You can read the entire text in HTML format below or read it
in
Adobe Acrobat.
CONTACT: Amy
Watts (502-564-2851)
Kentucky Retirement Survey: Background Information and Sample Characteristics
The percentages shown in Table 1
(Policy Note 11) are drawn from a
question asked on the Kentucky Retirement Survey regarding familiarity with
elder-care
services offered by the Kentucky Office of Aging Services. In the Fall of 1999 the
Administrative Office of the Courts generated, from voter registration and driver’s
license lists, a random sample of Kentuckians born before January 1, 1955. Included
in the sample were the names and addresses of 2,500 persons age 45 and older. The
University of Kentucky Survey Research Center administered a 17-page, 69-question
survey to these 2,500 individuals between February 1, 2000, and February 4, 2000. The
survey was closed on May 12, 2000, with 962 total completions included in the data. Among
the responses, 313 were considered ineligible for various reasons and 1,225 recipients did
not answer the survey. The response rate was 44.4 percent (962 divided by 2,187). Table A.1
shows some sample characteristics.
Table A.1: Sample Characteristics for the Kentucky
Retirement Survey, 2000
Fall 2001, Kentucky Survey: Background Information and Sample Characteristics
The percentages in Figure 1 and estimated percentages in
Figure 2 and
Table 2 (Policy Note 11) are based on data garnered from questions commissioned by the
Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center which were included in the Fall 2001 Kentucky
Survey of the general adult population conducted by the University of Kentucky (UK) Survey
Research Center. Kentucky households were selected using random-digit dialing, a procedure
giving every residential telephone line in Kentucky an equal probability of being called.
Calls were made from February 21 until March 22, 2002. The sample includes
noninstitutionalized Kentuckians 18 years of age or older. Of the 2,589 calls made 1,037
interviews were completed, yielding a response rate of 40.1%. The margin of error is
approximately ±3 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Table A.2 shows some
sample characteristics.
Table A.2: Sample Characteristics for the Fall
2001 Kentucky Survey
All respondents were asked about their satisfaction
with the availability and affordability of high-quality elder-care
services in their communities regardless of whether they had personally
used or sought information about these services for themselves or
someone else. Tables A.3 and A.4 shows the crosstabulation between the
satisfaction levels and personal use. These tables reveal that although
the majority of the sample had no personal experience with elder-care
services in their communities, many were still able to express
satisfaction levels regarding their availability and affordability.
Approximately two-thirds of those with no personal experience expressed
an opinion of satisfaction with both aspects of services. All sample
respondents that chose “don’t know” or “refuse to
answer” were excluded from the analytical results shown in Figures
1 and 2 and Table 2 in
Policy Note 11, the majority of which were those
with no personal experience with elder-care services. Approximately a
quarter of the total sample chose these answers when asked about either
aspect of elder-care services.
Table A.3: Crosstabulation Between Satisfaction
with AVAILABILITY of Elder-Care Services and Occurrence of Use or
Inquiry into These Services
Table A.4: Crosstabulation Between Satisfaction
with AFFORDABILITY of Elder-Care Services and Occurrence of Use or
Inquiry into These Services
Model Specification
The estimated percentages in Figure 2 and
Table 2 (Policy Note
11) are based on the impact of each factor on the level of
satisfaction with the availability and affordability of services while
holding the other socioeconomic and demographic factors constant. We
used a multivariate probit model to estimate the relationship between
the dependent variables and several independent variables. The dependent
variable in the first model is the respondent’s self-assessment of his
or her satisfaction with the availability of elder-care services,
while the second model focused on the affordability aspect. The
actual questions are: Would you describe yourself as a) extremely
satisfied, b) somewhat satisfied, c) somewhat dissatisfied, or d)
extremely dissatisfied with the 1) AVAILABILITY and 2) AFFORDABILITY of
high-quality elder-care services in your community? The question was
asked twice, the first question asked about availability and the second
question asked about affordability and choices “a” through
“d” are the possible answers to each question. Those who
answered “don’t know” or “refuse to answer” were
excluded from the sample. We collapsed the dependent variables into two
categories so that “extremely satisfied” or “somewhat
satisfied” with the availability or affordability of elder-care
services equals one and “somewhat dissatisfied” or
“extremely dissatisfied” with the availability and
affordability of elder-care services equals zero. The independent
variables are listed below:
ELDSERVE — This dichotomous variable equals 1 if the respondent
has used or inquired about elder-care services for himself or
herself or someone else. Otherwise the variable equals 0. HSGRAD — The survey respondents were asked to please circle
the last grade in school you completed. HSGRAD equals 1 if they
circled “graduated high school” or “GED.”
Otherwise the variable equals zero. SOMEPSE — The survey respondents were asked to please circle
the last grade in school you completed. SOMEPSE equals 1 if they
circled “1 or 2 years college, no degree,” “graduated
junior or community college,” “vocational/technical
degree,” or “3 or 4 years of college, no degree.”
Otherwise the variable equals zero. BAORMORE — The survey respondents were asked to please circle
the last grade in school you completed. BAORMORE equals 1 if
they circled “Bachelor’s degree,” “Some graduate
school work,” or “Graduate degree (ex: MA, MS, Ph.D.,
JD....).” Otherwise the variable equals zero. The comparison
group includes all those individuals with educational attainment
levels less than a high school diploma or equivalent. URBAN — This dichotomous variable is equal to 1 if the
individual lives in an urban county and 0 for a rural county. OVER65 — This dichotomous variable is equal to 1 if the
individual is 65 years old or older and 0 if the individual is 64
years old or younger. BTWN2540, BTWN4070, GT70K, MISINC — These dichotomous variables
reflect if the individual’s annual household income from all
sources before taxes is in the second, third, or fourth quartile.
The first quartile is left out of the model and is therefore the
comparison group. It includes individuals with yearly household
incomes less than $25,000. The variable equals 1 if the individual’s
income falls in the quartile (or is missing in the case of MISINC)
and 0 if it does not. The variable BTWN2540 is 1 if the individual’s
income is between $25,000 and $40,000. The variable BTWN4070 is
equal to 1 if the individual’s income is between $40,000 and
$70,000. The variable GT70K is equal to 1 if the individual’s
income is greater than $70,000. The variable MISINC is equal to 1 if
the individual’s income is missing. MALE — This dichotomous variable is equal to 1 for males and 0
for females. WHITE — This dichotomous variable is equal to 1 if the
individual is white, non-Hispanic and equal to 0 otherwise.
Model Results
Two probit models were used to estimate the
relationship between the independent variables and the likelihood that
an individual would be “extremely satisfied” or “somewhat
satisfied” with the availability and affordability of elder-care
services in his or her community. Table A.5 presents the parameter
estimates for each model.
The two models predicting satisfaction with
availability and affordability of elder-care services were relatively
equivalent in their explanatory power. The likelihood ratio (LR)
statistics for the models were highly significant at the 0.01 level,
thus rejecting the hypothesis that all the estimated coefficients of the
independent variables in these models were equal to zero. Thus, the
independent variables were jointly significant in explaining individual
satisfaction levels with each aspect of high-quality elder-care services
in his or her community. The goodness-of-fit measures were also
equivalent at approximately 0.07 for each model. We found a slightly
higher predictability level for the model explaining satisfaction with
the availability of elder-care services, however. The first model
predicted approximately 71 percent of the dependent variables correctly,
while the model of affordability predicted approximately 58 percent
correctly.
Table A.5:
Probit Model Parameter Estimates of the Likelihood an Individual
Expresses Satisfaction with Elder-Care Services, by Availability and
Affordability
|
