scholarly journals Editor's Corner

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Laura Sare
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Management Planning ◽  
Operational Plan

Howdy everyone! It is 2020 and Census Day is April 1, 2020. There are many changes with the Census this year. Census 2020 will be the first census that people can respond to online. Sometimes people are not sure where to be counted (for example people in shelters and college students) and the Census Bureau has been working on this issue since 2015 (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census/about/residence-rule.html). For more information check out the 2020 Census Operational Plan—https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2020-census/planning-management/planning-docs/operational-plan.html.

Anthropologists at the census Bureau

1985 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy Hines
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Supervisory Control ◽  
Original Work ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Population Estimates ◽  
Demographic Analysis ◽  
Birth Death

The Census Bureau evaluates the quality of the decennial census in two ways: through a systematic reinterview program to check the original work; and through demographic analysis. Reinterviews replicate some of the original data collection as closely as possible under tight supervisory control or with supplementary questions. Demographic analysis compares population estimates (based on birth, death and immigration records) with census field results.

scholarly journals Differential privacy in the 2020 US census: what will it do? Quantifying the accuracy/privacy tradeoff

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Petti ◽  
Abraham Flaxman
Keyword(s):  
Census Data ◽  
Differential Privacy ◽  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
Computer Code ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Empirical Measure ◽  
Simple Random Sample ◽  
Us Census ◽  
Privacy Budget

Background: The 2020 US Census will use a novel approach to disclosure avoidance to protect respondents’ data, called TopDown. This TopDown algorithm was applied to the 2018 end-to-end (E2E) test of the decennial census. The computer code used for this test as well as accompanying exposition has recently been released publicly by the Census Bureau. Methods: We used the available code and data to better understand the error introduced by the E2E disclosure avoidance system when Census Bureau applied it to 1940 census data and we developed an empirical measure of privacy loss to compare the error and privacy of the new approach to that of a simple-random-sampling approach to protecting privacy. Results: We found that the empirical privacy loss of TopDown is substantially smaller than the theoretical guarantee for all privacy loss budgets we examined. When run on the 1940 census data, TopDown with a privacy budget of 1.0 was similar in error and privacy loss to that of a simple random sample of 50% of the US population. When run with a privacy budget of 4.0, it was similar in error and privacy loss of a 90% sample. Conclusions: This work fits into the beginning of a discussion on how to best balance privacy and accuracy in decennial census data collection, and there is a need for continued discussion.

scholarly journals When Race and Hispanic Origin Reporting are Discrepant Across Administrative Records and Third Party Sources: Exploring Methods to Assign Responses

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon R. Ennis ◽  
Sonya Rastogi ◽  
James Noon ◽  
Ellen Zapata
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Contextual Variables ◽  
Administrative Records ◽  
Hispanic Origin ◽  
Potential Use ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Census Bureau is researching uses of administrative records and third party data in survey and decennial census operations. One potential use of administrative records is to utilize these data when race and Hispanic origin responses are missing. When federal and third party administrative records are compiled, race and Hispanic origin responses are not always the same for an individual across sources. We explore different methods to assign one race and one Hispanic response when these responses are discrepant. We also describe the characteristics of individuals with matching, non-matching, and missing race and Hispanic origin data by demographic, household, and contextual variables. We find that minorities, especially Hispanics, are more likely to have non-matching Hispanic origin and race responses in administrative records and third party data compared to the 2010 Census. Minority groups and individuals ages 0-17 are more likely to have missing race or Hispanic origin data in administrative records and third party data. Larger households tend to have more missing race data in administrative records and third party data than smaller households.

Measuring Hispanic Origin: Reflections on Hispanic Race Reporting

2018 ◽  
Vol 677 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonya R. Porter ◽  
C. Matthew Snipp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Racial Group ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Hispanic Origin ◽  
Test Strategies

There are more than 50 million Hispanics in the United States, composing 16 percent of the population. Hispanics are also one of the fastest-growing race and ethnic groups. The American public often views and treats Hispanics as a racial group; yet 47 years after a Hispanic origin measure was added to the 1970 U.S. decennial census, and after numerous tests aimed at ameliorating racial measurement issues related to Hispanics, we continue to struggle with defining and measuring this population. In this article, we review literature about conceptual and measurement issues regarding Hispanic race reporting, evaluate public tabulations from one of the largest Census Bureau studies conducted in the 2010 Census to test strategies to improve race reporting for Hispanics, and discuss the opportunities and challenges of changing the race question on the decennial census to incorporate Hispanics.

scholarly journals Differential privacy in the 2020 US census: what will it do? Quantifying the accuracy/privacy tradeoff

