Some aspects of the use of birth expectations data from sample surveys for population projections
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10969883 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jacob S Siegel (Population Division, United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 20233, corresponding author), Donald S Akers (Population Division, United States Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 20233) |
| Year | 1969 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 101-115 |
| Publication date | 1969-05-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Demography (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0070-3370 • E-ISSN: 1533-7790 |
| Publisher | Duke University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2060384 |
| OpenAlex | W1999937774 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 14 |
The value of national sample survey data relating to birth expectations for projecting births is reassessed in the light of data limitations pointed out by Ryder and Westoff among others and of the methods of projection used by the United States Bureau of the Census. The annual level of fertility under the cohort-fertility projection method depends on the assumptions regarding completed fertility, about which the available survey data are fairly informative, and on the assumptions regarding the timing of births, about which the survey data tell us very little. Test calculations suggest that Ryder and Westoff have overstated the significance of timing relative to completed family size for the level of future births. We believe that the fall in the annual total fertility rate in the first half of the sixties is to be explained only in part by a general delay in childbearing; a moderate to substantial decrease in completed family size has also occurred. Analysis of the latest set of fertility projections of the Census Bureau also suggests that the assumptions about completed fertility are a much more important determinant of the level of future births than timing, both in the short and long term. Although the available expectations data cannot help in predicting short-term annual changes in fertility, they appear useful for making long-term projections of annual fertility. Expansion of the size, frequency, and content of the sample surveys and incorporation of parity and birth interval into the projection method may improve projections
Birth rate · Census · Demographic analysis · Family planning · Fertility · Geography · Population · Population projection · Projections of population growth · Research methodology · Sample (material · Sample size determination · Sociology · Statistics · Survey data collection · Total fertility rate · Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy · Demography · Family Dynamics and Relationships · Global Maternal and Child Health · Mathematics
Pearsonian Type I curve and its fertility projection potentials
Assesssing Cohort Birth Expectations Data from the Current Population Survey, 1971–1981
New evidence on the value of birth expectations
Patterns of American Jewish Fertility
The three R's
Expectations of additional children by race, parity, and selected socio-economic characteristics, United States
A three parameter model for birth projections
Family planning, sterility and population growth
Fertility and Family Planning in the United States
Family size in the 1960's—a baffling fad?
The Trend of Expected Parity in the United States
Ideal family size among white Americans
Recent Trends in Childspacing Among American Women
The process of demographic translation
Stability and change in expectations about family size
Cohort fertility versus parity progression as methods of projecting births
Recent trends in childspacing among American women
| Citations per year | 0.13 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1971 - 1983 (13) |
| Highly cited | No |