Annual Survey of Orange County 1988
Data files
Oct 31, 2014 version files 3.47 MB
-
AnnualSurveyOC1988.pdf
3.19 MB
-
ocas88.dat
83.25 KB
-
ocas88.ddl
21.46 KB
-
ocas88.sas
12.35 KB
-
ocas88.sps
10.88 KB
-
ocas88.xml
85.56 KB
-
ocas88cdbk.txt
52.90 KB
-
ocas88st.txt
13.77 KB
Abstract
The theme of the survey is "Orange County: A Change of Course." The 1988 Orange County Annual Survey examines previous trends and explore new topics. The survey is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of county issues. The sample size is 1,003 Orange County adult residents.
Online data analysis & additional documentation in Link below.
Online data analysis & additional documentation in Link below.
The Orange county Annual Survey was directed by Mark Baldassare, a professor of social ecology at UC Irvine. For the survey, 1,003 adult Orange County residents were interviewed by telephone Sept. 6 to 22. In Orange County, where more than 97 percent of households have telephones, this method of interview gives highly representative data.
Interviewing was conducted on weekend days and weekdaynights, using a random sample of 4,500 listed and unlisted telephone numbers. These telephone numbers were generated by computer from a list of working blocks of telephone exchanges. The telephone sample was generated by Pijacki and Associates of Shoreham, N.Y. The field work was conducted at the Center for Survey Research by UCI's Public Policy Research Organization.
Of the telephone numbers called, 22 percent resulted in completed interviews and 13 percent were refusals. The completion rate for the survey (completions divided by completions plus refusals) was 62 percent.
Other telephone outcomes included the following: 21 percent disconnected numbers; 15 percent businesses and government agencies; 7 percent persistent no answer; 2 percent persistent telephone answering machines; 2 percent computer lines; and 2 percent persistently unavailable respondents. Three percent were not completed because of language problems, including Spanish and other non-English speaking households, and hearing impairment.
Within a household, respondents were chosen for interview using the Troldahl-Carter method. This method randomly selects a household member from a grid that includes information on the number of adult household members and the number of adult men in the household.
Each interview contained 90 questions and took an average of 17 minutes to complete. Length of interview ranged from a low of 10 minutes to a high of 30 minutes.
The surveys were designed in three stages over several months. In the first stage, UCI undergraduate students conducted face-to-face interviews on Orange county topics with randomly selected adult residents. The second stage involved feedback on questions and topics from the annual survey's steering Committee, Advisory committee and colleagues. The final stage included pre-tests, followed by final revisions of the questions.
The interview began with questions about housing, consumer confidence and perceptions of life in Orange County. These were followed by questions on growth, traffic and transportation issues. Later in the interview, we turned to the topics of charities, public education and child care. The conclusion of the survey was devoted to questions about work and commuting patterns, personal characteristics, household status and political views.The survey's validity was checked by comparing the sample's characteristics to available information on Orange County's population. We compared the 1987 survey results to the 1980 U. S. Census, previous annual surveys and other recent survey data. Age, income and other demographic features of our sample were comparable with those noted in other studies.For data analyses, we statistically weighted the sample to represent the actual regional distribution of Orange County residents.
Other efforts were made to correct for possible errors in the process of interviewing and data processing. Approximately 10 percent of the completed interviews were verified through callbacks. All questionnaires were checked by the interviewer supervisor immediately after completion. Finally, keypunched data were double-checked for all cases in the survey sample.The sampling error for this survey is +/-3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3 percentage pointsof what they would be if all adults in Orange county were interviewed. The sampling error for any subgroup would be larger.
Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also influenced by factors such as question wording, survey timing and other aspects of survey design.
Interviewing was conducted on weekend days and weekdaynights, using a random sample of 4,500 listed and unlisted telephone numbers. These telephone numbers were generated by computer from a list of working blocks of telephone exchanges. The telephone sample was generated by Pijacki and Associates of Shoreham, N.Y. The field work was conducted at the Center for Survey Research by UCI's Public Policy Research Organization.
Of the telephone numbers called, 22 percent resulted in completed interviews and 13 percent were refusals. The completion rate for the survey (completions divided by completions plus refusals) was 62 percent.
Other telephone outcomes included the following: 21 percent disconnected numbers; 15 percent businesses and government agencies; 7 percent persistent no answer; 2 percent persistent telephone answering machines; 2 percent computer lines; and 2 percent persistently unavailable respondents. Three percent were not completed because of language problems, including Spanish and other non-English speaking households, and hearing impairment.
Within a household, respondents were chosen for interview using the Troldahl-Carter method. This method randomly selects a household member from a grid that includes information on the number of adult household members and the number of adult men in the household.
Each interview contained 90 questions and took an average of 17 minutes to complete. Length of interview ranged from a low of 10 minutes to a high of 30 minutes.
The surveys were designed in three stages over several months. In the first stage, UCI undergraduate students conducted face-to-face interviews on Orange county topics with randomly selected adult residents. The second stage involved feedback on questions and topics from the annual survey's steering Committee, Advisory committee and colleagues. The final stage included pre-tests, followed by final revisions of the questions.
The interview began with questions about housing, consumer confidence and perceptions of life in Orange County. These were followed by questions on growth, traffic and transportation issues. Later in the interview, we turned to the topics of charities, public education and child care. The conclusion of the survey was devoted to questions about work and commuting patterns, personal characteristics, household status and political views.The survey's validity was checked by comparing the sample's characteristics to available information on Orange County's population. We compared the 1987 survey results to the 1980 U. S. Census, previous annual surveys and other recent survey data. Age, income and other demographic features of our sample were comparable with those noted in other studies.For data analyses, we statistically weighted the sample to represent the actual regional distribution of Orange County residents.
Other efforts were made to correct for possible errors in the process of interviewing and data processing. Approximately 10 percent of the completed interviews were verified through callbacks. All questionnaires were checked by the interviewer supervisor immediately after completion. Finally, keypunched data were double-checked for all cases in the survey sample.The sampling error for this survey is +/-3 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3 percentage pointsof what they would be if all adults in Orange county were interviewed. The sampling error for any subgroup would be larger.
Sampling error is just one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also influenced by factors such as question wording, survey timing and other aspects of survey design.