid values on at least eight items (H14SLFEST)

<u>''Childrearing Values (Section M)''.</u> Respondents ranked the qualities or traits they consider most important to prepare a child for life from a set of five choices. Traits include obedience, popularity, autonomy, a strong work ethic, and altruism. The series appears in items M3A to M3D. These items appeared in the Detroit Area Study and the General Social Survey.<ref>Alwin, D.F. (1984.) Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958-1983. ''American Journal of Sociology'', 90, 359–382.</ref>,<ref>Alwin, D F. (1990). Cohort Replacement and Changes in Parental Socialization Values. ''Journal of Marriage and Family'', 52, 347–360.</ref>

<u>''Aggravation in Parenting (Section M)''.</u> The aggravation in parenting scale (M4–M10) measures parenting stress that may result from changes in employment, income, and other factors in the lives of PCGs. Items M4 to M7 address parenting in general. Items M8 to M10 focus on the PCG’s feelings about his/her children in CDS collectively. In CDS I-III, items M8 to M10 were asked during the PCG-Child interview about each child separately. To reduce burden on caregivers in large families, these items were moved to the PCG-HH interview and asked only once in CDS-2014. The generated variable H14PARENT is a mean score derived from the seven items in the scale. A mean score was computed for all cases with valid values on at least five items.

<u>''Work/Life Adjustments for Children (Section M)''.</u> In Items M11 to M13, PCGs reported whether they ever changed neighborhoods or employment conditions to improve circumstances for their children.

<u>''Attitudes about Gender Roles (Section M)''.</u> Items M14 to M25 measure the PCG’s level of agreement with nine statements pertaining to gender role attitudes and three statements drawn from the “Being a Father” Scale. Four items measuring gender role attitudes and four items from the “Being a Father” Scale that were included in CDS I-III were excluded from CDS-2014. The choice of items to retain was guided by factor analysis using data from CDS-II and CDS-III. Variables with the highest factor loadings on the constructs of traditional marriage values, traditional mothering values, equity, and father involvement were retained. Each construct is represented by three variables.

<u>''Caregiver Psychological Distress (Section N)''.</u> The Kessler 6 (K-6) Non-Specific Psychological Distress Scale (N1–N6) was designed to discriminate cases of serious mental illness from non-cases in a general population survey.<ref>Kessler, R.C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L.J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D.K., Normand, S.L., Walters, E.E. and Zaslavsky, A.M., 2002. Short Screening Scales to Monitor Population Prevalences and Trends in Non-Specific Psychological Distress. ''Psychological Medicine'', 32, 959–976.</ref> The K-6 is administered to respondents in the PSID Core interview and is also included in the National Health Interview Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, as well as in Core PSID.

The K-6 includes six items about how the respondent felt during the prior four weeks. Response items are based on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates “all of the time” and 5 indicates “none of the time.” Individual items may be rescored to range from 0 to 4 and then summed to calculate a total score that is comparable to other studies. A summed score of 13 or higher indicates a potential for nonspecific distress. The generated variable H14k6_14 is a sum score computed for all cases with valid responses to all six items in the scale.

The scale includes three follow-up items about persistence and impairment associated with symptoms of nonspecific distress (N7–N9).These items are administered to respondents who endorse any of the items in the K-6 series. Responses to these additional items are not required in order to score the K-6.

<u>''Family Pets (Section P)''.</u> Section P includes seven questions about the number and types of pets in families and the PCG’s interaction with and attitudes about his or her pets. These items are new to CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale. See the measurement resource table in Appendix A for details.

<u>''Disagreement in Parenting and Joint Goals (Section Q)''.</u> The Parental Disagreement Scale measures the extent of agreement on daily activities between a PCG and his or her spouse or partner (Q1–Q5). The items were administered only to PCGs who had a spouse or cohabiting partner in the household. The generated variable H14DISAGR is a mean score derived from the five items in the scale for all cases with valid values on at least four items. Three items measure the extent to which the PCG and his or her spouse or partner have joint goals for the future (Q6–Q8). Five items measure methods of conflict resolution among family members (Q9–Q13).

<u>''Food Security (Section R)''.</u> The PCG-HH interview included an 18-item version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module developed by the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (R1–R15). The module includes questions about various levels of food security such as worries about having enough food and enough healthy food, cutting back to conserve food, and running out of money for food. The module collects information about household (R1–R8) and child (R9–R15) food security separately. These data allow the food security status of CDS-2014 families to be defined along a continuum extending from high food security to low food security. Generated variables associated with this series include raw scores summing the number of endorsed items pertaining to the household overall (H14HHFOODR) and separately for adults (H14ADFOODR) and children (H14CHFOODR). A parallel set of items describes the food insecurity status of the household overall (H14HHFOOD) and of adults (H14ADFOOD) and children (H14CHFOOD) in the household. A raw sum score (H14FOOD6R) and a food insecurity status indicator (H14FOOD6) based on a six-item subset of questionnaire items (R2–R6) are also available.

An instrument programming error present at the beginning of data collection caused some eligible respondents to be skipped out of a more detailed set of questions about household and child food insecurity. Both the household and child sections of the food security module include a first stage screener composed of three items. As designed, a respondent who endorses any item at the first stage as “often true” or “sometimes true” should advance to the second stage of the module. However the instrument programming error caused respondents to advance to the second stage only when they endorsed at least two of the three items (R1–R3 for household food security and R9–R11 for child food security). This error was corrected during the seventh week of fieldwork.

Of 256 PCGs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R1–R3 series and who should have advanced to R4–R7, 98 did not advance. Those who did advance (i.e., who were interviewed after the programming error was corrected) reported more extreme food insecurity much less often compared to respondents who endorsed two or three items in the R1–R3 series.

