OMB_ss_b_041118

Supporting Statement B for Request for Clearance:

NATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH

OMB No. 0920-0314

(expires May 31, 2018)

April 11, 2018

Contact Information:

Anjani Chandra, Ph.D., Health Scientist

Principal Investigator and Team Lead

National Survey of Family Growth Team

Division of Vital Statistics/Reproductive Statistics Branch

CDC/National Center for Health Statistics

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5414

Hyattsville, MD. 20782

301-458-4138

301-458-4034 (fax)

achandra@cdc.gov

SECTION B

Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

Table of Contents for Supporting Statement B

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods 3

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information 7

3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with No Response 14

4. Tests of Procedures or Methods to be Undertaken 17

5. Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects and Individual Collecting and/or

Analyzing Data 18

References 20

(The reference list includes all references cited throughout the NSFG OMB submission, with the exception of Attachment O, which includes a separate reference list.)

List of Attachments (abridged from full listing shown in SS A):

1. Authorizing Legislation

B. 60-Day Federal Register Notice and Public Comments

C. Justifications for Sensitive Questions in the Self-administered (ACASI) part of the Survey

D. A Review of the Use of Incentives in the NSFG

E. List of publications from the latest file releases

F. Memoranda from other offices and agencies

G. Consultation outside the agency

H. Respondent Materials for the NSFG

I. NSFG Household Screener Questionnaire

J. Female Questionnaire

K. Male Questionnaire

L. Verification Questionnaires

M. Interviewer Observation Form

N. IRB Approval Form for the NSFG

O. Non-Response Bias Analyses for the continuous NSFG

P. Split Study Preliminary Results

NOTE: The sample design used beginning in 2015 is similar in most respects to the sample

design of the 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 surveys. A description of the sample design details for fieldwork from 2011 to 2015 are contained in two sets of web-based documents, one for each of two fieldwork periods and data file releases: 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/nsfg_2011_2013_sampledesign.pdf and https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG_2013-2015_Sample_Design_Documentation.pdf )

Selected aspects of the design and statistical outcomes are available for the four-year period 2011-2015 as well, on the webpages for the 2013-2015 NSFG. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2013_2015_puf.htm, “2011-2015 Data Collection Summary”

Further details on the sample design that were carried forward to the NSFG for 2011 and beyond are contained in 2 reports on the 2006-2010 NSFG (Lepkowski et al., 2010; Lepkowski et al., 2013).

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

Summary: The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is based on a national area probability sample. The first stage involves the selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). To control costs, a smaller number of PSUs is selected for inclusion than was the case during periodic interviewing (last conducted in 2002). Across the 8 years of data collection planned (2011-2019), there are a total of 21 “self-representing” (SR) PSUs, defined as PSUs that were automatically included in national probability samples due to their large population, and an additional 192 non-self-representing (NSR) PSUs, defined as PSUs selected into the NSFG sample that represent not only themselves but other non-self-representing PSUs, for a total of 213 PSUs, plus 2 for Alaska and Hawaii. A subset of these 215 PSUs is selected for each 2-year sampling period (35 are selected each year). For example, for the 2-year period 2013-2015, there are 65 PSUs: 17 SR and 48 NSR PSUs.

Each year, about 15,000 households are contacted, in order to yield approximately 5,000 interviews annually. Each year of data is an independent national sample, but the desired sample size and precision for several key estimates and statistics are attained after about 4 years of interviewing (Sept 2011-Sept 2015 already completed; Sept 2015-Sept 2019 underway). In addition, despite each year of fieldwork being designed to yield nationally representative data, sample weights are only constructed for 2 years of data, which is the minimum timespan for NSFG public use file releases that permit statistically reliable estimates to be made.

Target Population: Since September 2015, the target population of the National Survey of Family Growth has been the household population 15-49 years of age. The NSFG sample excludes current residents of military bases and institutions (e.g., long-term hospitals, jails, prisons). College students temporarily away from their homes at college are included by sampling them at their home address; they can be interviewed either at home or at college.

Details of the NSFG Sample Design: The sample is selected in 5 stages:

(1) The first stage involves selection of Primary Sampling Units (Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, or groups of adjacent counties) from the 2,149 PSUs on the sampling frame comprised of the 50 United States plus the District of Columbia. PSUs are stratified according to attributes such as Census Division, MSA status, and size, then one or two PSUs are selected from each stratum with the probability of selection proportionate to population size (PPS) —that is, PSUs with large populations have a larger chance of selection than PSUs with smaller populations. The PSUs with the largest populations have a probability of selection equal to 1.0, and are included every year. For more information on this stage of sample design, see National Center for Health Statistics, 2017.

(2) The second stage involves selection of Secondary Sampling Units (SSUs or segments) within PSUs. These are composed of one or more Census blocks with a minimum measure of size equal to 50 housing units (HUs). SSUs in domains with higher proportions of black and Hispanic persons have relatively higher combined PSU, SSU, and HU selection rates. These weighted measures of size and sampling rates are set such that interviews with black and Hispanic respondents each constitute about 20% of all interviews. Each PSU is assigned one or two University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR) interviewers based on its relative size. For each interviewer, 12 SSUs are selected each year with the PPS method. These SSUs are then randomly divided into 4 groups, with one group of 3 SSUs assigned to each calendar quarter.

(3) Selection of households: For the third stage of selection, interviewers update commercially-available lists (based on the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File (DSF)) of housing units for SSUs where these lists are available or, alternatively, create such a list from scratch where they are not available. Once these lists are updated, a sample of housing units is selected systematically from geographically-sorted lists of housing units, beginning from a random start. Beginning in Quarter 13 (2013), a sample design change was implemented with the goal of increasing the percentage of screened households that contain an eligible person. This was accomplished by stratifying housing units based on a prediction of whether the unit contained an eligible person. The model was selected and estimated using data from previous quarters where the binary eligibility outcome was measured. Key predictors in this model included commercial data that estimate whether an eligible person is in the household. The predicted probability of there being an eligible person in the household was used to create strata and then oversample the stratum or strata with higher expected eligibility (see [methodology document p.17] for a description of sampling rate adjustment factors within each stratum). As has been done since 2006, after an advance letter is sent to each selected household informing them about the study (Attachment H1), the selected units are then contacted by ISR interviewers to determine if any members of the household are eligible (persons age 15-49 at the time of the screening interview). A full household roster is obtained during the screening interview to identify eligible household members.

(4) Selection of individuals: In households with eligible persons, a fourth stage of selection involves selecting one of the eligible persons. The within-household selection rates are set so that about 20% of all interviews are with teens aged 15-19 and 55% of all interviews are with females. These rates are programmed into an algorithm in the computerized screener instrument, which operates to select a respondent after all household members’ information has been collected. The identity of the selected respondent is filled into the screener script so the interviewer can ask about his/her availability. Respondents who agree to complete the main NSFG interview are given a $40 cash token of appreciation.

(5) Selection of “nonresponders” for Phase 2: As was done in the NSFG for 2006-2010 and 2011-2015, NSFG continues to use a two-phase sampling approach as a fifth stage of selection. Each quarter, during week 10, a subsample of active, non-responding cases (among both households that have not completed a screener and individuals who have not completed a main interview) is selected for continued follow-up. In weeks 11 and 12, this subsample receives a special mailed advance incentive ($5 if a household screener and $40 if a main study respondent) and the interviewers focus their effort on the fewer cases left in the subsample. These advance incentives are in addition to the $40 given to respondents in person when agreeing to complete the main interview.

