November 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Authors' Committee


Matt Blackwell (Gov)


Martin Andersen (HealthPol)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Deirdre Bloome (Social Policy)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Rich Nielsen (Gov)
Maya Sen (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Arthur Spirling, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Weekly Workshop Schedule

Recent Comments

Recent Entries



SMR Blog
Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science



Powered by
Movable Type 4.24-en

« Risky Research and Bad Statistics | Main | Raškovič on "Managing supplier-buyer relationships in transnational companies" »

11 November 2010

Problematic Imputation at the Census

According to a working paper by Greg Kaplan and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, recent estimated declines in interstate migration are simply artifacts of the imputation procedure used by the Census Bureau.

The bureau uses a “hot-deck” imputation procedure to match respondents who fail to respond (called recipients) to those who actually do respond (called donors) and impute the recipient’s missing values with the donor’s observed values. For migration, the crucial questions are where the respondent lived one year ago. Before 2006, they effectively did not match on current location, even though current location is a strong predictor of past location. In 2006, they switched:

Using the most recently processed respondent as the donor to impute missing answers means that the order of processing can a ect the results. Since 2006, respondents have been processed in geographic order. This ordering means that the donor usually lives near the recipient. Since long-distance migration is rare, the donor’s location one year ago is also usually close to the recipient’s current location. Thus, if the procedure imputes that the recipient moved, it usually imputes a local move. Before 2006, the order of processing was geographic but within particular samples. Therefore, on average, donors lived farther from recipients; donors’ locations one year ago were also on average farther from recipients’ current locations; and recipients were more likely to have imputed interstate moves.

(via Gelman)

Posted by Matt Blackwell at November 11, 2010 7:09 PM