Methods

The 2005 Household Health Survey was a population-based statewide household telephone survey. The University of Northern Iowa Center for Social and Behavioral Research was contracted to complete the data collection for the survey. An oversample of African-American and Latino children was also completed in order to have a sample that included at least 200 children in each of those two racial/ethnic groups.

 

Phone numbers dialed included a combination of random digit dial and targeted phone numbers obtained from a private vendor. Targeted lists came from a variety of resources including white pages and other lists (e.g., voter registration, magazine subscriptions, warranty cards, census data). Screening questions were asked to determine if the number was connected to a private residence, and if so, if there was at least one child living in the household. The survey questions were answered by the ‘adult most knowledgeable about the health and well-being’ of one randomly chosen child in the household, and the questions were asked about that child.

 

The data collection, not counting the oversample, yielded 3674 cases, 78% from the targeted sample and 22% from randomly dialed numbers.

 

Respondents were primarily mothers (77%) and fathers (18%). The other 5% of respondents included grandmothers (2%), step-parents (2%), and 1% other relatives and guardians. Because 95% of the respondents were either a mother or father, respondents will be referred to as ‘parents’ throughout this report.

 

In order to account for biases related to design and data collection factors, the data used in this report were weighted to provide a representative sample of children in Iowa. Weighting first consisted of accounting for biases related to family size (i.e., the sampling design originally biased the sample toward children in smaller families because the chances of being the child chosen for the survey were much higher. A child in a one-child household was twice as likely to be the ‘chosen’ child as a child in a two-child household, etc.).

 

Also factored into the weighting were biases related to having a partially targeted sample as opposed to a totally random sample. Results from the targeted calls were compared with random digit dial data, and both were compared to externally collected data sources. The data were then weighted to match the income and age distribution from the 2000 Census. 

 

Finally, a weight related to the design effect was added for the analysis in order to make statistical testing more conservatively accurate. Weights for individual cases range from .51 to 5.09, with a mean weight of .6163.

 

For these analyses, results were reevaluated for different age categories of children (ages 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15-17) and for three different income categories (lower: <133% FPL, moderate: 133-200% FPL, and higher: >200% FPL.