The rotating feature of the PSUs permits a cost efficiency of ongoing sampling and data collection operations by using the field interviewing staff and funding in an optimal manner. It further offers at any single year a full national sample for the study, albeit with standard errors of estimates larger than those of the 2- or 4-year cumulative sample.

Group quarters with special living arrangements, such as dormitories, institutions, convents, or institutional group homes (for convicts, the frail elderly, or the developmentally disabled) may be listed but will not be selected for interviewing, because they are outside the scope of a sample of the household population. Dormitory residents who otherwise live with their parents will be sampled at their parents’ homes. Members of the active duty military who live in civilian housing (not on military bases) will be eligible for the sample. The NSFG is a personal, in-home survey. Non- face-to-face contacts, including by telephone, e-mail or text, are permitted only to arrange appointments for interviews after the screener has been conducted, and telephone mode is permitted for verification interviews (Attachment L) to ensure that the household was screened and, if applicable, the selected household member completed an interview.

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information

The sample size targets for the NSFG are as follows:

Sample Size Targets for NSFG Continuous Interviewing 2011-2019

with 2002 (Cycle 6) and 2006-10 sample sizes shown for comparison

4-year 4-year 4-year

Cycle 6 Continuous Continuous Continuous

2002 2006-2010 2011-2015 2015-2019*

TOTAL 12,571 22,682 20,621 20,000

15-19 2,271 4,662 4,134 4,000

20-49** 10,300 18,020 16,487 16,000

Male 4,928 10,403 9,321 9,000

Female 7,643 12,279 11,300 11,000

Hispanic 2,712 5,132 4,753 4,000

Black 2,460 4,389 4,260 4,000

White & other 7,399 13,161 11,608 12,000

*Subject to change based on available funding and fieldwork conditions

**The NSFG age range was expanded to 15-49 beginning in September 2015.

The current contractor for the NSFG is the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR; Mick Couper, Project Director, and Heidi Guyer, Field Director). Under the supervision and monitoring of NCHS, ISR recruits and trains the interviewers for the NSFG and carries out the fieldwork. The main steps in the fieldwork are described below.

Main steps in NSFG fieldwork: All advance letters, informed consent/assent forms, and informational materials used with NSFG households and respondents are shown in Attachments H1-H7. For the advance letters shown in attachments H1 and H2, separate versions are used for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of each fieldwork quarter. As described above, the 1^st 10 weeks of each 12-week fieldwork quarter involve full effort on all sample lines selected for the survey, while the last 2 weeks (weeks 11-12) involve more focused effort on a subsample of the households and respondents who did not respond during phase 1. In Phase 1, the only cash incentive is $40 given to respondents in person after they agree to participate in the main interview. In Phase 2, an advance $5 incentive is mailed to selected households who have not yet completed the household screener, and an advance $40 is mailed to selected individuals who have not yet completed the main interview. This $40 is in addition to the $40 she or he will be given in person when agreeing to the main interview. Only adults 18-49 can be selected for Phase 2. Apart from this difference in incentive structure for Phases 1 and 2, there are no other differences in the process of contacting NSFG households and respondents and gaining cooperation.

(1) Before contacting any sampled households, the contractor sends an advance household letter signed by the NCHS Director (Attachment H1) and an informational question-and-answer brochure (Attachment H4) to each sampled household. These materials, in English and Spanish, explain who is sponsoring the NSFG, who is conducting the interviews, why the survey is being done, and the voluntary and confidential nature of the survey. NCHS staff and NSFG-trained personnel at the University of Michigan are available by phone through 800 numbers to answer any questions householders who receive the advance materials may have. In addition to the respondent Q&A brochure shown in Attachment H4, the interviewer has other materials to help explain the survey and gain cooperation:

• NCHS Confidentiality Brochure (Attachment H5) to explain the laws and other procedures in place to protect confidentiality of all NSFG households and respondents

• NSFG Family Fact Sheet (Attachment H6) to illustrate selected uses of the survey data, and reiterate that data are in aggregate form for statistical purposes only

• Interviewer’s Letter of Authorization (Attachment H7), which along with the interviewer’s official University of Michigan badge, helps establish the legitimacy of her purpose in approaching the selected household or respondent.

(2) Approximately 1 week after the advance materials are mailed, interviewers go to the sampled households. When the housing unit is found to be occupied and there is a person (18 or older) at home, the screener interview (Attachment I) is conducted. The purpose of the screener is to enumerate/list the persons living in the household and their ages, and if one or more are 15-49 years of age, to select one. Age, race, and Hispanic origin are collected in the screener because teenagers, Blacks, and Hispanics are selected at somewhat higher rates than other persons. Advance respondent letters (Attachment H2) are shared in person with the selected respondent prior to seeking their consent for the main interview.

(3) Attachment H3 shows all consent and assent forms used for the NSFG, regardless of the phase of the fieldwork quarter.

When a person 18-49 years of age is selected for the main interview:

The interviewer gives the selected person an Adult Consent Form. No signature is requested or required to provide their consent, however a signature is requested on the receipt for the $40 cash incentive offered to the respondent.

When a minor 15-17 years of age is selected from the main interview:

The interviewer first seeks signed parental consent before approaching the teenager to introduce the survey. In selected states in the U.S. (3 as of this writing), the age of majority differs from age 18, and NSFG follows these state rules for use of the parental consent process. The parental consent form is used to explain the survey to the minor's mother, father, or legal guardian, and ask for their signed/written consent. If the parent gives written consent, only then does the interviewer speak to the minor and obtain his or her written assent, using the “Minor Assent” form, before proceeding with the main interview. If either the parent does not give written consent for the minor to participate, or the minor does not assent to be interviewed, the case is treated as a refusal.

Emancipated minors - 15-17 year-olds who are married, cohabiting, or living away from their parents for other reasons are rare in a sample of this size. Emancipated minors have been excluded from the continuous NSFG because the number of emancipated minors selected for the NSFG is so small that excluding this group is unlikely to have any noticeable impact on estimates. Using current IRB rules, however, including them would require special procedures that are too complex and too costly for the NSFG.

(4) Once the respondent agrees to be interviewed, the interviewer gives him or her $40 cash incentive as a token of appreciation. The respondent can keep this incentive even if he or she does not finish the interview. (Break-offs are rare in this survey—less than 1 percent.) As noted above, the respondent is asked to sign a receipt to acknowledge this payment.

(5) Then the interview is conducted using the female or male questionnaires shown in Attachments J and K, using a laptop computer. The interview is divided into two parts, totaling 80 minutes on average for females and 60 minutes on average for males. The interviewer administers the first part of the interview, which typically comprises 2/3 to ¾ of the overall interview length. This use of the computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), since 1995 NSFG, makes the interviewer's job easier and reduces interviewer errors because she does not need to determine question wording or routing herself by reading a paper questionnaire. In addition to producing higher quality interview data, the use of CAPI also helps to protect respondent confidentiality because the laptop screen can be blanked with a single key stroke or the laptop cover can be closed if another person enters the area where the interview is being collected.

(6) Finally, at the end of the interviewer-administered interview, the interviewer gives the respondent a set of headphones and the computer, and shows the respondent how to make simple entries on the computer. The respondent then completes a 15-20 minute ACASI section (female section J in Attachment J, and male section K in Attachment K). The interviewer cannot see or hear what questions the respondent is being asked over the headphones, nor can she see or hear the answers that the respondent enters into the computer. Moreover, no one in the household can hear or see either the questions or the answers. This increased privacy has been found to increase the reporting of sensitive behaviors.

