2020 Census Evaluation- Analysis of Census ISR Paradata by Language Study Plan

The memorandum and attached document(s) was prepared for Census Bureau internal use. If
you have any questions regarding the use or dissemination of the information, please contact
the Stakeholder Relations Staff at dcco.stakeholder.relations.staff@census.gov.

2020 CENSUS PROGRAM INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2019.14.i
Date:

April 23, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record
From:

Deborah M. Stempowski (signed April 23, 2019)
Chief, Decennial Census Management Division

Subject:

2020 Census Evaluation: Analysis of Census Internet Self-Response Paradata by
Language Study Plan

Contact:

Jennifer Reichert
Decennial Census Management Division
301-763-4298
jennifer.w.reichert@census.gov

This memorandum releases the final version of the 2020 Census Evaluation: Analysis of Census Internet
Self-Response Paradata by Language Study Plan, which is part of the 2020 Census Program for
Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX). For specific content related questions, you may also contact the
authors:
Renee Ellis
Center for Behavioral Science Methods
301-763-5122
renee.ellis@census.gov

Joanna Fane Lineback
Center for Behavioral Science Methods
301-763-7599
joanna.fane.lineback@census.gov

Patricia Goerman
Center for Behavioral Science Methods
301-763-1819
patricia.l.goerman@census.gov

Anna Sandoval Giron
Center for Behavioral Science Methods
301-763-3575
anna.b.sandoval.giron@census.gov

Rodney Terry
Center for Behavioral Science Methods
301-763-5475
rodney.terry@census.gov

census.gov

2020 Census Evaluation
Analysis of Census Internet SelfResponse Paradata by Language
Study Plan

Renee Ellis, CBSM
Fane Lineback, CBSM
Rodney Terry, CBSM
Patricia Goerman, CBSM
Anna Sandoval Girón, CBSM

4/23/2019
Version 3.1

Page intentionally left blank.

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II.

Assumptions........................................................................................................................ 2

III.

Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

IV.

Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4

V.

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5

VI.

Data Requirements .............................................................................................................. 6

VII.

Risks.................................................................................................................................... 7

VIII.

Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 7

IX.

Issues That Need to be Resolved ........................................................................................ 8

X.

Division Responsibilities .................................................................................................... 8

XI.

Milestone Schedule ............................................................................................................. 8

XII.

Review/Approval Table ...................................................................................................... 9

XIII.

Document Revision and Version Control History .............................................................. 9

XIV. Glossary of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 10
XV.

References ......................................................................................................................... 10

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Page intentionally left blank.

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

I.

Introduction
For the first time, the decennial census will extensively offer internet reporting. The
internet instrument will be available in 12 languages, including English, Spanish, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, Arabic, and Tagalog. Although the 2010 Census included
an online version, it was only available in English, and because it was unadvertised and
limited to only the short form, only 63,000 households responded online (Whitworth 2002).
In 2020, there will be full advertisement of the online form and community partnerships
will encourage use of the online form.
This new online instrument will provide a unique opportunity to study non-English
language reporting. Previously, we had little, if any, prior information about internet
reporting for many of the 12 languages besides English and to a more limited extent
Spanish. Until now, we certainly have nothing on the scale of the decennial census that we
have been able to study. Given the scale—in terms of both population and languages
covered—of the 2020 Census, what we learn can be used not only to evaluate the 2020
Census and make improvements for the 2030 Census, but also to inform the numerous
surveys and censuses that offer or plan to offer reporting in multiple languages.
Internet paradata includes information about computer settings and user actions within the
instrument, including the timing of those actions. Commonly collected items include
browser type, device type, operating system, login, logout, help access, answer change,
warning message, error message, and page information.
Web paradata can be used for many purposes, such as to identify usability issues and
problematic questions. They may be used to evaluate the ease-of-use of the instrument
during high-traffic times. For non-English languages, the paradata may offer insight into
the ease of use across languages, any translation issues, and the use of built-in translator
tools (such as Google translate) versus the census provided translations. They may be used
as a confirmatory tool if they are combined with the findings from qualitative language
studies. They web metrics may be compared with paper metrics to evaluate the effects of
things such as the Census Questionairre Assistance (CQA) across languages.
Up-to-now, language work had been largely qualitative in nature (see section III for more
detailed information about qualitative language work). We are not aware of any previous
language research using internet paradata. Although previous research has resulted in
recommendations for non-English content and translation, as well as procedures to increase
cultural and linguistic appropriateness, ongoing research is necessary to understand how
respondents actually use instruments in various languages and how that affects data quality.
This is especially timely now, because of increases in usage of online surveys.
We will examine 2020 Census web paradata by language. The paradata can be used to
identify usability or problematic questions specific to certain languages. The paradata
findings can be compared to previous qualitative findings to look for any gaps.
1

