Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006
Suriname, 2006
Get MicrodataIdentification
SUR_2006_MICS_v01_M
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Suriname | SUR |
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey - Round 3 [hh/mics-3]
The 2006 Suriname Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey has as its primary objectives:
• To provide up-to-date information for assessing the situation of children and women in Suriname;
• To furnish data needed for monitoring progress toward goals established by the Millennium Development Goals, the goals of A World Fit For Children (WFFC), and other internationally agreed upon goals, as a basis for future action;
• To contribute to the improvement of data and monitoring systems in Suriname and to strengthen technical expertise in the design, implementation, and analysis of such systems.
Sample survey data [ssd]
Scope
The scope of Suriname 2006 MICS includes:
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
o Household listing
o Education
o Water and sanitation
o Household characteristics
o Insecticide treated nets
o Child labour
o Child discipline
o Disability
WOMEN QUESTIONNAIRE
o Child mortality
o Tetanus toxoid
o Maternal and newborn health (with questions on intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women)
o Marriage/Union
o Contraception and unmet need
o Attitudes toward domestic violence
o Sexual behaviour
o HIV/AIDS
CHILDREN UNDER5 QUESTIONNAIRE
o Birth registration and Early learning
o Child development
o Breastfeeding
o Care of illness and Source and cost of supply of ORS and antibiotics
o Malaria and Source and cost of supply of antimalarials
o Immunization
o Anthropometry
Producers and sponsors
| Name |
|---|
| General Bureau of Statistics |
| Ministries of Social Affairs and Housing |
| Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation |
| Name |
|---|
| United Nations Children's Fund |
Sampling
The sample for the Suriname Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) was designed to provide
estimates on a large number of indicators on the situation of children and women at the national level
and for urban, rural coastal and rural interior areas.
Suriname is divided into 10 districts and 62 'ressorten' by law. The 'ressorten' are subdivisions at the
district level. For purposes of conducting the fieldwork during the Seventh Population and Housing
Census the General Bureau of Statistics subdivided each ressort in the coastal area (lowland and
savannah) into 'telblokken'. A 'telblok' was considered to be the manageable workload for a Census
enumerator for the fieldwork period of two weeks and would ideally have between 100 and 150
households. In the interior (rainforest) a somewhat different fieldwork approach was used, whereby
teams consisting of 5-7 fieldworkers canvassed clusters of villages. These clusters were called 'telgebieden'
and were expected to have approximately 500 households, or the workload of 5 interviewers. As the last Census was completed relatively recently (August, 2004) and results provide a basis for provisional estimates on the number of households, the 'telblokken' and 'telgebieden'were considered the best currently available subdivisions by the General Bureau of Statistics. Therefore they form the basis for the MICS 2006 sample design.
According to settlement types, three strata can be distinguished across the ten districts of Suriname:
• An urban stratum
• A rural stratum in the coastal area
• A rural stratum in the interior
The three strata were identified as the main sampling domains and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, census enumeration areas were selected with probability proportional to size. Selected enumeration areas were divided into segments of an estimated number of households of 25, based on their estimated Measures of Size. Out of each selected enumeration area, one segment was selected as a MICS cluster. The borders of MICS cluster were clearly defined in the field.
Prior to the start of the MICS3 fieldwork, cartography personnel of the GBS (General Bureau of Statistics) undertook fieldwork activities, to establish as much as possible (with the exception of the interior stratum) the landmarks and boundaries of each selected MICS-cluster, in order to facilitate the interview teams in the field with maps and clearly defined boundaries. The interview teams then received the instruction to gather information on each household encountered within the boundaries of the MICSclusters. For the Interior Stratum, where it is relatively difficult to geographically divide each Enumeration Area (EA) into clusters of households, names of heads of households were drawn within the selected EAs. Interview teams had to identify those households within the selected EAs and received special instructions in that regard.
A more detailed description of the sample design can be found in Appendix A.
The minimum number of households to be selected for the MICS was calculated to be 6,223 households (sample size). Due to over-sampling in clusters in the interior stratum and the fact that the construction of MICS-clusters was based on estimated measures of size rather than exact measures of size, 6,593 households were sampled during the actual fieldwork. Of these households, 6,536 were found to be occupied.
Of the occupied 6,536 households, 5,746 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 87.9 percent. In the interviewed households, 5,959 women (age 15-49) were identified. Of these, 5,283 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 88.7 percent. In addition, 2,354 children under age five were listed in the household questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed for 2,257 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of 95.9 percent. Overall response rates of 77.9 and 84.3 are calculated for the women’s and under-five’s interviews respectively.
Household response rates in the urban and rural coastal stratum do not differ much (89.5 percent and 90.8 percent respectively). Household response rates are lower in the interior stratum (78.6 percent). A possible explanation for the lower response rates in the interior is that it was impossible to do recall-visits of non-responding households in much of the interior strata, because of logistics and high costs.
The difference between sampled and occupied households in the urban and rural coastal strata (0 cases), when compared to the difference between sampled and occupied households in the interior has to do with the different household sampling approaches in the interior stratum versus the rest of the country. For the urban and rural coastal strata, blocks of approximately 25 households (so called MICS-clusters) were selected, with the instruction that fieldworkers would have to visit all of the households within a block. All occupied households within a block automatically became part of the sample.
In the interior stratum another approach was used, namely the selection of heads of households within a MICS-cluster. This approach was used, because it would otherwise have been costly to do listing and design blocks of dwellings in the interior, prior to or even during the fieldwork phase. Also, it might prove difficult in practice to divide villages or communities in blocks, due to the geographical location of dwellings and infrastructure.