While the respondent is filling out the ACASI part of the interview, the interviewer completes the Interview Observation Form (Attachment M). This formalizes the field notes that have been collected in less structured form since the 1973 NSFG, on the location where the interview was done, documenting whether there were interruptions during the interview, and the interviewer’s assessment of the quality of the data. (The Interview Observation Form is filled out only by the interviewer; no questions are asked of the respondent; therefore, there isn’t any public respondent burden related to this activity.)

(7) At the end of the ACASI section, the respondent “locks” the computer and returns it to the interviewer. The interviewer then turns off the computer, thanks the respondent, and leaves. Once the respondent locks the interview, the interviewer cannot back up and see the respondent’s answers to the ACASI portion, nor any answers to the questions that came before ACASI.

Quality control: Computer-assisted interviewing (both CAPI and ACASI) improves data quality in several ways:

(a) Interviewer errors are reduced because interviewers do not have to follow complex routing instructions; the computer does it for them. Interviewer errors in following skip patterns were a principal cause of missing data in paper and pencil interviewing.

(b) Respondent errors are also reduced with CAPI interviewing. The NSFG contract requires that selected consistency checks be programmed into the questionnaire so that inconsistent answers can be corrected or explained while the interview is still in progress. We continue to work on identifying and resolving logical inconsistencies earlier and more efficiently than in the past, to improve data quality and expedite data release.

(c) Coding and coding errors are also reduced using CAPI interviewing, and this makes it possible to prepare the data for analysis faster and more accurately. In Continuous Interviewing, earlier cases (e.g., year 1) are being used to discover and correct errors before they affect later cases (e.g., year 2).

(d) The "Verification" interview is a quality control procedure in which a random sample of 10% of both screened households and interviewed respondents are contacted (usually by telephone) after the interview to verify that the interview was conducted. Verification of households confirms there was no one in the household 15-49 years of age; verification of respondents confirms that the person was interviewed and all procedures (signed a consent form (if applicable), token of appreciation received, entered responses his- or herself in ACASI) were followed. (Attachment L)

(e) Editing -- Completed interviews and associated comments entered by interviewers (called F2s because the interviewer uses the F2 function key) are reviewed by Contractor staff. Discrepancies in the data or F2 comments about data issues are shared with NCHS staff to determine the proper course of action. If the case warrants changing, editing of the data is performed by the Contractor. NCHS also performs regular and thorough checks of the quality of monthly data files, as it has in past NSFG survey years.

(f) Imputation -- Approximately 600 of the most frequently used and central variables (called “Recodes”) are imputed when they have missing values because the respondent refused to answer, did not know the answer, or otherwise did not give a valid response. Income had the largest percentage of missing data, with 9.6% of cases with missing values. For no other recodes did the percent of values imputed exceed 2% of all cases. For information on the imputation procedure used by the NSFG since 2002, see Lepkowski et al., 2006 and Lepkowski et al., 2013).

Two basic types of imputation were used for these variables (out of about 6,000 variables on the data file):

• regression model-based imputation (used for most variables)

• logical imputation (for a few variables with only a handful of missing cases).

The large majority of imputations is being done by multiple regression imputation using the University of Michigan’s Imputation and Variance Estimation software, which is called “IVEWARE.” As in previous cycles, the public use data files have imputation “flags”—variables that show that a value was imputed--so that data users can assess for themselves whether imputation affects the estimates. Imputation rarely affects estimates in the NSFG because, as noted above, the levels of missing data are generally very low.

(g) Estimation -- Estimation refers to the process of producing weighted numbers and percentages for the population from sample data. For each case, a weight is generated which estimates the number of persons in the population that each sampled person represents. For example, if a woman represents 5,000 women in the US household population, her sample weight is 5,000. The weight for each respondent is created in 4 basic steps:

• inflation by the reciprocal of the probability of selection,

• adjustment for sampling nonresponse based on the probability of completing a screener and the probability that a completed screener results in a completed interview

• post-stratification to independent control totals within age, race/Hispanic origin, and sex categories, provided by the Census Bureau, and

• trimming of a small number of extreme weights.

Probabilities of selection vary because black, Hispanic, and teenage respondents are slightly oversampled, and because selected respondents who have not completed a main interview are sub-sampled for Phase 2 of data collection). Adjustments for non-response are made by multivariate (logistic regression) methods. The main interviewing unit nonresponse adjustment is conditional on having completed a screener interview. These estimated screener and main response propensities were used to create nonresponse weighting adjustments. For more information, see National Center for Health Statistics, 2017, pp. 29-33. Post-stratification to control totals is done within cells defined by race and Hispanic origin, age, and sex.

Variances are estimated using a Taylor Series linearization approach similar to that used in the 2002 and 2006-2010 NSFGs, as described by Lepkowski et al., 2013. Codes were generated that allow data users to compute variances using Taylor Series linearization, Balanced Half-Sample Replication, or Jackknife replication methods (Lepkowski et al., 2010; Rust, 1985). A similar procedure continues to be used to produce the data files for 2017 onward.

3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with Non-response

In the most recent four years of NSFG fieldwork for which public use data have been released (September 2011 through September 2015), 20,621 interviews have been collected from a national sample of individuals aged 15-44 – 9,321 males and 11,300 females. The overall response rate for this survey period was 71%, 70% for males and 72% for females. This reflects a longer-term pattern of declining response rates, as also experienced by all household-based surveys conducted in the public and private sectors.

As discussed throughout these supporting statements, several strategies have been put in place to maximize response rates and avert refusals – including detailed advance letters and informational materials, a user-friendly webpage, highly trained interviewers, toll-free numbers at both the University of Michigan and at NCHS, and active survey management (also known as “responsive design”). Responsive survey design uses daily paradata, which is data about the fieldwork, to allocate interviewer effort most cost-effectively. Our principal guidance in dealing with non-response is our experience in the 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2015 NSFGs, which has been documented in a number of published reports (Groves et al., 2005; Groves and Heeringa, 2006; Groves et al., 2009; Lepkowski et al., 2010; Lepkowski et al., 2013; National Center for Health Statistics, 2016, 2017).

Procedures are listed separately for non-contacts, and for refusals. For non-contacts, the following procedures are used:

(a) interviewers, when listing or confirming housing units within sample segments, document units that have access impediments (e.g., locked apartment buildings, or security guards at a community entrance gate). Interviewers will schedule calls on such cases earlier in the field period than others,

(b) observations are made by the interviewer regarding best times to reach the sampled household, and

(c) multiple calls are made to the sampled household, at different times of the day and different days of the week.

For refusals, interviewers are trained to avert refusals by understanding and learning to respond specifically to the concerns that potential respondents may express. Interviewers are in ongoing contact with their supervisors, allowing interviewers to seek guidance on individual problems they encounter. Throughout this process, interviewers are explicitly instructed to treat the sample person’s concerns as legitimate questions that deserve thoughtful answers. In some cases, letters addressing specific respondent concerns are mailed to an individual’s household with the intent of allaying these concerns. The NSFG approach is to answer respondents’ questions and to respect the decisions they ultimately make about participating in the survey. Emphatic or “hard” refusals are accepted as final.

Guidance to interviewers in the continuous interviewing design is based on the research and experience cited above, and on extensive paradata collected and recorded by interviewers and other field staff. These data are summarized using logistic regression equations into a total propensity to respond for an entire segment. These data (and case-specific observations entered into the contractor’s sample management system) can be used to guide further actions on individual cases (Lepkowski et al, 2013).