Of 315 PCGSs who endorsed exactly 1 item in the R9–R11 series and who should have advanced to R12–R15, 116 did not advance. Those who did advance reported relatively low levels of heightened food insecurity in R12–R15.

<u>''Home Environment (Section S)''.</u> The Home Environment section collects information about children’s access to learning resources and technology in the home, the PCG’s involvement in her or his children’s school and learning at home, and the PCG’s own school enrollment, employment circumstances, and religiosity.

''Children’s Access to Technology.''Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014 to accommodate the emergence of new technologies and applications since 2007. Topics in the PCG-HH include the types and number of electronic devices in the home, including televisions, computers, tablets, and cellular telephones (S1–S8 and S14A–S14D); shared television viewing habits (S9–S10); and household rules about television viewing (S11–S13) and use of other electronic devices (S14G–S14L). This section also includes an adapted 6-item web-use skills index originally developed by Hargittai and Hsieh to measure the PCG’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (S14N1–S14N6).<ref> Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y. P. (2012). Succinct Survey Measures of Web-Use Skills. ''Social Science Computer Review'', 30, 95–107. </ref>

''Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME Scale).'' The HOME Scale measures characteristics of a child’s home environment that are associated with cognitive development and emotional support.<ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part I: Variations by Age, Ethnicity, and Poverty Status. ''Child Development'', 72, 1844–1867. </ref> <ref> Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., and García Coll, C. (2001). The Home Environments of Children in the United States Part II: Relations with Behavioral Development through Age Thirteen. ''Child Development'', 72, 1868–1886. </ref> HOME Scale content in the PCG-HH interview includes questions about how often the family engages in specific activities together, including meals (M1), socializing (M2), and television viewing (S9–S10); the number of books in the home (including electronic books, S15–S16); and the number of books the PCG has read in the last year (S17–S18).

Questions about whether the family receives a daily newspaper or carries a subscription to any magazine that were included in previous rounds of CDS were excluded from CDS-2014 because of the rapid and uneven decline in the availability of printed periodicals in regional markets during the last decade.

The complete contents of the HOME Scale and the location of individual items are described in Appendix A.

''School Involvement.'' Two items in the PCG-HH interview address the PCG’s volunteer activities at his or her child(ren)’s school (S19–S20). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about activities at any child’s school, rather than at each child’ school. Six other items addressing the PCG’s school involvement are included in the PCG-Child interview.

''Response to Poor Grades.'' Twelve items ask PCGs about actions they would expect to take in response to a child’s poor grades (S21–S30B). These items were included in the PCG-Child interview in CDS I-III, but question wording was revised in 2014 to solicit responses about expected actions in response to any child’s poor grades, rather than about each child’s grades.

''Own Schooling.'' PCGs report whether they are currently attending school, and if so, the number of hours they attend school each week and travel time (S31–S31B).

''Employment Characteristics.'' PCGs report whether they are currently working, and if so, report on characteristics of their employment such as number of jobs, hours worked weekly, nonstandard work schedules, and commuting time.

''Religiosity.'' PCGs reported how often they attended religious services in the past year (S39–S40) and on the importance of religion and spirituality in their lives (S41–S42).

<u>''Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement - Passage Comprehension.''</u> In families that were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers administered the Passage Comprehension subtest from the Woodcock-Johnson Revised Tests of Achievement (WJR), Form B to PCGs. <ref> Woodcock, R.W., and Johnson, M.B. (1989). ''Tests of Achievement'', Standard Battery. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing. </ref> The Spanish version of the WJ-R (Batería-R, Form A) was used for PCGs whose first language was Spanish and who elected to complete the assessment in that language.

The Passage Comprehension subtest measures understanding of written text. Respondents read a sentence or brief paragraph and provide the word that is missing from the passage. Indicators of whether a correct response was offered to each item are available. In addition, generated variables associated with the PCG passage comprehension assessment include a total raw score (H14PCRAW), a standardized score (H14PCSS), a percentile score (H14PCPR), and a W score (H14PCW). For more information, see the PSID Technical Report entitled “Achievement Tests in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement,” available at [http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2014-02_Achievement.pdf].

<u>''Interviewer Observations (Section OB).</u>'' Interviewers provided structured and open-ended observations on the interviews they conducted, on the respondents, and on the respondents’ household environment.

''Post-Woodcock-Johnson Assessment Observations.'' Interviewers recorded whether others were present during the administration of the WJ-R Passage Comprehension assessment and whether anything out of the ordinary occurred that might have affected the respondent’s performance (ASOB1–ASOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Telephone).'' Interviewers recorded their assessment of the respondent’s verbal fluency, comprehension, and self-expression at the conclusion of the PCG telephone interview (PCGOB1–PCGOB5).

''Post-Interview Observations (Household).'' Where families were randomly selected for the in-person supplemental interview, interviewers reported their observations about the physical appearance and quality of the dwelling and the neighborhood (PCGOB6–PCGOB19).

====<u>Primary Caregiver Child Interview</u>====

Throughout the PCG-Child interview, questions are tailored to specific age groups of children to maximize question relevance and minimize recall error. See the questionnaire for age and/or school grade ranges for each item and for rules governing skip patterns throughout the instrument. Child age and school grade are based on child characteristics at the time of the household screening interview to determine eligibility.

<u>''Child Health (Section A)''</u>. Questions about the physical health of each child (A2–A19) are drawn from the National Health Interview Survey and from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Topics include general health status, birth weight, breastfeeding, medical care, immunization status, diagnosis of chronic conditions, asthma, and disability.

