Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Functions, L.
Right arrow Articles by Klein, S. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Functions, L.
Right arrow Articles by Klein, S. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Adjusting the U.S. Census of 1990

Loss Functions

David A. Freedman

University of California, Berkeley

Kenneth W. Wachter

University of California, Berkeley

D. Richard Cutler

Utah State University

Stephen P. Klein

RAND Corporation

Considering the difficulties, the Census Bureau does a remarkably good job at counting people. This article discusses techniques for adjusting the census. If there is a large undercount, these techniques may be accurate enough for adjustment. With a small undercount, adjustment could easily degrade the accuracy of the data. The Bureau argued that errors in the census were more serious than errors in the proposed adjustment, using "loss function analysis" to balance the risks. This procedure turns out to depend on quite unreasonable assumptions. With other and more realistic assumptions, the balance favors the census. The story has a broader moral. Statistical models are often defended on grounds of robustness. However, internally generated measures of precision may be critical. If the model is at all complicated, these measures of precision may turn out to be driven by assumptions not data—the antithesis of robustness.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 243-280 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9401800301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
D. A. Freedman and K. W. Wachter
Planning for the Census in the Year 2000
Eval Rev, August 1, 1996; 20(4): 355 - 377.
[Abstract] [PDF]