Incentives: Over the past several decades, the challenges facing household based surveys have only grown, and even with the good survey practices described above, NSFG is unlikely to attain an 80% response rate, particularly within our budget constraints. Incentives have been approved for use with the NSFG since 1995, and the current incentive structure has been in place since the transition to continuous fieldwork in 2006. Attachment D provides a summary of incentive use and related experiments conducted since the 1995 (Cycle 5) NSFG. In brief, previous research (Singer E, 2002; Kulka R, 2002; Groves RM, Couper MP, Presser S, et al.; 2006; Davern M, Rockwood TH, Sherrod R, and Campbell S, 2003) suggests that, for long, sensitive, in-person surveys, incentives do help raise response rates and help to control fieldwork costs when standard good survey practice is not enough.

The 2-phase fieldwork and incentive structure used by NSFG since 2006 has also proven to be generally cost-effective and efficient in helping to slow the pace of overall response rate declines over the past decade, as well as increasing the participation from higher-income, married, or college-educated respondents. However, in recent years, the efficiency of the Phase 1 protocol used in the 1^st 10 weeks of each fieldwork quarter has diminished. Despite the consistency of Phase 2 response rates, the higher incentives and focused fieldwork effort of Phase 2 have been unable to compensate for the declining Phase 1 response rates. One response to this survey management challenge, described further in Attachment D, was an experiment testing a higher incentive amount in Phase 1 - $60 instead of $40. However, this experiment did not show evidence that the increased incentive led to significantly increased overall response rates or decreased nonresponse bias. Thus, there was not sufficient evidence to justify changing protocol to an increased incentive.

Nonresponse Bias Analysis: Attachment O describes our approach to measuring and managing nonresponse bias in the NSFG. Procedures to measure and reduce nonresponse bias are built into the daily paradata monitoring of the study. NSFG has the following data resources to warn us of possible nonresponse bias and allow us to act to reduce it during each quarter of fieldwork:

1. The NSFG’s paradata include observations from interviewers. Their observations include information such as whether the building is locked or access is blocked by other barriers, and assessments of whether the household includes children, whether the respondent is in a sexual relationship, and other characteristics that are correlated with non-response on NSFG outcome variables.

2. Key statistics (percent married, percent who have had a child, etc.) are tracked to see if they change when calling effort is increased.

3. The response rates of 12 age-race-gender groups that are strongly correlated with many NSFG estimates (e.g., Hispanic males 20-44; black females 15-19) are monitored daily. If response rates are unequal, that inequality could cause biased estimates. By monitoring response rates daily, effort can then be increased on groups with lagging response rates so that by the end of the quarter, variation in response rates across groups is minimized.

4. A two-phase sampling scheme is used. At the end of 10 weeks of fieldwork, a probability sample of non-respondents is selected. Incentives are increased for the selected cases, and different fieldwork techniques are used. Response rates and sample composition can be compared before and after “phase two” of fieldwork.

5. Alternative post-survey adjustments for nonresponse can be compared.

These efforts build upon the 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 NSFG, using essentially the same design, but with continuous improvements in monitoring as more information about field work is obtained to further minimize nonresponse error. A more complete description of these activities appears in Attachment O.

4. Tests of Procedures or Methods to be Undertaken

In light of response rate and cost management challenges faced in the field by NSFG, and other household based surveys as well, we propose to conduct two small-scale methodological studies described below. We also provide a preliminary summary and an updated timeline for evaluating our randomized 50-50 study of two questions asking about sexual orientation.

Experiment to test the use of a mailed, paper Household Screener: An experiment, to test the use of a mailed, paper screener questionnaire for a subset of NSFG sample households instead of a face-to-face visit to conduct the screener interview is proposed. The experiment is designed to assess whether the use of mailed screeners decreases fieldwork costs while maintaining accurate coverage of the eligible population. A second experimental treatment shares the same mailed screener protocol but adds an incentive of $2. Segments with likely age-ineligible households were identified for the experiment, with 150 housing units assigned to each experimental treatment, for a total of 300 housing units in the experiment. We will provide a summary of this experiment and its results in 2019.

Feasibility pilot test of a shift of Phase 2 protocol to begin 1 week earlier: Another potential design enhancement will test the feasibility of shifting the Phase 2 fieldwork protocol 1 week earlier (to week 10 instead of week 11. Specifically, this pilot test will assess the 1-week shift for a subset of the sample (5 PSUs) for 1 field work quarter, based on findings from other studies (Montaquila et al, 2013). All other aspects of fieldwork, including the incentive plan and consent/assent process remain as previously described for the phase boundary at week 11. The rationale for the test of this phase boundary change is based on observing trends in response rates for the two phases, over the course of NSFG fieldwork beginning in 2011. Phase 1 has become less effective over time as evidenced by declining response rates, while phase 2 response rates have remained steady. This test will be evaluated for adverse effects on response rates or costs. If there are no adverse effects, an experiment will be proposed, with the ultimate goal of testing for effects of the phase boundary shift on response rates, yield, and efficiency of operations. We will provide a more complete summary of this feasibility pilot test and its results in 2019.

50-50 split/study of sexual orientation question from NSFG and NHIS: As described in our prior clearance requests, beginning in September 2015 the NSFG ACASI section has included a 50-50 randomized study of the NSFG and NHIS questions on sexual orientation.  The goal of this study was to assess the distributions based on these two question approaches, when placed in the identical location and survey context with NSFG ACASI. The preliminary results of this study based on unweighted data from September 2015 through March 2017 are summarized in Attachment P. The NSFG does not produce sample weights for single years of data, therefore a final evaluation of this 50-50 study cannot be completed until the 2-year sample weights for 2015-2017 become available in early 2018. By Spring 2018, we will submit a complete report of the sexual orientation question study using fully weighted data from September 2015 through September 2017, along with a recommendation, based on consultation within NCHS, as to how we believe the NSFG should proceed in its approach to asking about sexual orientation.

5. Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects and Individual Collecting and/or Analyzing Data

The statistical consultants (on NSFG sample design, variance estimation, and statistical methods) for NCHS are:

Yulei He, Ph.D.

Branch Chief, Collaboration Center for Statistical Research and Survey Design

NCHS Division of Research and Methodology

301-458-4533 wdq7@cdc.gov

Hee-Choon Shin, Ph.D.

Mathematical Statistician

Collaboration Center for Statistical Research and Survey Design

NCHS Division of Research and Methodology

301-458-4307 wmi7@cdc.gov

Van L. Parsons, Ph.D.

Mathematical Statistician

NCHS Division of Research and Methodology

301-458-4421 vparsons@cdc.gov

The NSFG sample selection, data collection, and receipt/approval of contract deliverables are supervised for NCHS by:

Joyce C. Abma, Ph.D.

Contracting Officer Representative, NSFG

Senior Social Scientist

NCHS, Room 5416

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

301-458-4058 jabma@cdc.gov

The NSFG sample selection, data collection, and production of contract deliverables are supervised for the contractor by:

Mick Couper, Ph.D.

Project Director, NSFG, and Associate Director, Survey Research Center

University of Michigan

426 Thompson St, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

734-647-3577 mcouper@isr.umich.edu

James Wagner, Ph.D.

Senior Mathematical Statistician, NSFG

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan

426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

734-647-5600 jameswag@isr.umich.edu

The person responsible for the analysis of the survey is:

Anjani Chandra, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator for NSFG at NCHS

NSFG Team Lead and Senior Health Scientist

NCHS, Room 5414

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

301-458-4138 achandra@cdc.gov

The security steward for the NSFG data systems is:

Casey Copen, Ph.D.