Questionnaire items about birth weight are directed only to PCGs only when the child’s birth weight does not appear in the birth history collected as part of the PSID Core interview (A4–A4_KG). Where birth weight was already available, this information is provided in the CDS-2014 Demographics file (X14BWTP1–X14OS3B1 [biological mother report], X14BWTP2–X14OS3B2 [biological father report], X14BWTP3–X14OS3B3 [adoptive mother report], and X14BWTP4–X14OS3B4 [biological mother report]).

Information on breastfeeding duration is collected only where a CDS child is between ages 0 and 5 years at the time of the CDS household eligibility screening interview. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III.

<u>''Psychological Wellbeing, Personality, and Behavior (Section B)''</u>. This section collected, for each child, modules covering the Behavioral Problems Index, positive behavior, prosocial behavior, and sibling interaction.

''Behavior Problems Index.'' The 30-item Behavior Problems Index (BPI) was developed by James Peterson and Nicholas Zill from the Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist to measure in a survey setting the incidence and severity of child behavior problems. <ref> Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. ''Monographs of the society for research in child development'', 1–82.</ref> <ref> Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. ''Journal of Marriage and the Family'', 295–307. </ref> In CDS-2014, the BPI was administered to PCGs of children who were between ages 3 and 17 years (B1–B30). Caregivers of children between 6 and 17 years old responded to two additional items specifically addressing children’s behavior at school (B31–B32). PCGs indicated whether the behavior or trait described in each item in the series was often, sometimes, or never true of the child.

Overall scale scores and subscale scores for internalizing and externalizing behavior are included in the public-use data. To construct scale scores, responses from each item were collapsed into a corresponding two-category variable and coded “1” if the behavior described was often or sometimes true for the child and “0” if never true. These dichotomous variables were summed to calculate an overall behavior problems score. For children aged 3 years and older, the overall scale score includes 27 of the items in B1 to B30 (P14BPI_T) and excludes items B23, B28, and B29, which did not load on to either of the subscale scores. For children aged 6 years and older, a second overall scale score is available (P14BPI_T29). This 29-item scale score includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_T.

Subscale scores were constructed for externalizing behavior from a subset of 15 items (P14BPI_E15) for children aged 3 years and older. For children aged 6 years and older, a second externalizing behavior scale score is available (P14BPI_E), which includes responses to items B31 to B32 as well as each of the items included in P14BPI_E15. The internalizing behavior score for all children aged 3 years and older is constructed from a subset of 14 items (P14BPI_N). Table 2.2 shows the items included in each scale score.

''Positive Behavior''. The Positive Behavior Scale (PBS) measures positive aspects of children’s behavior and disposition, including self-esteem, social competence, self-control, compliance, and persistence (B33–B42). The scale includes 10 items measured on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all like your child” to “Totally like your child.” Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III. Items were administered to PCGs of children aged 6–11 years.

A positive behavior scale score is provided (P14POSBEH). The score is computed as the average value of the constituent items where the PCG provided at least valid responses to at least eight items.

''Prosocial Behavior''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” (B43–B47) measure children’s prosocial behavior in the preceding six months, including sharing, consideration of the feelings of others, and volunteering to help others. Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). The scale was administered to PCGs of children between ages 3 and 11 years in the PCG-Child questionnaire. These items are new in CDS-2014.

A prosocial behavior scale score is provided (P14PROSOC). Constituent items were rescaled to range from 0 (“Not true”) to 2 “(Certainly true”) and then summed. The scale score was constructed only for those cases providing a valid response to each of the five items in the scale.

''Sibling Interaction''. Five items describe the frequency of helping and prosocial behaviors expressed toward siblings among children who are between ages 3 and 11 years and who have a sibling in the household (B48–B52). Items remain identical in wording and sequencing to CDS I-III.

<u>''Parenting and Family Interaction (Section C)''</u>. Section C includes information about family routines, household rules, discipline strategies, parent-child discussion topics, and the PCG’s familiarity with children’s friendship networks. The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support.

Items pertaining to household rules were revised compared to CDS I-III in order to accommodate new response options. In all waves, respondents were asked about whether there were household rules governing a variety of activities, including where and how children spend their time, homework, and television viewing. Previously, the response options were limited to “Yes” (i.e., there are household rules) and “No” (i.e., there are no household rules). In order to better characterize how household rules are implemented, the response categories were expanded as follows: “Yes, there are clear rules and they are enforced (1);” “Yes, there are general rules and they are monitored (2);” “Yes, there are rules, but child makes own choices (3);” and “No (there are no rules) (5).” In response to feedback received when the instrument was pre-tested, two additional categories were added for volunteered responses that that the child was too young (6) or too old (7) for household rules related to a particular activity or domain.

<u>''Nonresident Parent (Section D and Nonresident Parent Block)''</u>. The nonresident parent modules are administered to PCGs where at least one biological or adoptive parent is not living in the child’s household at the time of interview. Content in Section D includes whether the child has another adoptive parent, stepparent, or parent figure; whether the parent is still living, and if not, when the parent died; when the child and nonresident parent last lived together, if ever; and how often the parent and child communicate and visit. Questions are asked separately for nonresident mothers and fathers.

The Nonresident Parent Block collects information from the PCG about the nonresident parent of each CDS child in the household. That is, when two children have different nonresident biological parents, the Nonresident Parent Block collects information on each parent separately. Content includes the parent’s residential proximity, whether she or he has other children and/or is married; and the PCG’s frequency of contact and conflict with the parent.

Question wording is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III. However, the Nonresident Parent Block is new to CDS-2014 and was developed in order to ask only once about each nonresident biological parent whom CDS children in the household had in common.

<u>''Home Environment (Section E).''</u> Section E includes information about children’s access to learning resources and technology at home and about children’s learning and social activities in the community. PCGs also report who paid for children’s fee-based activities such as arts instruction, athletics, and tutoring.

