| Title |
The Quality of Male Fertility Data in Major U.S. Surveys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Demography, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13524-011-0073-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kara Joyner, H. Elizabeth Peters, Kathryn Hynes, Asia Sikora, Jamie Rubenstein Taber, Michael S. Rendall |
| Abstract |
Researchers continue to question fathers' willingness to report their biological children in surveys and the ability of surveys to adequately represent fathers. To address these concerns, this study evaluates the quality of men's fertility data in the 1979 and 1997 cohorts of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79 and NLSY97) and in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Comparing fertility rates in each survey with population rates based on data from Vital Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, we document how the incomplete reporting of births in different surveys varies according to men's characteristics, including their age, race, marital status, and birth cohort. In addition, we use Monte Carlo simulations based on the NSFG data to demonstrate how birth underreporting biases associations between early parenthood and its antecedents. We find that in the NSFG, roughly four out of five early births were reported; but in the NLSY79 and NLSY97, almost nine-tenths of early births were reported. In all three surveys, incomplete reporting was especially pronounced for nonmarital births. Our results suggest that the quality of male fertility data is strongly linked to survey design and that it has implications for models of early male fertility. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 63 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 24% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 35 | 53% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,660,236
of 23,221,875 outputs
Outputs from Demography
#452
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,170
of 245,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Demography
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,221,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 245,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.