2018
DOI: 10.1097/ede.0000000000000861
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Misclassification of Rental Assistance in the National Health Interview Survey

Abstract: False-negative reporting of rental assistance is moderately high in the NHIS, but we did not find evidence that it independently biased estimates of the association of health and rental assistance.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We create three mutually exclusive categories: those receiving assistance, those on a waiting list for assistance and not currently receiving another form of assistance, and those who are neither on a waiting list nor receiving assistance. Previous work suggests that self-report of rental assistance can be unreliable, 31 in part because of the multiple and inconsistent terms individuals use to denote participation in assistance programs. We improve on prior surveys by asking participants if they have ever applied for, are currently receiving, or are on a waitlist for each form of rental assistance that is available in New Haven.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We create three mutually exclusive categories: those receiving assistance, those on a waiting list for assistance and not currently receiving another form of assistance, and those who are neither on a waiting list nor receiving assistance. Previous work suggests that self-report of rental assistance can be unreliable, 31 in part because of the multiple and inconsistent terms individuals use to denote participation in assistance programs. We improve on prior surveys by asking participants if they have ever applied for, are currently receiving, or are on a waitlist for each form of rental assistance that is available in New Haven.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, no respondents under the age of 18 were eligible for linkage to the HUD record in these years. Respondents who did not provide enough information to be linked tended to be younger and were more likely to be Hispanic compared to the general population (Boudreaux, Fenelon, and Slopen forthcoming). NCHS created adjusted weights that accounted for nonrandom linkage eligibility so that estimates from the linkage-eligible sample were representative of the entire civilian noninstitutionalized U.S. population (Lloyd and Helms 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Administrative records are necessary to overcome biases from self-reports of rental assistance participation. 25 To adjust for potential bias, the National Center for Health Statistics created weights that account for linkage eligibility and nonresponse to make estimates representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population. 24 The Penn State institutional review board exempted the study from review and informed consent because it was not human participants research and the data were deidentified.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HUD administrative record contains longitudinal information on HUD rental assistance entry and exit and the type of housing program (project-based housing or voucher); these data were used to generate a record of rental assistance spells across the study period. Administrative records are necessary to overcome biases from self-reports of rental assistance participation . To adjust for potential bias, the National Center for Health Statistics created weights that account for linkage eligibility and nonresponse to make estimates representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%