The Home Environment section also includes new content on children’s use of technology at home, including whether the child has their own electronic device or devices such as a computer, tablet, or cellular telephone or smartphone (E47–E50); frequency of activities such as homework and social interaction using electronic devices (E51–E56); and recent help-seeking and help-giving associated with computer use at home (E57–E58).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Many of these items are used in constructing the HOME Scale to characterize the aspects of children’s home environments that are conducive to cognitive development and emotional support. Four new items (E43–E46) measuring the amount of choice children are permitted in decisions about their activities and home environment were developed for inclusion in the HOME Scale in consultation with Robert Bradley (Arizona State University) and Pamela Davis-Kean (University of Michigan). With the exception of these items and the new content on children’s computer and related technology use, content in this section is identical in question wording and response options to content included in CDS I-III.

<u>''Child Education (Section F and Schools Block</u>''). Section F collected information on the PCG’s educational aspirations and expectations for the CDS child (F2–F3) and the CDS child’s educational history and current status. Content includes whether the child attended an early intervention preschool program such as Head Start (F4–F8); age at kindergarten entry (F9–F12); recent school changes (F13); attendance at public and private schools (F14–F19); attendance in classes for gifted students (F20); classification as requiring special education (F21–F22); suspensions and expulsions (F23); grade retention (F24–F24A); school dropout (F26); home schooling (F33); participation in subsidized meal programs at school F27–F32); PCG involvement at the child’s school (F34–F38); and PCG involvement with the child’s education at home (F39–F41).

The universe for the items in this section varies depending on child age and grade. Question wording is identical to CDS I-III. Response options to some items differ compared to CDS I-III due to backcoding on some open-ended responses and to keep response categories consistent with those used with similar items elsewhere in the instrument (e.g., item F15C, “Who paid [CHILD’s] private school expenses?”).

In the Schools block, PCGs provide the name and location of the school where each child is currently enrolled. This information is matched to the Common Core of Data and Private Schools Survey databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education. Numeric school identifiers are available to qualified researchers under a restricted-use data agreement. Visit the PSID web site for more information on restricted-use agreements [http://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

<u>''Expenditures and Savings''.</u> Seven items measure frequency, amount, and conditions of children’s receipt of an allowance (G1–G6). Eleven items measure family members’ savings and investments on behalf of children, including savings for college (G7–G13, G20–G20A). Six items describe expectations about college expenses.

<u>''Child Care (Child Care Block)''</u>. For children in sixth grade and younger, PCGs describe arrangements in the past four weeks for all child care regularly provided by someone other than the PCG and his/her spouse or partner. This includes information on the type of arrangement (e.g., relative-based in-home care or child care center), the number of days and hours a child is in care each week, and the cost of care.

====<u>Child Interview</u>====

<u>''Race and Ethnicity (Section A)''</u>. Youth aged 12–17 years self-reported their Hispanic ethnicity (A1), racial or ethnic group (A2), and, where relevant, Asian ancestry (A2a). Response categories are the same as those used in the Core PSID interview in 2013. Respondents chose a single response category for each item. An open-ended “other-specify” field allowed respondents to mention multiple racial or ethnic identities.

See the Demographic File for parent-reported information on children’s race and ethnicity for all children in CDS-2014.

<u>''Ability Self-Concepts in Math and Reading (Section B)''</u>. The Ability Self-Concepts items (B2–B9) reflect two scales to self-assess ability in the domains of math and reading. The number of items in the series was reduced from 20 (used in CDS I-III) to nine in consultation with Jacqueline Eccles, the scale’s developer.

<u>''Academic performance (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents reported grades earned in the most recent completed semester in mathematics and English (B10–B11), current cumulative grade point average (B12), and grades earned in eighth grade (B14).

<u>''Future plans (Section B)''</u>. Adolescents (11th grade and up, including high school leavers or graduates) described their aspirations and plans for college attendance and information about college provided by their high school; and plans to serve in the armed forces (B15–B32A).

<u>''Health (Section C)''</u>. This section covers questions on general health status, depression, and physical development.

''General health''. Youth aged 10–17 years reported on their general health status (C1); perceived weight status (C2); recent efforts to change or maintain weight through diet or exercise (C3–C5); and general emotional health.

''Depression''. Adolescents (age 12–17 years) completed the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Short Form (C8–C17). The CDI is an assessment that rates the severity of symptoms related to depression or dysthymic disorder in children and adolescents.

To protect respondent privacy, interviewers directed adolescents to read the response options for each item to themselves in their response booklets and to provide the numeric code corresponding to the statement that best describes their feelings during the last two weeks. The interviewer presented the response options aloud only where the respondent did not have his or her response booklet available.

''Physical development''. Youth age 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys.

To present questions about physical development to youth aged 10-11 years who were interviewed in person, field interviewers handed the child an envelope containing show cards on which the questions and response options appeared. The child read each question and response options silently and then responded with the letter corresponding to the category best matching their answer.

Adolescents (age 12–17 years) responded to the same questions using their telephone keypad during a computerized interview administered using interactive voice response technology (IVR, see Section J below).

Questionnaire items appear in Section C for younger children and in Section J for adolescents. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are C18–C25 and JC18–JC25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10–11 years and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

<u>''Social Relationships (Section D)''</u>. Children describe how close they feel to parents, stepparents, friends, siblings, teachers, and other adults (D1A–D2, ages 8–17 years); friends’ positive and negative behaviors (D3A–D3M, ages 10–17 years); and characteristics of and interactions with family pets (D4–D12, ages 8–17 years). Content about closeness to others and friend characteristics was administered in CDS-II and CDS-III. Content about family pets is new in CDS-2014. The source of the items is the CENSHARE Pet Attachment Scale.