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

II.

Assumptions











III.

There will be space to store and analyze data.
Paradata needed for research will be collected and made available, including answer
changes, instrument language and toggling, and browser language setting.
Paradata will have a flag to distinguish CQA from self-response.
Paradata or response data will have a flag to distinguish between respondents who
completed the online form with an ID and those that completed non-ID.
2020 Census data will be made available.
Census test web paradata will be made available.
Previous 2020 qualitative pretesting and usability languages study reports will be made
available.
Results and reports for external audiences will go through the required review process,
including review by Data Products and Dissemination.

Background
Previous cognitive research in languages other than English
In support of obtaining high quality census data from hard-to-count, limited-Englishspeakers, the Center for Behavioral and Survey Measurement (CBSM) has conducted nonEnglish questionnaire design and pretesting research for over 15 years. This research has
included expert reviews, cognitive interviews and usability testing of automated
instruments, focus groups in non-English languages, and doorstep interaction observations.
There is little, if any, existing research using paradata to study non-English responses.
As part of 2010 Census evaluations and experiments, CBSM researchers observed doorstep
interactions in seven languages (Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, Arabic
and Portuguese) to obtain basic information about how these interviews were conducted.
For another 2010 evaluation, CBSM researchers overserved nonresponse follow-up
(NRFU) of English and non-English speaking Hispanic households in Texas. Researchers
observed that, of 23 Hispanic households interviewed by NRFU enumerators, 10
interviews were conducted in English, eight in Spanish, two in English and Spanish, and
two with the enumerator speaking English and a household member serving as an
interpreter.
As part of recent census tests, CBSM researchers observed non-English doorstep
interactions and messaging and reviewed field enumerator non-English materials. In
addition, CBSM researchers have studied the topic of low literacy respondents and how they
interact with surveys and forms
Pretesting of non-English census questionnaires over the years has uncovered a number of
comprehension and translation issues. Cognitive interviews before the 2010 Census found
differences in the difficulty of filling out paper census forms by language. Some of that
work resulted in changes to the instruments. Additional multilanguage pretesting was
2

