October 4, 2012
Be completely consistent about who is in the target population. Sometimes the reader is lead to believe the targeted population could be any of the following: 1. applicants who were interviewed, 2. applicants who applied, but were not interviewed, or 3. applicants who applied, and were interviewed, or 4. applicants who applied, were interviewed and were granted benefits. The language swings back and forth too much so that I cannot tell from reading the docket who is in the sampling frame.
Why is the sample split evenly between CBO’s and SNAP offices? Sample sizes should be allocated based on the variance of the strata. If there is no notion as to the variation across strata due to first-time study, then sample sizes should be allocated according to the anticipated variation in the strata. If there is no possibility of anticipating variation across strata, then allocate samples proportional to the strata population. This procedure is hinted at in the Sample Methodology for Stratification and Sample Selection. However, the FNS’s selection of 1000 CBO samples and 1000 SNAP samples is not consistent with these sample allocation principles.
Why is size of household a sub-strata? It is not referenced in the objectives. Why not benefits received per household size as a sub-strata?
Statistical comparison between two groups does not require equal sample sizes.
Systematic sampling for zipcode representation is good.
Why are mail returns not utilized? They are inexpensive and suitable for the responses you require. In other words, the instrument is not sufficiently difficult to require assistance from an enumerator. A pre-survey letter is to be sent to respondents; why not include a returnable paper questionnaire?
Shouldn’t the associated respondent gift be a one-time increase in the supplemental nutritional assistance benefit amount instead of cash?
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
Author | andeed |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 2021-01-30 |