<u>''Personality and Behavior (Section E)''</u>. This section includes modules on children’s self-esteem, perseverance, and peer problems.

''Self-Esteem''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale that excluded negatively worded items (E1–E5). Four of the items appeared in the original Rosenberg scale. A fifth item, “I feel good about myself,” is a positively-worded version of the statement “At times I think I am no good at all.”

This revised version of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used in the 2012 sweep of the Millennium Cohort Study in Great Britain, when focal children were age 11 years. It was adopted for inclusion in CDS-2014 in place of the Global Self-Concept subscale that was included in CDS I-III.

''Perseverance''. Children aged 10–17 years responded to a five-item scale measuring perseverance (E6–E10). Scale content and ordering is identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Peer Problems''. Five items from the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire” measure children’s peer problems in the preceding six months, including usually being alone, whether the child has at least one friend, whether others generally like the child, whether other children pick on the child, and whether the child relates better to adults than to other children (E11–E15). Response options range from 1 (“Not true”) to 3 (“Certainly true”). These items are new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Employment (Section F)''</u>. Children aged 12–17 years described current and past summer employment, including occupation, industry, tenure, work hours, wages, and job satisfaction (F1–F20) and job aspirations (F21_1–F25). Content and question wording are identical to CDS-II and CDS-III.

<u>''Computers and Electronic Media Use (Section G)''</u>. Content on children’s access to and use of technology at home was significantly expanded for CDS-2014. For children aged 8–17 years, the Child Interview collected information on the electronic devices owned by children (G1–G5), internet access (G6–G7), computer/electronic device use for schoolwork, information-seeking, social interaction, and entertainment (G8–G21).

A 6-item web-use skills index adapted from Hargittai and Hsieh measures the child’s familiarity with computer and internet-related terminology (G23A–G23F).

Two items measure the exchange of assistance with computers or other electronic devices between the child and their PCG in the past 30 days (G24–G25).

<u>''Financial Behavior (Section H)''</u>. Three items collect information about the frequency, amount, and conditions of a child’s allowance (H1–H3, ages 8–17 years). Six items address the amount and intended purpose of a child’s own financial savings (H4–H9, ages 8–17 years). Children aged 12–17 years report on their own and their PCG’s past-year charitable donations (H10–H11). Question H11 is new in CDS-2014.

<u>''Sensitive Topics (Section J)''</u>. Questions on sensitive topics were administered using interactive voice response (IVR) technology in order to ensure respondent privacy and minimize response bias during the telephone interview.

Some content from Section J of the Child Interview is available only through a restricted-use agreement with the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. This content is denoted below. Information about how to establish a restricted-use agreement is available at [https://simba.isr.umich.edu/restricted/RestrictedUse.aspx].

Introductory items record respondent self-reported age and gender (J0a–J0b).

''Peer Victimization and Bullying''. Four items (J1a–J1d) address peer victimization and bullying. These items were drawn from work by Kochenderfer and Ladd and were also included in CDS-II and CDS-III. <ref> Kochenderfer, B.J., and Ladd, G.W. (1996). Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence of School Maladjustment? ''Child Development'', 67, 1305–1317. </ref> The introduction to these items was modified in CDS-2014 to include the internet as a context where respondents might have experienced victimization.

''Dating''. Four items pertain to respondents’ experience with dating (J2–J4). These items were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and were included in CDS-II and CDS-III.

''Physical development''. Youth aged 10 years and older reported on the onset of puberty, including physical appearance relative to age peers; breast development and age at menarche for girls; and facial hair growth and voice changing for boys. Adolescents responded to these items as part of the IVR interview.

Note that questionnaire items on physical development appear in Section J for adolescents and in Section C for younger children. The corresponding variables in the public-use data file are JC18–JC25 and C18–C25. In addition, the variable series C18x to C25x pools responses to individual items across the two age groups. For example, item C18x includes responses to item C18 from children aged 10-11 years old and to item JC18 from youth aged 12–17 years.

''Sexual Health and Activity (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on age at first sexual intercourse (J5–J7b), recent frequency (J8–J9), and lifetime number of partners (J10). All sexually active respondents report on frequency of condom use (J11); female respondents also report on use of birth control pills (J12–J13c). All respondents report on whether they have ever been tested for or diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (J14–J16a). Male and female adolescents responded to items about pregnancy experience (becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else), frequency, and outcomes (J16–J21).

''Risky Behavior (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on the frequency of behaviors including staying out past curfew, physically harming others, damaging property, bringing a weapon or drugs or alcohol to school, and truancy (J22–J31, J34–J35). The series also included questions about contact with law enforcement, including being stopped and questioned or arrested (J32–J33).

''Tobacco, Drug, and Alcohol Use (Restricted-Use Only)''. Adolescents reported on lifetime and past thirty day use of tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, inhalants, hallucinogens, prescription drugs taken without a prescription from a doctor, amphetamines, and tranquilizers. In addition, respondents reported on frequency of heavy drinking, type of alcohol most often consumed, and frequency of driving while intoxicated or riding with an intoxicated driver. Items were originally drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and most were included in CDS-III. Content was updated in CDS-2014 in consultation with investigators from Monitoring the Future, an annual study of middle and high school students designed to track trends in adolescent substance use.

''IVR Interview Experience''. Adolescents responded to three items about the accuracy of their responses and the ease or difficulty of completing the IVR interview (J65–J67).