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

conducted in the decade leading up to the 2020 Census. That work was also used to improve
translations. Tests preceding 2010 found that English speakers generally had few problems
with navigation and tended to skip instructions (Pan et al, 2009). English speaking
participants generally found the questionnaire language to be standard and had few
problems. The few problems that were identified were generally in the explanations of who
is considered a household member, rental/ownership status and less common relationships
like roomer/boarder or housemate. Participants who spoke languages other than English
tended to have difficulty in the same places as English speaking participants, they also had
additional places where things were difficult.
In research prior to 2010, Russian research showed similar findings to English. Participants
felt the form was routine and basically felt the language was standard (Pan et al, 2009).
Participants who spoke Russian had the most trouble with the rent/own question. There
were some additional problems with understanding some particular terms like foster and
adopted child and some participants believed the survey was asking about all people in the
apartment building rather than just the home.
Participants who spoke Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese had more trouble with the form
(Pan et al, 2009). This largely stemmed from translation and cultural issues. Forms in these
languages tended to use more formal translations rather than modern words and the words
were often ordered in the same way as the English version rather than in a way that flowed
for the language. There were also issues with terminology that meant something different
across languages or did not have an equivalent, terms like mobile home or foster child. The
questions that were most difficult were those about who to include in the household and
rent/ownership of the home. Age and name questions were also more difficult because of
differences in counting and naming conventions. Some additional relationship categories
like unmarried partner were also more difficult. Chinese and Vietnamese participants
tended to have difficulty navigating the form and understanding the purpose of the form
(Pan et al., 2009). For Korean respondents, difficulty navigating was dependent upon age
and education, older, less educated participants had more difficulty (Pan et al 2009, Park,
Pan & Sha, 2009).
There has been additional cognitive testing leading up to the 2020 Census. Contractor
testing reports have not all been posted to the Census Burea website but they are available
internally. They seem to indicate a few continuing issues with translations and navigation.
Some of these translations have been updated since the tests and this will allow us to
evaluate the differences in the online paradata between the tests and the 2020 Census.
Expert reviews and cognitive interviews were conducted in Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean,
Arabic, and Russian (Sha et al. 2016-1). Expert reviews, cognitive testing and usability
testing was conducted in Spanish (Sha et al. 2016-2). The expert reviews found that the
translations for 2010 were mostly effective and they recommended only a few changes.
The changes recommended by the expert reviews were then cognitively tested. Findings
from the first round of testing were then tested in a second round.

3

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

For all languages where testing was done of online instruments, respondents had difficulty
finding and using their online identification number (Sha et al. 2016-1, Sha et al. 2016-2).
Research has also found that Spanish-speaking respondents in the U.S. may have limited
ability to use mobile devices, even if they have access (Garcia Trejo & Schoua-Glusberg,
2017). Also Spanish-speaking respondents in the U.S. have difficulty with procedures to
log on and navigate web-based surveys (Lykke & Garcia Trejo 2018). These issues may
not be limited to Spanish speakers. Respondents who participated in cognitive testing in
Arabic, Korean, and Russian were more familiar with online surveys and had a relatively
easy time navigating the instrument. Respondents who answered in Chinese, Spanish, or
Vietnamese were less familiar with online navigation and had more difficulty (Sha et al.
2016-1).
The most common area for difficulty in all languages was in understanding residency rules
and instructions for questions that included definitions. Additionally, respondents
answering in Chinese and Spanish had difficulty with the undercount questions and the
race/ethnicity questions (Sha et al. 2016-1, Sha et al. 2016-2). Korean, Vietnamese, and
Russian respondents had difficulty with the county/township question (Sha et al. 2016-1).
Korean respondents tended to overcount college students. Respondents answering in
Arabic had trouble with the new MENA category (Sha et al. 2016-1).

IV.

Research Questions
We ask the following questions:
 Can we identify usability issues or problematic questions specific to certain
languages?
 Does the paradata confirm qualitative language research findings?
 Does the use of a CQA agent mitigate difficulty for respondents who use a language
other than English? How do CQA responses differ from self-responses?
We do not currently have access to the non-English instrument language versions of the
online instrument, nor have we done detailed languages paradata analysis for other surveys,
so we are not quite sure what differences to expect, although we certainly expect there will
be differences. Based on limited qualitative research, we hypothesize respondents who use
the non-English instruments may have increased difficulty with some questions. We
hypothesize that the citizenship question and race ethnicity questions will produce higher
nonresponse rates for respondents who use non-English forms because of potential
sensitivity. We hypothesize that some non-English language respondents will have more
difficulty logging on and navigating the instrument than English respondents. Cognitive
interviews suggest this is particularly true of Spanish and Chinese speakers. We
hypothesize respondents who use non–English forms may be more likely to come in as
non-ID’s because of difficulty identifying their ID number compared to English. Finally,
we hypothesize that questions identified in cognitive research as more problematic will be
more difficult for respondents, these include undercount, age, name, and rent/own.

4

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

V.

Methodology
A.