Survey Statistician, NSFG Team

NCHS, Room 5419

3311 Toledo Road

Hyattsville, MD 20782

301-458-4724 ccopen@cdc.gov

REFERENCES

(these pertain to both A&B supporting statements and all attachments, including ACASI justification)

Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W, Peterson L, Piccinino L. 1997. Fertility, Family Planning, and Women's Health: New Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 23(19). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Abma J, Driscoll A, Moore K. 1998. Differing Degrees of Control over First Intercourse and Young Women's First Partners: Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives 30(1):12-18.

Abma J, Martinez G. Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use among Teens in the United States, 2011-2015. 2017. National health statistics reports 104. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Abma J, Martinez G, Mosher W, Dawson B. 2004. Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002. Vital and Health Statistics 23(24). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Doherty IA. 2007. Concurrent sexual partnerships among men in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 97(12):2230-2237.

Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Taylor EM, Khan MR, Schwartz MJ. 2011. Concurrent Partnerships, Nonmonogamous Partners, and Substance Use Among Women in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 101 (1): 128-136.

Adimora AA, Hughes, JP, Wang, J, Haley, DF, Colin, CE et al. 2014. Characteristics of multiple and concurrent partnerships among women at high risk of HIV infection. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 65(1): 99-106.

Agénor, M., Muzney, C.A., Schick, V., Austin, E.L., Potter, J. 2017. Sexual orientation and sexual health services utilization among women in the United States. Preventive Medicine. 95: 74-81.

Aholou, T.M, McCree, DH, Oraka, E, Jeffries, WL, Rose, CE, DiNenno, E, Sutton, MY. 2017. Sexual Risk and Protective Behaviors Among Reproductive-Aged Women in the United States. Journal of Women’s Health. [Epub ahead of print].

American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2013. Addressing health risks of noncoital sexual activity. No. 582. http://www.acog.org/-/media/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/co582.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150122T1302073957.

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011. Tobacco Use and Women’s Health. No. 503. http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Tobacco-Use-and-Womens-Health

Andersen BA, Ostergaard L, Puho E, MV Skriver & HC Schonheyder. 2005. Ectopic Pregnancies and Reproductive Capacity after Chlamydia Trachomatis Positive and Negative Test Results: A Historical Follow-Up Study. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 32(6):377-381.

Anderson JE, Brackbill R, Mosher W. 1996. Condom Use for Disease Prevention among Unmarried U.S. Women. Family Planning Perspectives 28(1):25-28.

Anderson JE, Carey JW, Taveras S. 2000. HIV Testing among the General US Population and Persons at Increased Risk: Information from National Surveys, 1987-1996. American Journal of Public Health 90(7):1089-1095.

Anderson JE, Chandra A, Mosher WD. 2005. HIV Testing in the United States, 2002. Advance Data No. 363. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Anderson JE, Mosher WD, Chandra A. 2006. Measuring HIV Risk in the US Population aged 15-44: Results of the 2002 NSFG. Advance Data No. 377. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Anderson JE, Sansom S. 2006. HIV Testing Among U.S. Women During Prenatal Care: Findings from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Maternal and Child Health Journal 10(5):413-417.

Aral S, Mosher W, Cates W Jr. 1991. Self-reported Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in the United States, 1988. Journal of the American Medical Association 266(18):2570-2573.

Aral SO, Leichliter JS. 2010. Non-monogamy: risk factor for STI transmission and acquisition and determinant of STI spread in populations. Sexually Transmitted Infections 86(3):29-36.

Badgett LMV, Durso LE, Schneebaum A. 2013. New Patterns of Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community. The Williams Institute.

Baggaley RF, White RG, Boily MC. 2008. Systematic review of orogenital HIV-1 transmission probabilities. International Journal of Epidemiology. 37(6):1255–65.

Baggaley RF, Dimitrov D, Owen BN, Pickles M, Butler AR, Masse B, Boily M-C. 2013. Heterosexual anal intercourse: a neglected risk factor for HIV? American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 69 (Suppl. 1): 95–105.

Bauer GR, Jairam JA. 2008. Are lesbians really women who have sex with women (WSW)? Methodological concerns in measuring sexual orientation in health research. Women and Health 48(4):383-408.

Bauer GR, Jairam JA, Baidoobonso SM. 2010. Sexual Health, Risk Behaviors, and Substance Use in Heterosexual-Identified Women with Female Sex Partners: 2002 US National Survey of Family Growth. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Journal 37(9):531-537.

Benson, LS, Martins, SL, Whitaker, AK. 2015. Correlates of Heterosexual Anal Intercourse among Women in the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Sexual Medicine. 12(8) 1746-52.

Boehmer U, Bowen DJ, Bauer GR. 2007. Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence from Population-Based Data. American Journal of Public Health 97(6): 1-7.

Boyer D, Fine D. 1992. Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment. Family Planning Perspectives 24:4‑11, 19.

Bramlett MD, Mosher WD. 2002. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. Vital and Health Statistics 23(22). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Bankole A, Darroch JE, Singh S. 1999. Determinants of Trends in Condom Use in the United States, 1988-1995. Family Planning Perspectives 31(6):264-271.

Brewer, T. H., Zhao, W., Metsch, L. R., Coltes, A., & Zenilman, J. 2007. High-risk behaviors in women who use crack: Knowledge of HIV serostatus and risk behavior. Annals of Epidemiology. 17: 533−539.

Brewster KL, Tillman KH. 2008. Who’s Doing It? Patterns and Predictors of Youths’ Oral Sexual Experiences. Journal of Adolescent Health 42(1): 73-80.

Brown JW, Villarruel AM, Oakley D, Eribes C. 2003. Exploring Contraceptive Pill Taking Among Hispanic Women in the United States. Health Education and Behavior 30(6):663-682.

Brunner LR, Hogue CJ. 2005. The role of body weight in oral contraceptive failure: results from the 1995 national survey of family growth. Annals of Epidemiology 15(7):492-9, Jan 2005.

Brunner-Huber LR, Toth JL. 2007. Obesity and Oral Contraceptive Failure: Findings from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. American Journal of Epidemiology 166(11):1306-1311.

Bryant-Genevier MM, Martin CE, Terplan M. 2014. Reproductive Health Needs Among Drug Treatment Clients. Obstetrics and Gynecology 123(1): 104S.

Callegaria LS, Nelsonc KM, Arterburnd DE, Pragera SW, Schiffa MS, Bimla Schwarzg E. 2014. Factors associated with lack of effective contraception among obese women in the United States. Contraception 90:265-71.

Cates W Jr, Rolfs RT Jr, Aral SO. 1990. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and Infertility: An Epidemiologic Update. Epidemiologic Reviews 12:199-220.

Cates W Jr, Wasserheit JN, Marchbanks PA. 1994. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Tubal Infertility: The Preventable Conditions. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences 709:179-95.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Characteristics associated with HIV infection among heterosexuals in urban areas with high AIDS prevalence – 24 Cities, United States, 2006-2007. MMWR. 60(31):1045-1049.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2015. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Chabot MJ, Lewis C, de Bocanegra HT, Darney P. 2011. Correlates of Receiving Reproductive Health Care Services Among U.S. Men Aged 15 to 44 Years. American Journal of Men’s Health 5(4):358-366.

Chandra A. 1995. Health Aspects of Pregnancy and Childbirth: United States, 1982 and 1988. Vital and Health Statistics 23(18). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, GM Martinez, WD Mosher, JC Abma & J Jones. 2005. Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 23(25). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, Mosher WD, Copen CE, Sionean C. 2011. Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports No. 36. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, Billioux VG, Copen CE, Balaji A, DiNenno E. 2012a. HIV Testing in the U.S. Household Population Aged 15–44: Data From the National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 58. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, Billioux VG, Copen CE, Sionean C. 2012b. HIV Risk-related Behaviors in the United States Household Population aged 15-44: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 2002 and 2006-2010. National Health Statistics Reports No 46. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, Copen CE, Mosher, WD. 2012c. Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. In Amanda Baumle (Ed.) International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality. New York, NY. Springer Publishing Company.

Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. 2013. Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982–2010: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports No. 67. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. 2014. Infertility service use in the United States: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 73. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Cherpes TL, Meyn LA, Hillier SL. 2005. Cunnilingus and vaginal intercourse are risk factors for herpes simplex virus type 1 acquisition in women. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 32(2):84–9.

Chesson HW, Blandford JM, Gift TL, Tao G. Irwin KL. 2004. The Estimated Direct Medical Cost of Sexually Transmitted Diseases among American Youth, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 36(1):11-19.

Child Trends, Inc. 2005. New Data on Oral Sex Among Teens. Child Trends DataBank Indicator. Child Trends, Inc., Washington, DC.

Child Trends, Inc. 2014. Adolescents Who Have Ever Been Raped. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=adolescents-who-have-ever-been-raped

Copen CE, Chandra A, Martinez G. 2012. Prevalence and timing of oral sex with opposite-sex partners among females and males aged 15–24 years: United States, 2007–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 56. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Copen CE, Chandra A, Febo-Vazquez I. 2015. HIV testing in the past year among the U.S. household population aged 15–44: 2011–2013. National Center for Health Statistics data brief, No. 202. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Copen CE, Chandra A, Febo-Vazquez I. 2016. Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual orientation among adults aged 18–44 in the United States: Data from the 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports No 88. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Copen CE, Dittus PJ, Leichliter JS. 2016. Confidentiality concerns and sexual and reproductive health care among adolescents and young adults aged 15–25. NCHS data brief, no 266. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Dahlhamer JM, Galinsky AM, Joestl SS, Ward BW. Sexual orientation in the 2013 National Health Interview Survey: A quality assessment. Vital Health Stat 2(169). 2014.

Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J. Current contraceptive status among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013. NCHS Data Brief No. 173. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014.

Daniels K, Abma JE. Unmarried men’s contraceptive use at recent sexual intercourse: United States, 2011-2015. NCHS Data Brief No. 284. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017.

Darroch D, Landry D, Oslak S. 1999. Sexual Partnership Patterns as a Behavioral Risk Factor for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Family Planning Perspectives 31(5):228-236.

Davern M, Rockwood TH, Sherrod R, and Campbell S. Prepaid Monetary Incentives and Data Quality in Face-to-Face Interviews: Data from the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation Incentive Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 139-147. 2003.

D’Souza G, Cullen K, Bowie J, Thorpe R, Fakhry C. 2014. Differences in Oral Sexual Behaviors by Gender, Age, and Race Explain Observed Differences in Prevalence of Oral Human Papillomavirus Infection. PLoS ONE 9(1): e86023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086023

Edwards S, Carne C. 1998. Oral Sex and the Transmission of Non-viral STIs. Sexually Transmitted Infections 74:95-100.

Eisenberg ML, Shindel AW, Smith JF, Breyer BN, Lipshultz LI. 2010. Socioeconomic, Anthropomorphic, and Demographic Predictors of Adult Sexual Activity in the United States: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Sexual Medicine 7(1):50-8.

Eng TR & WT Butler, eds. 1997. The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine and National Academy Press.

Finer L, JE Darroch & S Singh. 1999. Sexual Partnership Patterns as a Behavioral Risk Factor for Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Family Planning Perspectives 31(5):228-236.

Ford C, Pence BW, Miller WC, Resnick MD, Bearinger LH, Pettingell S, Cohen M. 2005. Predicting Adolescents’ Longitudinal Risk for Sexually Transmitted Infection: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 159(July).

Ford JL. 2011. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Human Papillomavirus Awareness and Vaccination among Young Adult Women. Public Health Nursing 28(6):485-93.

Freeman P, Walker BC, Harris DR, Garofalo R, Willard N et al. Methamphetamine use and risk for HIV among young men who have sex with men in 8 US cities. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 165(8):736-740. 2011.

Fryer CD, Hirsch R, Porter KS et al. 2007. Drug use and sexual behaviors reported by adults: United States, 1999–2002. Advance Data No. 384. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Fu H, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK, Kolb E. 1998. Measuring the Extent of Abortion Underreporting in the 1995 NSFG. Family Planning Perspectives 30(3):128-33, 8.

Gates GJ. Sexual minorities in the 2008 General Social Survey: Coming out and demographic characteristics. The Williams Institute. 2010.

German, D, Nguyen, TQ, Ogbue, CP, Flynn, C. 2015. Condomless anal intercourse among males and females at high risk for heterosexual HIV infection. Sexually transmitted Diseases. 42(6): 317-23.

Gibson-Davis C, Rackin H. 2014. Marriage or Carriage? Trends in Union Context and Birth Type by Education. Journal of Marriage and Family 76:506-19.

Gillum RF, Sullins DP. 2008. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy: Independent associations with religious participation. Southern Medical Journal 101(7):686-692.

Goodwin PY, Mosher WD, Chandra A. 2010. Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Stat 23(28). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Groves R, Benson G, Mosher W, et al. Plan and Operation of Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 1(42). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_042.pdf.

Groves RM, Couper MP, Presser S, et al. Experiments in Producing Nonresponse Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 720-736. 2006.

Groves R and Heeringa SG. Responsive Design for Household Surveys: Tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A169, Part 3: 439-457. 2006.

Groves R, Mosher WD, et al. 2009. Planning and Development of the Continuous National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 1(48). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_01/sr01_048.pdf.

Haderxhanaj, LT; Gift, TL; Loosier, PS; Cramer, RC; Leichliter, JS. 2014. Trends in Receipt of Sexually Transmitted Disease Services Among Women 15 to 44 Years Old in the United States, 2002 to 2006–2010. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 41 (1): 67–73

Haderxhanaj LT, Leichliter JS, Aral SO, Chesson HW. 2014a. Sex in a Lifetime: Sexual Behaviors in the United States by Lifetime Number of Sex Partners, 2006-2010. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 41(6):345-52.

Haderxhanaj LT, Dittus PJ, Loosier PS, Rhodes SD, Bloom FR, Leichliter JS. 2014b. Acculturation, Sexual Behaviors, and Health Care Access Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States, 2006-2010. Journal of Adolescent Health 55(5):716-19.

Haderxhanaj, LT, Rhodes, SD, Romaguera, RA, Bloom, FR, Leichliter, JS. 2015. Hispanic men in the United States: Acculturation and recent sexual behavior with female partners, 2006-2010. American Journal of Public Health 105(8): e126-33.

Hall KS, Moreau C, Trussell J. 2013. The Link Between Substance Use and Reproductive Health Service Utilization Among Young US Women. Substance Abuse 34:283-1.

Halpern-Felsher BL, Cornell JL, Kropp KY,Tschann JM. 2005. Oral versus Vaginal Sex among Adolescents: Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behavior. Pediatrics 115:845-851.

Hamilton DT, Morris M. 2010. Consistency of self-reported sexual behavior in surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 39(4):842– 60.

Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W Jr, Kowal, D, Policar, MS. 2011. Contraceptive Technology. 20th revised ed. New York, NY: Ardent Media, Inc.

Hawkins DA. 2001. Oral Sex and HIV Transmission. Sexually Transmitted Infections 77:307-308.

Hewitt M, Devesa S, Breen N. 2002. Papanicolaou Test Use Among Reproductive-Age Women at High Risk for Cervical Cancer: Analyses of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. American Journal of Public Health 92(4):666-669.