====Files unique to Ongoing CDS====

<u>''Household Roster File.''</u> A household roster collected during the initial screening interview gathered information on all individuals living in a CDS child’s household. The CDS-2014 Household Roster File includes one record for each household member residing with a CDS child (N=10,453). Contents include the CDS household identifier (R14CDSHID) and individuals’ PSID 1968 ID and person number (R14ID68 and R14PN), position in the CDS roster, age in years, and sex. A person type indicator describes whether each individual is a CDS child, a CDS caregiver, or other household member (R14TYPE). In 24 households, two primary caregivers are present, each caring for a different child or children. The variable R14CDSHPIN may be used to distinguish caregivers who coreside and have a common CDS household identifier.

NOTE: Seventy-nine individuals observed in a CDS-2014 household have never appeared in a PSID household at the time of the Core interview and have never been reported in a PSID participant’s marriage or birth history. These individuals have not been assigned a PSID person number (i.e., no value on ER30002) and information about them cannot be merged on to any other individual-level information in the PSID Data Center. These individuals have been assigned a value of 999 for R14PN.

<u>''Demographic File.''</u> The Demographic File includes one record for each child who appears in the CDS-2014 public release (N=4,333). This file contains study information including the interview components completed for the child and date of interview; information about the child including his/her race ethnicity and birth weight (pulled in from the PSID birth history file); interviewer observations about the child (in-home supplement sample only); and child and primary caregiver sampling weights.

The Demographic File also contains information on the age, sex, and relationship to CDS child of all household members present at the time of the CDS-2014 screening interview (X14R01SEX–X14R15UNC2). Individual household members are indexed by their position in the household roster (see above for information on the Roster File). For example, X14R01SEX reports the sex of Person 1 on the Household Roster, X14R02SEX reports the sex of Person 2, etc. The order in which the screener respondent listed household members determines an individual’s position on the roster. A CDS child’s position in the roster is reported in X14WHICH. The primary caregiver’s relationship to a CDS child is described in X14PCGRLSP.

====Time Diaries====

The time diaries are one of the unique features of the CDS design and provide data of central importance to scientists in many disciplines. While the primary caregiver (PCG) and Child interviews include stylized questions about the children’s structured and unstructured activities and activities with parents and absent parents, the time diaries provide detailed accounting of the type, number, duration, and location of activities during sampled 24-hour days, beginning at midnight for one randomly sampled weekday and one randomly sampled weekend day. The time diaries additionally collect information on the social context of the activity by specifying with whom the child was doing the activity and who else was present but not engaging.

With child-based weights, the time diaries give a representative national sample of children’s activities and can also be converted into traditional time use aggregates, which are known to provide less biased estimates of time amounts than do self-reports of time in particular activities (Juster, Ono, and Stafford, 2003 ). By nature of the CDS design, the rich time diary data can be used with the detailed information in the other CDS modules as a way to examine influences on key developmental outcomes and achievement patterns and can also be used with PSID data to parcel out the ways in which family characteristics tie into children’s activity choices and developmental outcomes.

<u>Data Collection</u>

We invited CDS children and youth to complete a set of time diaries as part of their involvement in the overall CDS data collection effort. Each participating child completed two time diaries, a weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend day (Saturday or Sunday). These days were randomly selected when the interviewer completed the initial contact for the household. There was no substitution of diary days once they were assigned to the CDS child/youth.

In all three waves, the CDS time diary was a paper diary that was mailed ahead before the scheduled interview, with instructions to complete prior to the interview. During the in-house CDS interview or by telephone, the interviewer reviewed and edited the diary with the child and primary caregiver or, in the situations whereby the diary was not completed in advance, the interviewer administered the diary as an interview.

<u>Coding</u>

We utilized the same interviewing procedures and coding protocols for the time use module in all three waves of the CDS. With the increase in technology in the intervening years between CDS-II and CDS-III, some activity codes were added to the "computer-related activities" grouping to capture more detail in the use of cell phones for playing games, downloading movies/music, reading email, social networking, reading media, and searching for information. Codes were also added to the “organizational activities” group to differentiate activities occuring at school or elsewhere. Refer to Appendix A of the CDS 2007 Time Diary Coding Manual for details on these changes.

The activity codes utilized in CDS-III are easily mapped back to the prior waves. CDS-II created a four-digit activity code whereby the first three digits reflect the 1997 code. If the code was expanded to capture more specific detail, a sequential number beginning with “2” was added as the fourth digit. The fourth (last) digit is a “0” for any code that remained identical to CDS-I code, or in the case of an expanded code category for CDS-II, a “0” in the fourth digit indicates a catch-all / unspecified code for that particular activity.

<u>Data Files</u>

The CDS time diary data files are posted on the PSID-CDS Data Center (http://simba.isr.umich.edu/), freely accessible to researchers worldwide who are interested in using the data. The data are available at the activity level for CDS-III (57,813 records), with the activities also grouped into broader or “aggregated” variables at the child level

<u>''Time Diary Activity-Level Files''</u>

The Time Diary Activity data file is structured at the activity level, meaning one data record per activity per diary per child. There are three important identifiers in this file: (1) the ID68 (ER30001)-PN (ER30002) combination to identify the child for whom the activity belongs, (2) the “Diary_07” variable to identify if the activity belongs to a weekday or a weekend diary (we reviewed earlier that each child had up to two diaries taken – one for a randomly selected weekday and one for a randomly selected weekend day; note that “T1_07” specifies the actual day of the week), and (3) the start time of the activity, variable “COLB_07”. Start- and end-times are represented in seconds past midnight. The duration of the activities are recorded as amount of time in seconds that the activity took place.