Evaluation design

We will use the 2020 internet paradata, 2018 test internet paradata, 2017 internet test
paradata, 2015 internet test paradata, non-English language and English language
qualitative reports, and 2020 Census response data to conduct this research. For 2020 ISR
and the two most recent census tests, we will start with the descriptive statistics. (See
https://collab.ecm.census.gov/div/csm/intranet/Pages/Other-Resources.aspx.). We will
calculate the statistics overall and by reporting language. For write-in responses, we can
calculate basic statistics, but we would enlist the help of translators to further explore any
apparently problematic questions. Below are some examples of the types of statistics we
will examine (some are census-specific and not discussed in the previous document):
 What is the percentage of successful logins by language? Percentage of failed
logins by language? Percentage of breakoffs by languages?
 How often are users toggling between languages using the census provided toggle?
What pages are most frequently accessed in a language other than English? What
are the differences between languages?
 How do indicators such a time-in-instrument, time-on each page, time on each
question, number of answer changes (in instrument, by page by question), number
of times help was accessed (in instrument, by page by question), and number of
warning messages (in instrument, by page by question) vary by language
instrument? We intend on doing basic analysis and comparisons on all questions
and pages. However, we will pay particular attention to questions that cognitive
interviews indicate are more problematic for someone using a particular language.
 How does the frequency of answer changes vary by language? When answers
where changed in open ended questions, what were they changed from? What were
they changed to? (data may not be available for last two questions) If we are unable
to see changes to answers we will still look at the final write in response for
respondents who changed answers.
 How do respondents using different languages vary in type of device and browser
used? Mobile versus Personal Computer (PC)? Type of web browser? What is the
distribution of browser language settings? Do indicators (logins, errors time in
instrument etc.) vary by browser or mobile/PC?
 How does time-in-instrument vary between high and low traffic times?
 Does non-ID and ID reporting differ between languages?
Until 2020 data become available, we will begin our analysis with the 2017 and 2018
census test data and earlier qualitative reports. We plan to look at every question, especially
since some preliminary, unpublished research on paradata finds that trouble areas in online
instruments do not always match the trouble areas in cognitive testing. We will start by
calculating descriptive statistics using the census test data. Although the test paradata do
not do not include all 12 languages, we can use the information to begin evaluating changes
made based on qualitative findings. Once the 2020 are available, we will add the additional
languages to our analysis.
5

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

B. Interventions with the 2020 Census
This project has minimal impact on the 2020 Census. The only requested change is that
the systems be modified ahead of the census to collect the answer changes as part of the
internet paradata. Otherwise, we should have the data we need.
Below is a list of the high level activities for this study:
1. Obtain data paradata from previous 2020 census tests.
2. Obtain English and non-English language qualitative testing reports (e.g., cognitive and
usability).
3. Develop initial programs using 2018 ISR paradata.
4. Obtain 2020 Census data and paradata.
5. Analyze data, including comparison to previous qualitative findings.
6. Write report.
C. Implications for 2030 Census design decisions and future research and testing
The proposed research and any recommendations that may come from it are based on the
assumption that the 2030 Census will transition to an all-electronic census. Paradata
analysis across multiple instruments will help us identify non-English language issues with
all survey questions.

VI.

Data Requirements
We will use census test paradata from all available tests and decennial paradata when it
comes available.
Below is a list of data requested for this research-

Data File/Report

Source

Purpose

Expected
Delivery Date

2015 ISR paradata, metdata

National Content Test
2015
Savannah Test 2015
2016 Census Test
2017 Census Test
2018 Census Test
Deccenial Census

analysis

ASAP

analysis
analysis
analysis
analysis
analysis

Deccenial Census

analysis

ASAP
ASAP
ASAP
ASAP
After data
collection as soon
as data is available
After data
collection as soon
as data is available

2015 ISR paradata, metadata
2016 ISR paradata, metadata
2017 ISR paradata, metadata
2018 ISR paradata, metadata
2020 ISR paradata, metadata