The heads of households were selected out of the sampling frame of the Seventh Housing and Population Census, which was held in August, 2004. Drawn households that were not encountered during the MICS fieldwork, make up the difference between “sampled” and “occupied” in the interior stratum.
Within interviewed households, response rates for women and children did not differ much between the 3 strata.
The sample is not self-weighting. For reporting national level results, sample weights are used.
Survey instrument
Three sets of questionnaires were used in the survey: 1) a household questionnaire which was used to collect information on all de jure household members, the household, and the dwelling; 2) a women’s questionnaire administered in each household to all women aged 15-49 years; and 3) an under-five questionnaire, administered to mothers or caretakers of all children under five living in the household.
The household questionnaire that was used for the MICS in Suriname included the following modules:
o Household listing
o Education
o Water and sanitation
o Household characteristics
o Insecticide treated nets (for the districts of Brokopondo and Sipaliwini only)
o Child labour
o Child discipline
o Disability
The questionnaire for individual women that was used in Suriname was administered to all women aged 15-49 years living in the households, and included the following modules:
o Child mortality
o Tetanus toxoid
o Maternal and newborn health (with questions on intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women in Brokopondo and Sipaliwini)
o Marriage/Union
o Contraception and unmet need
o Attitudes toward domestic violence
o Sexual behaviour
o HIV/AIDS
The questionnaire for children under five was administered to mothers or caretakers of children under five years of age8 living in the households. In most cases, the questionnaire was administered to mothers of under five children; in cases when the mother was not listed in the household roster, a primary caretaker for the child was identified and interviewed.
The questionnaire for children under five included the following modules:
o Birth registration and Early learning
o Child development
o Breastfeeding
o Care of illness and Source and cost of supply of ORS and antibiotics
o Malaria and Source and cost of supply of antimalarials (in Brokopondo and Sipaliwini only)
o Immunization
o Anthropometry
The questionnaires are based on the MICS3 model questionnaire, which were translated into Dutch and were evaluated during the training of fieldworkers in March 2006. Based on the results of the evaluation and discussions during the training, modifications were made to the wording and translation of the questionnaires.
In addition to the administration of questionnaires, fieldwork teams measured the weights and heights of children age under 5 years. Details and findings of these measurements are provided in the ‘Nutrition’ section of the report.
Data collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2006-04 | 2006-10 |
Training for the fieldwork was conducted for 7 days from 27 March until 3 April, 2006. Training included lectures on interviewing techniques and the contents of the questionnaires, and mock interviews between trainees to gain practice in asking questions. The data were collected by 9 teams comprising of 4 interviewers, 1 driver, 1 editor/measurer and 1 supervisor. Fieldwork began in April, 2006 and was concluded in May, 2006 for the urban and rural coastal strata. As for the rural interior the fieldwork was planned to commence on May 8, 2006. However, in the weekend prior to that date, torrential rains in the interior caused massive flooding of parts of the interior. By the evening of May 8, several parts of the interior had been declared disaster areas, with at least 150 villages flooded and over 15,000 persons displaced. The flooding continued for several weeks and travel into the interior by air and road became very difficult. As a result, the fieldwork in the interior was suspended.
After discussions with the UNICEF Regional Office in Panama and UNICEF Headquarters in New York, the survey period was extended by 4 months, in order to gather MICS data in the districts of Brokopondo and Sipaliwini. Brokopondo was surveyed in August, 2006 and Sipaliwini was surveyed in September and October, 2006.
It should be noted that when interpreting results of the interior stratum, one should keep in mind possible unforeseen effects of the flooding and its aftermath on survey results for the interior.
Data processing
Data were entered using the CSPro software. The data were entered at the General Bureau of Statistics (GBS) on approximately 20 microcomputers. Ten of those computers were designated MICS data entry computers for hired MICS-data entry personnel at least 8 hours per day, while the other computers were available for MICS data entry by GBS-personnel after regular working hours. Data entry was carried out by 10 full-time and 20 part-time data entry operators with 3 data entry supervisors. In order to ensure quality control, all questionnaires were double entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Standard procedures and programs developed under the global MICS3 project and adapted to the Suriname questionnaire were used throughout. Data entry began in July, 2006 and was completed in August, 2006 for the urban and rural coastal strata. Data entry for the interior stratum started in August, 2006 and was completed in October, 2006, after the questionnaires of the last clusters were received from the field. Data editing and data analysis lasted from September, 2006 to May, 2007.
Data appraisal
The sample of respondents selected in the Suriname Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected.
Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey results.
The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:
• Standard error (se): Sampling errors are usually measured in terms of standard errors for particular indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is the square root of the variance. The Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors.
• Coefficient of variation (se/r) is the ratio of the standard error to the value of the indicator
• Design effect (deff) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling. The square root of the design effect (deft) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design.A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.
• Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistics will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (p + 2.se or p – 2.se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.
For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, SPSS Version 14 Complex Samples module has been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator.
Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national total, for the regions, and for urban and rural areas. Two of the selected indicators are based on households, 7 are based on household members, 11 are based on women, and 14 are based on children under 5.
Tables of sampling errors are available in Appendix C of the report.
Data Access
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download of the data files (for datasets obtained on-line)
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Inquiries | UNICEF | childinfo@unicef.org | http://www.childinfo.org/ |
| MICS Programme Manager | UNICEF | mics@unicef.org | http://www.childinfo.org/ |
Metadata production
DDI_WB_SUR_2006_MICS_v01_M
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
Metadata version
Version 01 (October 2011)