<u>''Time Diary Aggregate Files''</u>

In addition to the activity-level files, there are child-level time diary files which “roll-up” individual activities in several ways: at the four-and three-digit code levels, which take all of the time spent in each of the activities and sum them across the diary day, and at the two-digit level, which aggregate time per diary day by 39 activity categories. These aggregate files are posted at the child-level, facilitating their use with developmental data from the other CDS modules, including (but not limited to) achievement measures, physical and emotional health assessments, and family environment measures, or with PSID family economic and demographic data.

In the aggregate file, there is one record per child and a variable that will tell you if that child has weekday diary data and another variable that will tell you if the child has weekend diary data. The labeling convention is, as follows:

Variables that begin with “WD” indicate that it is a “weekday” activity; variables that begin with “WE” indicate that it is a “weekend” activity. For CDS-III, the next two components of the variable name is “07”, meaning, data collection start year 2007.

As mentioned above, there are four-digit aggregate variables, three-digit aggregate variables, and two-digit aggregate variables. You can ascertain the level of the aggregation by the naming convention. For the variables that roll up the activities at the four-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are the four-digit code for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the three-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are an underscore (“_”) and the three-digit equivalent (or, CDS-I equivalent) for the activity. For the variables that roll up the activities at the two-digit level, the next four components of the variable name are “39nn”, representing 39 categories and the two-digit code for the activity.

===Sample===
{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|
!colspan="3"|Original CDS
!colspan="2"|Ongoing CDS
|-
|rowspan|
|<center>1997 (CDS-I)</center>
|<center>2002 (CDS-II)</center>
|<center>2007
(CDS-III)</center>
|<center>2014</center>
|<center>2019 (Not yet released)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child years of birth</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>1985-1997</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>1997*-2013</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>2002-2018</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Child age years</center>
|colspan|<center>0-12</center>
|<center>5-17</center>
|<center>10-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>0-17</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Number of age-eligible children selected per family</center>
|colspan="3"|<center>Up to 2</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit (max. observed=8)</center>
|colspan="1"|<center>No limit</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>Response rate</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Primary caregivers (PCGs)</center>
|-
!colspan="1"|<center>PCG Household interview</center>
|<center>1,536</center>
|<center>2,009</center>
|<center>1,250</center>
|<center>2,517</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Other (secondary) Caregiver (OCG) interview</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Children</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Primary Caregiver Child interview</center>
|<center>3,563</center>
|<center>2,907</center>
|<center>1,608</center>
|<center>4,314</center>
|
|-
!colspan=6|<center>Child interview</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Sample size/Age eligibility (years)</center>
|<center>Assessments only/3-12 (in-person)</center>
|<center>2,182/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,506/10-17 (in-person)</center>
|<center>1,508/8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|<center>8-11 (in person) 12-17 (telephone)</center>
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Cognitive achievement assessment (3 years and older)</center>
|<center>2,228</center>
|<center>2,644</center>
|<center>1,506</center>
|<center>1,498</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Time diary (all ages)</center>
|
|<center>2,569</center>
|<center>1,442</center>
|<center>1,566</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Demographic file</center>
|
|
|
|<center>4,333</center>
|
|-
!colspan=1|<center>Genomic data (5 years and older)</center>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Born after original CDS sample was selected (not eligible for original CDS)

===Sampling Weights===

CDS-2014 weights allow researchers to generalize their statistical results using these data to the national population of children corresponding to CDS-2014 selection criteria, while accounting for uneven selection probabilities and differential non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights similarly allow researchers to generalize their results to the national population of children’s caregivers. We recommend that researchers use the provided CDS-2014 weights with all analyses.

The main CDS-2014 child weight includes a base component derived from the 2013 Core PSID weight that accounts for differential sample selection probabilities and attrition in Core PSID. The CDS-2014 child weight also incorporates differential probabilities of selection for sample children as well as differential patterns of non-response. CDS-2014 child weights are provided to account for the PSID sampling design, the CDS-2014 selection process, and patterns of non-response. The CDS-2014 PCG weights were derived directly from the child weights. This chapter describes the construction of the CDS-2014 weights.

For CDS-2014, a main child weight was constructed for each child in the survey who completed one or both of the following two modules: (1) the Primary Caregiver (PCG) Child Interview and (2) the Child Interview. All children in CDS-2014 were eligible for a PCG-Child Interview. A Child Interview was only administered to children aged 8–17 years. All children aged 12–17 years were asked to complete a Child interview. However, among children aged 8–11 years, only those in families selected at random for the in-home supplement were eligible for the Child Interview. (Approximately half of all families and children were selected for the in-home supplement.)

The main child weight for CDS-2014 is the variable '''X14CHWGT''', which has one value for each of the 4,333 children in the sample. A second child weight is also available for CDS-2014, '''X14IHWGT''', which is to be used when analyzing the in-home subsample of CDS-2014 cases. Both weights are to be used with child-level data in CDS-2014 and both weights are designed to be used for analyses with the child as the unit of observation. The PCG weight for CDS-2014 is the variable H14PCGWGT, which has one value for each of the 2,517 PCGs in the sample—which includes PCGs who completed the PCG Household Interview but for whom no corresponding child-level data are available.

The CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is to be used for all analyses based on the PCG-Child Interview because this interview component includes one observation for each child in the sample. This weight should not be used for analysis based on data from the in-home modules, which have observations only for a subset of the CDS-2014 sample.

The CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight should be used for analysis based on the survey components that were only conducted during the face-to-face visits, including the time diaries and the Woodcock-Johnson assessments of reading and math.

For analysts using the Child Interview data, special care must be taken to choose the correct weight, because Child Interviews for one segment of the sample (children aged 8–11 years) were only conducted as part of the in-home component. Table 5.1 describes the appropriate weight to use based on the ages of children with Child Interview data being analyzed. Note that for analyses based on all children aged 8–17 who completed the Child Interview, the analyst must create a new variable with values equal to '''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years.