Hillis SD, Owens LM, Marchbanks PA, Amsterdam LF, MacKenzie WR. 1997. Recurrent Chlamydial Infections Increase the Risks of Hospitalization for Ectopic Pregnancy and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 176 (1 Pt 1):103-7.

Hoover, K.W., Tao, K.L., Peters, P.J. 2017. Nationally representative prevalence estimates of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who have served in the U.S. military. PLoS One. 12(8): e0182222

Institute of Medicine. 2011. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people: Building a better understanding. The National Academies Press. Washington , D.C.

Jagannathan R. 2001. Relying on Surveys to Understand Abortion Behavior: Some Cautionary Evidence. American Journal of Public Health 91(11):1825-1831.

Jeffries WL, Dodge B. 2007. Male Bisexuality and Condom Use at Last Encounter: Results from a National Survey. Journal of Sex Research 44(3): 278-289, Aug 2007.

Jeffries WL. 2009. A comparative analysis of homosexual behaviors, sex role preferences, and anal sex proclivities in Latino and non-Latino men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 35(5): 765-778.

Jeffries WL. 2009. Sociodemographic, sexual and HIV and other sexually transmitted disease risk profiles of nonhomosexual-identified men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health 99(6):1042-1045.

Jeffries WL. 2010. HIV Testing Among Bisexual Men in the United States. AIDS Education and Prevention 22(4):356-70.

Jeffries WL. 2011. The Number of Recent Sex Partners Among Bisexual Men in the United States. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 43(3):151-7.

Jones E, Forrest JD. 1992. Underreporting of Abortion in Surveys of U.S. Women: 1976 to 1988. Demography 29(1):113-126.

Jones RK, Kost K. 2007. Underreporting of Induced and Spontaneous Abortion in the United States: An Analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Studies in Family Planning 38(3): 187-197.

Kandel, D, Kandel, E. 2015. The Gateway Hypothesis of substance abuse: Developmental, biological and societal perspectives. Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics 104(2) 130-137.

Kaneshiro B, Edelman A, Carlson N, Nichols M, Jensen J. 2008a. The relationship between body mass index and unintended pregnancy: Results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception 77:234-238.

Kaneshiro B, Jensen JT, Carlson NE, Harvey SM, Nichols MD, Edelman AB. 2008b. Body mass index and sexual behavior. Obstetrics and Gynecology 112(3): 586-592.

Kaneshiro, B. 2012. Contraceptive Use Among Obese Women. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 30(6): 459-464.

Kirby D, G Lepore & J Ryan. 2005. Sexual risk and protective factors: Factors affecting teen sexual behavior, pregnancy, childbearing, and sexually transmitted disease—Which are important? Which can you change? Washington, DC: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

Kulka R. The Use of Incentives to Survey ‘Hard to Reach’ Respondents. Pages 256-287 in Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Statistical Policy Working Paper No. 23, Volume 2. 2002.

Lansky A, Finlayson T, Johnson C, Holtzman D, Wejnert C, Mitsch A, Gust D, Chen R, Mizuno Y, Crepaz N. 2014. Estimating the Number of Persons Who Inject Drugs in the United States by Meta-Analysis to Calculate National Rates of HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Infections. PLOS ONE 9(5):e97596.

Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, and Michaels S. 1994. The Social Organization Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leichliter J, Aral S. 2009. Black women in the United States decrease their number of recent sex partners: temporal trends from the national survey of family growth. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 36(1):1-3.

Leichliter JS, Chandra A, Liddon N, Fenton KA, Aral SO. 2007. Prevalence and Correlates of Heterosexual Anal and Oral Sex in Adolescents and Adults in the United States. Journal of Infectious Diseases 196 (15 December): 1852-1859.

Leichliter JS, Chesson HW, Sternberg M, Aral SO. 2010. The concentration of sexual behaviours in the USA: a closer examination of subpopulations. Sex Transm Infect 86(3):45-51.

Leichliter JS, Chandra A, Aral SO. 2013. Correlates of Self-Reported Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Treatment in Sexually Experienced Reproductive-Aged Women in the United States, 1995 and 2006-2010. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 40(5):413-18.

Leichliter, JS, Haderxhanaj, LT, Chesson, HW, Aral, SO. 2013. Temporal trends in sexual behavior among men who have sex with men in the United States, 2002 to 2006-2010. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 63(2): 254-258

Leichliter JS, Copen C, Dittus PJ. 2017. Confidentiality Issues and Use of Sexually Transmitted Disease Services Among Sexually Experienced Persons Aged 15–25 Years — United States, 2013–2015. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2017;66:237–241. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6609a1.

Lepkowski JM, Mosher WD, Davis KE, et al. National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 6: Sample design, weighting, imputation, and variance estimation. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(142). 2006. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_142.pdf.

Lepkowski J, et al. 2010. The 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth: Sample Design and Analysis of a Continuous Survey. Vital and Health Statistics 2(150). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_150.pdf

Lepkowski J, Mosher WD, Groves RM, et al. 2013. Responsive Design, Weighting, and Variance Estimation in the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 2 (158). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_158.pdf

Lindberg LD, Jones R, Santelli JS. 2008. Noncoital sexual activities among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(3): 231-238.

Lindberg, L, Jerman, J. 2016. Recent Patterns of Same-Sex Behaviors, Sexual Attraction, Sexual Identity and Related Attitudes Among Adolescents and Young Adults in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health 58(2): Supplement, page 102.

Magnusson, BM, Masho, SW, Lapane, KL. 2011. Adolescent and sexual history factors influencing reproductive control among women aged 18-44. Sexual Health. 8: 95-101.

Manlove J, Terry-Humen E, Ikramullah E. 2006. Young Teenagers and Older Sexual Partners: Correlates and Consequences for Males and Females. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 38(4):197-207.

Martinez GM, Chandra, A, Abma JC, Jones J, Mosher WD. 2006. Fertility, Contraception, and Fatherhood: Data on Men and Women from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 23(26). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Martinez GM, Copen CE, Abma JC. 2011. Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital and Health Statistics 23(31).

Martinez GM, Chandra A, Febo-Vazquez I, Mosher WD. 2013. Use of family planning and related medical services among women aged 15–44 in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 68. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013.

Martinez GM, Daniels K, Chandra A. 2012. Fertility of men and women aged 15–44 years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. National Health Statistics Reports No. 51. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Masho, S. W., Chambers, G.J., Wallenborn, J.T., Ferrance, J.L. 2017. Associations of Partner Age Gap at Sexual Debut with Teenage Parenthood and Lifetime Number of Partners. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 49(2): 77-83.

McCabe J, Brewster KL, Tillman KH. 2011. Patterns and Correlates of Same-Sex Sexual Activity among U.S. Teenagers and Young Adults. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 43(3):142-50.

McNally J, Mosher W. 1991. AIDS-Related Knowledge and Behavior among Women 15-44 Years of Age: United States, 1988. Advance Data No. 200. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Melbostad, H.S, Badger, GJ, Matusiewicz, AK, Heil SH. 2017. Contraceptive use among female smokers. Drug & Alcohol Dependence. Volume 171 , e141 - e142

Miller HG, Cain VS, Rogers DM, Gribble JN, Turner CF. 1999. Correlates of Sexually Transmitted Bacterial Infections among US Women in 1995. Family Planning Perspectives 31(5):228-236.

Montaquila, J. M., J. M. Brick, D. Williams, K. Kim and D. Han (2013). "A Study of Two-Phase Mail Survey Data Collection Methods." Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 1(1): 66-87.

Moore KA, Nord C, Peterson J. 1989. Nonvoluntary sexual activity among adolescents. Family Planning Perspectives, 21(3): 110-114.

