Survey researchers have recently begun using the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File (DSF) as a sampling frame. In addition to address, the DSF contains ancillary data regarding the status and structure of the address. These ancillary data may prove useful in further enhancing frame construction and sampling methodologies. We review three variables on the DSF: the vacancy flag, the college flag, and the drop point indicator. We conclude that the ancillary information available on the DSF may be used with caution. Despite the limitations, the flags may be used to enhance the current frame.
AmayaA.EulerA.. 2010. Assuming “e.” Presented at the 5th Annual Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver, BC, August 3.
2.
ArcherW.LingD.SmithB. C.. 2010. Ownership duration in the residential housing market: The influence of structure, tenure, household and neighborhood factors. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics40:41–61.
3.
ChmuraL.YanceyT.. 2011. Enhancing address based sampling with contingent incentives and sample indicators. Presented at the 66th American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ, May 12.
4.
DekkerK.EnglishN.. 2010. An evaluation of delivery sequence file sufficiency in rural and suburban segments: When is lisitng required. Presented at the 5th Annual Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver, BC, August 3.
5.
GabrielS. A.NothaftF. E.. 2001. Rental housing markets, the incidence and duration of vacancy, and the natural vacancy rate. Journal of Urban Economics49:11–149.
6.
IannacchioneV. G.StaabJ. M.ReddenD. T.. 2003. Evaluating the use of residential mailing addresses in a metropolitan household survey. Public Opinion Quarterly67:202–10.
7.
LinkM. W.BattagliaM. P.FrankelM. R.OsbornL.MokdadA. H.. 2008. A comparison of address-based sampling (ABS) versus random-digit dialing (RDD) for general population surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly72:6–27.
8.
McMichaelJ. P.Shook-SaB. E.McKameyA. C.StolzenbergS. J.MortonK. B.IannacchioneV. G.. 2011. An evaluation of a training protocol designed to supplement the coverage of an address-based sampling frame. Presented at the 66th American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ, May 14.
MontaquilaJ.HsuV.BrickJ. M.EnglishN.O’MuircheartaighC.. 2000. A comparative evaluation of traditional listing vs. address-based sampling frames: Matching with field investigation of discrepancies. Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings, Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association.
11.
O’MuircheartaighC.EckmanS.EnglishN.LepkowskiJ.HeeringaS.. 2005. Comparison of traditional listing and the USPS address database as frames for national area probability samples. Presented at the American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference Miami Beach, FL, May12–15.
12.
O’MuircheartaighC.EnglishN.EckmanS.UpchurchH.GarciaE.LepkowskiJ.. 2006. Validating a sampling revolution: Benchmarking address lists against traditional listing. Proceedings of the 61st American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Survey Research Methods Section at the Joint Statistical Meetings, 4189–96.
13.
O’MuircheartaighC.EnglishN.LatternerM.EckmanS.DekkerK.. 2009. Modeling the need to traditional vs. commercially-available address listings for in-person surveys: Results from a national validation of addresses. Proceedings of the 64th American Association of Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Joint Statistical Meetings, 6193–202.