====Table 5.1. Use of CDS-2014 Weights for Analyzing Interview Data====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Analysis sample'''
!|'''Recommended weight'''
|-
|colspan|Child interview data for children aged 12–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14CHWGT'''</div>
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–11 years
|'''X14IHWGT''' and '''X14CHWGT''' for children aged 12–17 years
|-
|Child interview data for children aged 8–17 years
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''X14IHWGT''' for children aged 8–11 years</div>
|-
|Primary caregiver interview data
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''H14PCGWGT'''</div>
|-
|}

We provide further guidance on how researchers can conduct weighted analyses of other CDS-2014 components at the end of this chapter.

====Overview of Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

We first constructed the CDS-2014 Main Child Weight, which was then modified to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight. The basic steps to producing these weights were as follows:

# Account for all probabilities of selection for eligible families and children through to the initial determination of eligibility for CDS-2014.
# Adjust for CDS-2014 non-response.
# Set aside the small number of CDS-2014 cases residing outside the U.S., for which their CDS-2014 Main Child Weight is now final.
# Post-stratify the attrition-adjusted CDS-2014 sample selection weights to 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) adjusted population totals based on year of birth, gender, race, and Census region.
#Trim very large and very small values of the post-stratified weights.
#Post-stratify the trimmed weights to produce the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight for the cases currently residing in the U.S.
#Pool the U.S cases and non-U.S. cases for CDS-2014, which both now have their final Main Child Weight.
#Adjust the final CDS-2014 Main Child Weight to produce the CDS-2014 Child In-Home Weight.

Table 5.2 summarizes the CDS-2014 sample based on key features that shape the construction of the weights.

====Table 5.2. Summary of CDS-2014 Child Cases for Weights====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Description'''
!|'''Count'''
|-
|colspan|'''Initial total eligible cases for CDS-2014'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,816</div>
|-
| Deselected cases from the double-sample stage
|<div style="text-align: center;">180</div>
|-
|Total final eligible cases for CDS-2014
|<div style="text-align: center;">5,636</div>
|-
|'''Completed PCG-Child or Child Interview cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,333</div>
|-
|Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">17</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4,316</div>
|-
|'''In-home sample cases'''
|<div style="text-align: center;">2.152</div>
|-
| Non-U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|-
| U.S. cases
|<div style="text-align: center;">2,148</div>
|}

====Method to Construct CDS-2014 Child Weights====

In this section, we provide a more detailed description of the process for constructing the CDS-2014 weights.

<u>Step 1. Selection Probabilities for CDS-2014</u>

For all eligible CDS-2014 child cases (n=5,816), a base probability of selection weight was established using the household weight from the 2013 Core PSID.

<u>Step 2. Non-Response Adjustment</u>

A non-response adjustment factor for the weight was obtained from a logistic regression model of the response outcome. All eligible CDS-2014 child cases were included in the model. Data from the 2013 Core PSID were used as covariates in the model predicting an indicator of non-response, y, with y=0 if the case was non-response and y=1 if the case was coded as complete. The estimated coefficients and standard errors for the logistic regression model are reported in Table 5.3.

The results indicate that the probability of response in CDS-2014 was higher among African Americans and whites, in households headed by women, and in households with fewer children; the probability of response was lower in households with missing information about the head’s education and in households outside the U.S. Although a number of variables in the response propensity model that are not statistically significant predictors of CDS-2014 response (e.g., household income, metro status, and Census region), these non-significant variables were retained in the model used to derive estimates of the propensity of response. Overall, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of goodness of fit test (X2=11.47, 8 df, p=0.18) suggests that the response model provides an acceptable fit.

Based on the estimated logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of response were computed for each CDS sample case and grouped into deciles. These decile groups served as the classes within which a uniform non-response weighting adjustment was applied.<ref>See Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> Each respondent case was assigned a non-response adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the median predicted probability of successful CDS 2014-interview within its decile weighting class. The median response propensity and adjustment factor for each decile of the predicted probability response in CDS-2014 are shown in Table 5.4.

=====Table 5.4. CDS-2014 Median Response Propensity and Weighting Adjustment Factor=====

{| class="wikitable"
!colspan|'''Response propensity decile'''
!|'''Median response propensity'''
!|'''Adjustment factor'''
|-
|colspan|<div style="text-align: center;">1</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.646</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.548</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">2</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.706</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.417</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">3</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.735</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.361</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">4</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.755</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.325</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">5</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.771</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.297</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">6</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.785</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.274</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">7</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.800</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.251</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">8</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.814</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.229</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">9</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.831</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.204</div>
|-
|<div style="text-align: center;">10</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">0.854</div>
|<div style="text-align: center;">1.170</div>
|-
|}

The probability of selection weight for each CDS-2014 observation was then multiplied by the non-response adjustment factor to produce an interim weight that adjusts for probability of selection and CDS-2014 nonresponse.

<u>Step 3. Non-U.S. Cases</u>

There were 30 eligible cases in CDS-2014 that resided outside the U.S. during the fieldwork period. Although interviews were attempted for all of these cases and completed among some of them, these cases are not included in the post-stratification because the control total for the post-stratification process are based on the U.S. resident population. At this step, for the non-U.S. CDS-2014 cases, the Main Child Weight is designated to be complete.

<u>Step 4. Post-Stratification to Population Control Totals</u>

We next post-stratified the CDS-2014 interim weights from Step 2 to population control totals calculated using data from the 2013 American Community Survey. Strata were formed based on the following respondent characteristics:

*Child sex (male/female)
*Birth year of child (1997–2013)
*Child race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white or other)
*Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West

==References==