Mosher WD, Pratt WF. 1993. AIDS-related Behavior among Women 15-44 Years of Age: United States, 1988 and 1990. Advance Data No. 239. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Mosher W, Chandra A, Jones J. 2005. Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002. Advance Data No. 362. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Mosher WD, Jones J. 2010. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(29).

Mullany, B, Barlow, A, Neault, N, Trudy B, Hastings, R, Coho-Mescal, V, Lorenzo, C, Walkup, JT. 2013. Consistency in the reporting of sensitive behaviors by adolescent American Indian women: A comparison of interviewing methods. American Indian and Alaskan Native Mental Health Research 20(2): 42-51.

National Center for Health Statistics. 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG): Sample Design Documentation. Hyattsville, MD. 2017. Available from

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG_2013-2015_Sample_Design_Documentation.pdf

National Center for Health Statistics. 2011-2013 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG): Summary of Design and Data Collection Methods. Hyattsville, MD. 2016. Available from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/nsfg_2011_2013_designanddatacollectionmethods.pdf

National Center for Health Statistics. 2013-2015 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG): Summary of Design and Data Collection Methods. Hyattsville, MD. 2017. Available from

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG_2013-2015_Summary_Design_Data_Collection.pdf

National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: updated to 2020. July 2015 Available from: https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/nhas-update.pdf

NSFG Key Statistics. Wantedness of sexual intercourse, females and males 2011-2015. Available from: http://wcms-wp.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/w.htm

Nearns J, Baldwin JA, Clayton H. 2009. Social, behavioral, and health care factors associated with recent testing among sexually active non-Hispanic black women in the United States. Women's Health Issues 19(1):52-60.

Owusu-Edusei, K, Chesson, HW, Gift, TL, Guoyu, T, Mahajan, R, Ocfemia, M, Kent, C. 2013. The estimated medical cost of selected sexually transmitted infections in the United States, 2008. Sexually transmitted Diseases 40(3): 197-201.

Page R, Ellison C, Lee J. 2009. Does religiosity affect health risk behaviors in pregnant and postpartum women? Maternal and Child Health Journal 13(5):621-32.

Petersen H, Walker CK, Kahn JG,.Washington AE, Eschenbach DA, Faro S. 1991. Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: Key Treatment Issues and Options. Journal of the American Medical Association 266(18):2605-11.

Reese, BM, Haydon, AA, Herring, AH, Halpern, CT. 2013. The association between sequences of sexual initiation and the likelihood of teenage pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health 52(2): 228-233.

Remez L. 2000. Oral Sex Among Adolescents: Is it Sex or is it Abstinence? Family Planning Perspectives 32(6):298-304.

Rothenberg RB, Scarlett M, del Rio C, Reznik D, O’Daniels C. 1998. Oral Transmission of HIV. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 12:2095-2105.

Rust, K. 1985. Variance estimation for complex estimators in sample surveys. J Official Stat 1:381-97.

Ryan S, Franzetta K, Manlove J, Schelar E. 2008. Older Sexual Partners During Adolescence: Links to Reproductive Health Outcomes in Young Adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40(1):17-26.

Sanders SA, Reinisch JM. 1999. Would You say You ‘Had Sex’ if…? Journal of the American Medical Association 281:275-277.

Santelli J, Lindberg LD, Finer LB, Singh S. 2000. The Association of Sexual Behaviors with Socioeconomic Status, Family Structure, and Race/Ethnicity among U.S. Adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 90(10):1582-1588.

Satterwhite CL, Torrone E, Meites E, Dunne EF, Mahajan R, Ocfemia MC, Su J, Xu F, Weinstock H. 2013. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 40(3):187-93.

Schuster MA, RM Bell & DE Kanouse. 1996. The Sexual Practices of Adolescent Virgins: Genital Sexual Activities of High School Students Who Have Never Had Vaginal Intercourse. American Journal of Public Health 86(11):1570-1576.

Singer E. The Use of Incentives to Reduce Nonresponse in Household Surveys,” pages 163-178 in R Groves et al. (editors), Survey Nonresponse. Wiley. 2002.

Stockman JJ, Campbell JC, Celentano DD. 2010. Sexual violence and STD risk behaviors among a nationally representative sample of heterosexual American women: The importance of sexual coercion. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 53(1):136-143.

Tao G, Tian LH, Peterman TA. 2007. Estimating Chlamydia Screening Rates by Using Reported Sexually Transmitted Disease Test for Sexually Active Women aged 16 to 25 Years in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 34(3): 180-2.

Tao G. 2008. Sexual Orientation and Related Viral Sexually Transmitted Disease Rates among US Women Aged 15 to 44 Years. American Journal of Public Health 98 (6): 1007-1009

The White House Office of National AIDS Policy. 2010. National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. Washington, DC: White House, July 13 2010.

The White House Office of National AIDS Policy. 2014. National HIV/AIDS Strategy: Update of 2014 Federal Actions to Achieve National Goals and Improve Outcomes Along the HIV Care Continuum. Washington, D.C: White House. December 2014.

Turner C, Ku L, Rogers S, Lindberg L, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. 1998. Adolescent Sexual Behavior, Drug Use and Violence: New Survey Technology Detects Elevated Prevalence among U.S. Males. Science 280:867-73.

Turner CF, Villarroel M, Chromy J et al. 2005. Same-Gender Sex among US Adults: Trends across the 20th Century and During the 1990s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(3):439-62.

Tyler, CP, Whiteman, MK., Kraft, JM, Zapata, LB, Hillis, SD, Curtis, KM, Anderson, J, Pazol, K, Marchbanks, PA. 2014. Dual Use of Condoms With Other Contraceptive Methods Among Adolescents and Young Women in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(2): 169-175

US Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2014. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf. 

Vahratian A. 2009. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among women of childbearing age: results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Maternal and Child Health Journal 13(2):268-73.

van Gelder MMHJ, Reefhuis J, Herron AM, Williams ML, Roeleveld N. 2011. Reproductive Health Characteristics of Marijuana and Cocaine Users: Results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 43(3):164-72.

Van Handel M, Lyons B, Oraka E, Nasrullah M, DiNenno E, Dietz P. 2015. Factors associated with time since last HIV test among persons at high risk for HIV infection, National Survey of Family Growth, 2006-2010. AIDS Patient Care and STDs. 29(10): 533-40.

Volpe E, Hardie T, Cerulli C, Sommers M, Morrison-Beedy D. 2013. What’s age got to do with it? Partner age difference, power, intimate partner violence, and sexual risk in urban adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(10): 2068-2087.

Ward BW, Dahlhamer JM, Galinsky AM, Joestl SS. Sexual orientation and health among U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2013. National health statistics reports; no 77. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014.

Wheldon CW, Kirby RS. 2013. Are There Differing Patterns of Health Care Access and Utilization Among Male Sexual Minorities in the United States? Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 25:24-36.

Williams CM, Brett KM, Abma JC. 2009. Coercive first intercourse and unintended first births. Violence Victims 24(3):351-63.

Williams CM, Clear ER, Coker AL. 2013. Sexual Coercion and Sexual Violence at First Intercourse Associated With Sexually Transmitted Infections. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 40(10): 771-75.

Wilson JB. 1993. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Antibody Testing in Women 15-44 Years of Age: U.S., 1990. Advance Data No. 238. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Xu F, Sternberg MR, Markowitz LE. 2010. Men who have sex with men in the United States: Demographic and behavioral characteristics and prevalence of HIV and HSV-2 infection: Results from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2006. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 37(6):399–405.