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1722
Author(s):  
Samantha Petti ◽  
Abraham Flaxman
Keyword(s):  
Census Data ◽  
Differential Privacy ◽  
Simple Random Sampling ◽  
Computer Code ◽  
Census Bureau ◽  
Decennial Census ◽  
Empirical Measure ◽  
Simple Random Sample ◽  
Us Census ◽  
Privacy Budget

Background: The 2020 US Census will use a novel approach to disclosure avoidance to protect respondents’ data, called TopDown. This TopDown algorithm was applied to the 2018 end-to-end (E2E) test of the decennial census. The computer code used for this test as well as accompanying exposition has recently been released publicly by the Census Bureau. Methods: We used the available code and data to better understand the error introduced by the E2E disclosure avoidance system when Census Bureau applied it to 1940 census data and we developed an empirical measure of privacy loss to compare the error and privacy of the new approach to that of a (non-differentially private) simple-random-sampling approach to protecting privacy. Results: We found that the empirical privacy loss of TopDown is substantially smaller than the theoretical guarantee for all privacy loss budgets we examined. When run on the 1940 census data, TopDown with a privacy budget of 1.0 was similar in error and privacy loss to that of a simple random sample of 50% of the US population. When run with a privacy budget of 4.0, it was similar in error and privacy loss of a 90% sample. Conclusions: This work fits into the beginning of a discussion on how to best balance privacy and accuracy in decennial census data collection, and there is a need for continued discussion.

Lessons Learned From Coaching Postsecondary Students With Traumatic Brain Injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-96
Author(s):  
Mary R. T. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Sudden Onset ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Exhaustive List

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to provide speech-language pathologists with a brief update of the evidence that provides possible explanations for our experiences while coaching college students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Method The narrative text provides readers with lessons we learned as speech-language pathologists functioning as cognitive coaches to college students with TBI. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather to consider the recent scientific evidence that will help our understanding of how best to coach these college students. Conclusion Four lessons are described. Lesson 1 focuses on the value of self-reported responses to surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. Lesson 2 addresses the use of immediate/proximal goals as leverage for students to update their sense of self and how their abilities and disabilities may alter their more distal goals. Lesson 3 reminds us that teamwork is necessary to address the complex issues facing these students, which include their developmental stage, the sudden onset of trauma to the brain, and having to navigate going to college with a TBI. Lesson 4 focuses on the need for college students with TBI to learn how to self-advocate with instructors, family, and peers.

Effects of Physical Training on Stuttering

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Don Franks ◽  
Elizabeth B. Franks
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Group Therapy ◽  
Physical Training ◽  
Cardiovascular Response ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Physical Stress ◽  
Submaximal Exercise ◽  
Endurance Running ◽  
Response To Exercise

Eight college students enrolled in group therapy for stuttering were divided into two equal groups for 20 weeks. The training group supplemented therapy with endurance running and calisthenics three days per week. The subjects were tested prior to and at the conclusion of the training on a battery of stuttering tests and cardiovascular measures taken at rest, after stuttering, and after submaximal exercise. There were no significant differences (0.05 level) prior to training. At the conclusion of training, the training group was significandy better in cardiovascular response to exercise and stuttering. Although physical training did not significantly aid the reduction of stuttering as measured in this study, training did cause an increased ability to adapt physiologically to physical stress and to the stress of stuttering.

The Effects of a Neutral Stimulus (Buzzer) on Motor Responses and Disfluencies in Normal Speakers

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Martin ◽  
Gerald M. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Motor Responses ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
And Control ◽  
Speaking Task

Seventy-two college students were divided into three groups: Button Push-Speech (BP-S), Speech-Button Push (S-BP), and Control. BP-S subjects pushed one of two buttons on signal for 8 min. During the last 4 min, depression of the criterion button caused a buzzer to sound. After the button-push task, subjects spoke spontaneously for 30 min. During the last 20 min, the buzzer was presented contingent upon each disfluency. S-BP subjects were run under the same procedures, but the order of button-push and speech tasks was reversed. Control subjects followed the same procedures as S-BP subjects, but no buzzer signal was presented at any time. Both S-BP and BP-S subjects emitted significantly fewer disfluencies during the last 20 min (Conditioning) than during the first 10 min (Baserate) of the speaking task. The frequency of disfluencies for Control subjects did not change significantly from Baserate to Conditioning. In none of the three groups did the frequency of pushes on the criterion button change significantly from minute to minute throughout the 8-min button-push session.

Distinctive Phonetic Features as Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Dimensions in Speech-Sound Discrimination Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Irrelevant Dimension ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Irrelevant Stimulus ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document