Home » Data » Weighting data » Domestic violence weight, denormalize, pooled cross-section, cross-tabulation
| Domestic violence weight, denormalize, pooled cross-section, cross-tabulation [message #10047] |
Mon, 20 June 2016 05:37  |
RenaM
Messages: 6
Registered: May 2015
|
Member |
|
|
Dear DHS users,
I explore associations between experience of domestic violence, including marital controlling behavior, and health (measured using anthropometry data and information on anemia status). I will use all individual-level DHS survey data sets that feature a complete domestic violence module and measurements for BMI and anemia for the same women, yielding 22 datasets (2000 to 2014, I ignored older data sets).
The main reason I pooled the data is to have enough observations to be able to look at different combinations of violence and marital controlling behavior (e.g. any violence AND controlling behavior, physical violence AND controlling behavior, physical violence AND NO controlling behavior). I always use a completely "clean comparison group" consisting of women who did not experience any violence at all. Before running logistic regressions (binary dep.var: "BMI below 18.5", or "Has any anemia"), I would like to create meaningful cross-tabulations (mostly oneway and twoway for anthropometric indicators, dv indicators and main control variables).
Now Im confused about denormalized weights for pooled data and results of descriptive statistics.
- Is it valid to denormalize domestic violence weights even if they only apply to a subgroup (those selected for dv module)?
(DHS forum posts apply to v005 and the like)
- In my cross-tabulations, frequencies are large numbers and seem to be estimates of the total population of my survey countries. This seems dodgy because the numbers do not represent the actual number of observations in my pooled sample anymore. I've never seen any tabulation like that in any paper. Should I have applied any other adjustments to the domestic violence weight?
- For a pooled sample including countries from several regions (South and Central Asia, Africa, Latin America), is there any other meaningful way to weight the data? Or may I ignore weights and svy adjustments in cross-tabulations for pooled data alltogether since my dataset anyway does not represent a certain world region?
So far, I followed other DHS forum posts on the topic, and did the following in Stata for each country BEFORE pooling the data:
1) divided d005 by 1000000 (=d005_pw)
2) De-normalized weights:
gen d005_pwpool=d005_pw*(total population of women, age 15-49, at the time of the survey/number of women in the resulting domestic violence subsample)
sum d005_pwpool, detail
[d005_pwpool sums up to the total pop of women, 15-49, at the time of the survey]
3) I executed the svy command in the pooled dataset, including unique codes for each country's psu and strata:
svyset [pweight=d005_pwpool], psu(psu_pool) strata(strata_pool)
Then, I ran cross-tabulations using tabout and svy, e.g:
tabout agecat residence indexwealth edulevel occup_pool reli_pool ///
if subgroup==1 using pool0.xls, ///
svy oneway cells (freq) clab(_ _ _) ///
format(0c) layout(rb) h3(nil) npos(row) replace
"Subgroup" is an indicator for the subsample of observations without missing values and excludes pregnant women/women who gave birth in the preceding 2 months.
Looking forward to any helpful hints, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Domestic violence weight, denormalize, pooled cross-section, cross-tabulation
By: RenaM on Mon, 20 June 2016 05:37 |
|
|
Re: Domestic violence weight, denormalize, pooled cross-section, cross-tabulation
|
|
|
Re: Domestic violence weight, denormalize, pooled cross-section, cross-tabulation
By: RenaM on Wed, 29 June 2016 17:55 |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 25 15:35:59 Coordinated Universal Time 2024
|
The DHS Program User Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