2020 ISR response data,
metadata

6

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Detailed 2020 Census ISR paradata requirements:
 Case-level identifier.
 Time stamp corresponding to each event (each action the respondent made).
 Type of event that occurred (login, entry, exit, submit, field_change, next_action,
previous_action, hyperlink, etc.).
 Page in the instrument on which an event occurred.
 Name of the field within a page on which an event occurred (filled when type =
field_change).
 Answer that was selected or entered (filled when type = field_change).
 Person-level identifier for household surveys (not sure, if this is populated for other
surveys).
 Web address of the link that was clicked (filled when type = hyperlink).
 Vertical screen resolution in pixels (filled when type = login).
 Horizontal screen resolution in pixels (filled when type = login).
 User agent string that provides information on the device, operating system, browser,
etc. (filled when type = login).
What was not collected for the Census-eCase test, but needs to be collected in 2020:
 All information written into any field that is not a check box (e.g., including
birthdate, address, etc.).
 Every answer change, including the value it was changed from and the value it was
changed to-both write-ins and check boxes.
 Language instrument being used at any given time.
 Browser language setting, which should be collected with other server information
such as screen size and user agent string.
 Information on language help. There are some languages that have an instrument and
others that do not have an instrument but do have a language specific help file, so it is
important to know help file language being accessed.

VII. Risks
Not collecting all of the internet paradata needed for research. Relatively speaking, paradata
are a much cheaper alternative than meeting with respondents directly. We cannot stress
enough how important it is to collect all of this information. Internet paradata have the
potential to be a treasure trove of information, but we must collect them to be able to use
them. We have heard that there are no plans to collect answer changes, including for writein boxes. If this data is not collected then this would eliminate our ability to answer some of
our research questions. We continue to work with Decennial to push for collection of this
data.

VIII. Limitations
Because this is the first time we have collected non-English decennial census data in an
online format, we are limited in how much we can say about the source of different issues
7

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

we find by language. In the above section we have included some qualitative findings that
we have used to form our hypotheses, but there have not been large scale studies using the
paradata to examine language.

IX.

Issues That Need to be Resolved
We need to make sure we are planning on collecting the paradata needed to conduct these
evaluations. We have been told that there are not plans to collect all possible web paradata.
This would affect this evaluation, as well as other evaluations. Additionally, we need access
to the data outlined above.

X.

Division Responsibilities

Division or Office
CBSM

DSSD

XI.

Responsibilities
 Manage project
 Analyze paradata
 Write up findings





Provide data
Consult on census response data and paradata
Provide project funds
Provide non-English language translation resources as
needed

Milestone Schedule

8

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Evaluation and research or testing study Milestones

Date

Obtain data from all sources except 2020 Census response and ISR
paradata

5/31/2019

Merge data; Create test files

7/31/2019

Conduct preliminary analyses using census test paradata

12/31/2019

Obtain access to 2020 Census data

TBD

Obtain access to 2020 Census ISR paradata

TBD

Consult with language experts and translators as needed

ongoing

Language ISR paradata analysis complete (assuming data received at 3/31/2021
least a year ahead of time)
Give results briefing (assumes data are available in time to meet
earlier deadlines)

5/13/2021

Draft Final Report

6/17/2021

Distribute Initial Draft Paradata by language Report to the Decennial
Research Objectives and Methods (DROM) Working Group for PreBriefing Review

mm/dd/yyyy

Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO) Staff Formally
Release the FINAL Paradata by language Report in the 2020
Memorandum Series

mm/dd/yyyy

XII. Review/Approval Table
Role

Approval Date

Primary Author’s Division Chief (or designee)

mm/dd/yyyy

Decennial Census Management Division (DCMD) ADC for
Nonresponse, Evaluations, and Experiments

mm/dd/yyyy

Decennial Research Objectives and Methods (DROM) Working Group

mm/dd/yyyy

Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO)

mm/dd/yyyy

XIII. Document Revision and Version Control History
Version/Editor
0.1 / RE
1.0

Date
8/20/2018
12/6/2018

Revision Description
Initial full first draft
Draft for DROM
9

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

1.1
1.2
2.0
3.0
3.1

1/17/19
2/6/2019
3/14/2019
4/23/2019

DROM Feedback
Project lead feedback and changes
Revisions for DROM
Revised after process review comments and Drom meeting
Copy edited

