Sample Weights and Variance Estimation Sample Clauses

Sample Weights and Variance Estimation. In the database “MEPS HC-028: 1998 Full Year Population Characteristics,” weight variables are provided for estimation purposes. Procedures and considerations associated with the construction and interpretation of person and family-level estimates using these and other variables are discussed below. Response Rates In order to produce annual health care estimates for calendar year 1998 based on the full MEPS sample, data will also need to be pooled across the second and third MEPS national samples. More specifically, full calendar year 1998 data collected in Rounds 3 through 5 for the MEPS Panel 2 sample are pooled with data from the first three rounds of data collection for the MEPS Panel 3 sample (the general approach is illustrated below—the anomaly of having the reference periods of some RUs in Panel 3, Round 2 extend into 1999 has been ignored here for purposes of clarity). Overall, the full 1998 MEPS household sample consists of approximately 9,023 reporting units (where student Rus are linked to parent RUs for this count) which include 22,953 individuals that completed the full series of MEPS interviews for their entire period of eligibility, providing the necessary information to produce national use estimates for calendar year 1998. 1997 1998 1999 Jan Jan Dec Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Panel 3 1998-99 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Jan Panel 2 1997-98 Panel 2 Conditioned on response to Rounds 1-3 of the Panel 2 MEPS, of 13,067 key and inscope individuals eligible for data collection in 1998, 12,260 (93.82 percent) provided data for their entire period of eligibility. Consequently, after factoring in the impact of survey attrition, the overall Panel 2 MEPS person-level response rate for deriving annual estimates was 64.95 percent (.6923 x .9382). Of these full year respondents for calendar year 1998, 12,086 were in scope on December 31, 1998. Panel 3 Conditioned on response to Round 1 of the Panel 3 MEPS, of 11,379 key and inscope individuals eligible for data collection in 1998, 10,693 (93.97 percent) provided data for their entire period of eligibility. Consequently, after factoring in the impact of survey attrition, the overall Panel 3 MEPS person-level response rate for deriving annual estimates was 70.76 percent (.753 x .9397). Of these full year respondents for calendar year 1998, 10,544 were in scope on December 31, 1998.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Sample Weights and Variance Estimation. In the HC-018 file, a weight variable is provided for estimation purposes. Procedures and considerations associated with the construction and interpretation of person estimates using this and other variables are discussed below. Response Rates In order to produce annual health care estimates for calendar year 1997 based on the full MEPS sample, data will also need to be pooled across the first two MEPS national samples. More specifically, full calendar year 1997 data collected in Rounds 3 through 5 for the MEPS Panel 1 sample are pooled with data from the first three rounds of data collection for the MEPS Panel 2 sample (for details, see H-020, Survey Sample Information, Section 3.0). Overall, the full 1997 MEPS household sample will consist of approximately 13,000 reporting units which include 32,636 individuals that completed the full series of MEPS interviews for their entire period of eligibility, providing the necessary information to produce national use and expenditure estimates for calendar year 1997.
Sample 1
Sample Weights and Variance Estimation. In the dataset MEPS HC-189: 2016 Food Security Data File, a weight variable is provided for generating MEPS estimates of totals, means, percentages, and rates for families in the civilian noninstitutionalized population. Procedures and considerations associated with the construction and interpretation of family estimates using these and other variables are discussed below.
Sample 1

Related to Sample Weights and Variance Estimation

  • Cost Estimating The Model may be used to develop cost estimates based on the approximate data provided and conceptual estimating techniques (e.g., volume and quantity of elements or type of system selected).

  • Cost Estimate An estimate of the total project cost including but not limited to direct expenses, indirect expenses, land cost, and capital expenses.

  • Cost Estimates If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY.

  • Estimates and Reconciliation of Estimates Where estimated expenditures are used to determine the amount of the drawdown, the State will indicate in the terms of the State unique funding technique how the estimated amount is determined and when and how the State will reconcile the difference between the estimate and the State's actual expenditures.

  • Volume Estimate The estimated volumes of timber by species designated for cutting under B2.3 and expected to be cut under Utilization Standards are listed in A2. If Sale Area Map indicates that there are incom- pletely Marked subdivisions, the objective of Forest Ser- vice shall be to designate for cutting in such subdivisions sufficient timber so that Sale Area shall yield the ap- proximate estimated volume by species or species groups stated in A2. However, the estimated volumes stated in A2 are not to be construed as guarantees or limitations of the timber volumes to be designated for cut- ting under the terms of this contract. Volume adjustments shall not be made under this Section after there is modification for Catastrophic Dam- age under B8.32.

  • ESTIMATED / SPECIFIC QUANTITY CONTRACTS Estimated quantity contracts, also referred to as indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity contracts, are expressly agreed and understood to be made for only the quantities, if any, actually ordered during the Contract term. No guarantee of any quantity is implied or given. With respect to any specific quantity stated in the contract, the Commissioner reserves the right after award to order up to 20% more or less (rounded to the next highest whole number) than the specific quantities called for in the Contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may purchase greater or lesser percentages of Contract quantities should the Commissioner and Contractor so agree. Such agreement may include an equitable price adjustment.

  • Baseline For purposes of measuring a reduction in net tax revenue, the interim final rule measures actual changes in tax revenue relative to a revenue baseline (baseline). The baseline will be calculated as fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) tax revenue indexed for inflation in each year of the covered period, with inflation calculated using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Implicit Price Deflator.163 FY 2019 was chosen as the starting year for the baseline because it is the last full fiscal year prior to the COVID– 162 See, e.g., Tax Policy Center, How do state earned income tax credits work?, https:// xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxx-xxxx/xxx-xx- state-earned-income-tax-credits-work/ (last visited May 9, 2021).

  • Problem Statement School bus fleets are aging, and our communities have poor air quality. Replacing school buses with zero emission school buses will address both of these issues.

  • Construction Cost Estimate At 50% completion of the contract documents, the design team will present and submit copies of the project plans and manual. The Construction Administrator will prepare and issue the fourth of five construction cost estimates. The estimate shall be derived from actual takeoffs, subcontractor and vendor input, and material and labor cost data. All quantitative systems information shall be provided in detail.

  • Completion of Evaluation Cycle 1. The summative evaluation rating shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, assessed in a holistic manner, that is aligned to the Ohio Educator Standards. Only evidence gathered during the walkthroughs and formal observations that are conducted for the current school year may be used.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.