published_or_final_version / Statistics and Actuarial Science / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Statistics and Actuarial Science / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Statistics / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Statistics and Actuarial Science / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Statistics and Actuarial Science / Master / Master of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / abstract / Statistics and Actuarial Science / Master / Master of Philosophy

This study evaluates the results of three widely used methods for preparing postcensa estimates of counties. The methods are Census Bureau’s Component Method II, the Ratio Correlation Method and the Bogue-Duncan Composite Method. Hypotheses based upon empirical generalizations from previous comparative studies are tested. Statistical tools used are Average Percent Deviation (without regard to sign) and Standard Deviation of Percent Errors. Directional bias and frequency of extreme error are also examined. Evaluations are conducted of the accuracy of the estimates for groups of counties stratified in terms of density and growth rate dimensions. With few exceptions, Ratio Correlation produces consistently better results. The ecological fallacy is illustrated in the application of national migration assumptions, to groups of constituent counties. Averaging the results of different methods does not produce appreciably greater accuracy. Other techniques may be useful in Oregon as benchmarks upon which to evaluate the reasonableness of Ratio Correlation estimates. Efforts in Oregon should be directed toward developing additional and/or more refined data series to be used in Ratio Correlation.