XIV. Glossary of Acronyms
Acronym
ADC
DCCO
DROM
DSSD
EXC
IPT
R&M
CBSM

Definition
Assistant Division Chief
Decennial Census Communications Office
Decennial Research Objectives and Methods
Working Group
Decennial Statistical Studies Division
Evaluations & Experiments Coordination Branch
Integrated Project Team
Research & Methodology Directorate
Center for Behavioral Research Methodology

XV. References
Ajrouch, Kristine, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Arabic Repor.t” Survey Methodology 2012,
05.
Decennial Statistics Studies Division. 2016 @020 Census Research and Testing 2012 National
Census Test Contact Strategy, Optimizing Self-response.
Garcia Trejo, Y.A. and Schoua-Glousberg, A. (2017). “Device and internet use among Spanish
dominant Hispanics: Implications for web survey design and testing.” Survey Practice 10:3.
Hogan, H., Cantwell, P., Devine, J., Mule, V.T. and Velkoff, V. (2013) Quality and the 2010
Census. Population Research and Policy Review, Vol 32, No. page 637-662.
Isabelli, Christina, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Spanish Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
06.
Lykke, L., Garcia Trejo, Y. A. (2018)” Results from the Usability Testing of the Spanish
Language Version of the 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Survey (CBAMS)”
Survey Methodology #2018-19. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/workingpapers/2018/adrm/rsm2018-19.pdf.
10

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Matthews, K., Phelan, J., Jones, N., Konya, S., Marks, R., Pratt, B., Coombs, J., Bentley, M.
(@017). Overview of 2015 National Content Test Race and Ethnicity Analysis Report.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/finalanalysis-reports/2015nct-race-ethnicity-analysis.pdf.
Elizabeth Nichols, Erica Olmsted-Hawala, Mikelyn Meyers, “Evaluating the Decennial Census
Reinterview Option: Results from an Interviewer Debriefing of the 2018 Census Test,” CBSM
Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
Pan, Yuling, Stephen Lubkemann, “Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking
Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report,” 2013,
https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2013-02.pdf, accessed on 7/16/18.
Pan, Yuling, M. Mandy Sha, Hyunjoo Park, Alisu Schoua-Glusberg. (2009). “2010 Census
Language Program: Pretesting of Census 2010 Questionnaire in Five Languages” Survey
Methodology #2009-01).
Park, Hyunjoo, M. Mandy Sha, Yuling Pan. (2009) “Cognitive testing as a method of pre-testing
questionnaires in high and low context cultures: a comparison of Korean and English cognitive
interview data” AAPOR.
Rodrigues, Isabel, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2013. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Portuguese Report.” Survey Methodology
2013, 15.
Sha, M., Park, H. , Pan, Y.,Son, J., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Haps E., Kenward K. (2016)
“Multilingual Research for 2020 Census Questionnaire: project 4 report” Internal unpublished
report.
Sha, M., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Gerber, E., Kenward, K., Engle, J., Glusberg, D., Corado, D.
(2016) “Census 2020 Multilingual Research: Project 2 English and Spanish Cognitive and
Usability Testing” Internal unpublished report.
Sha, M., Son, J., Pan, Y., Park, H., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Tasfaye, C., Sandoval Giron, A.,
García Trejo, A., Terry, R., Goerman, P., Meyers, M., and L. Lykke. 2018. “Multilingual
Research for Interviewer Doorstep Messages Final Report.” Research Report Series. 2018.
Shepherd, Robert, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Chinese Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
08.
Whitworth, Erin, (2002) “Internet Data Collection.” Census 2000 Evaluation A.2.B
https://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/A.2.b.pdf.

11

Analysis of Census Paradata by Language
Version 3.1

Yoon, Kyung-Eun, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Korean Report.”. Survey Methodology 2012,
07.

12