IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nca/ncaerw/166.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gone and Forgotten? Predictors of Birth History Omissions in India

Author

Listed:
  • Sharan Sharma

    (National Council of Applied Economic Research)

  • Sonalde Desai

    (National Council of Applied Economic Research)

  • Debasis Barik

    (National Council of Applied Economic Research)

  • O.P. Sharma

    (National Council of Applied Economic Research)

Abstract

Fertility histories are subject to measurement errors such as incorrect birth dates, incorrect birth orders, incorrect sex, and omissions. These errors can bias demographic estimates such as fertility rates and child mortality rates. We focus on births missing in fertility histories. We estimate the prevalence of such omissions and study their associated factors. We leverage a panel survey (the India Human Development Survey) where the same women were interviewed in two waves several years apart. We compare data across waves and identify omitted births. Omissions in the second wave are modeled as a function of several child, mother, household, and survey interviewer variables. Models are fit separately to omissions reported alive or dead in the first wave. We conservatively estimate the prevalence of omissions at 4%. A large majority of omitted births are those of dead children, especially infants, with children in poorer households at greater risk of being omitted. For children alive in wave 1, female children are much more likely to be omitted in wave 2 compared to male children. Interviewers can detect respondent behaviors associated with omissions. Omissions in fertility histories are non-ignorable. They do not randomly occur but affect some population sub-groups and some interview contexts more than others. We investigate the understudied but important phenomenon of omitted births in fertility histories. We bring attention to possible biases in demographic estimates. We shed light on the survey process and propose strategies for minimizing the bias through improved survey design

Suggested Citation

  • Sharan Sharma & Sonalde Desai & Debasis Barik & O.P. Sharma, 2024. "Gone and Forgotten? Predictors of Birth History Omissions in India," NCAER Working Papers 166, National Council of Applied Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:nca:ncaerw:166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ncaer.org/publication/gone-and-forgotten-predictors-of-birth-history-omissions-in-india
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominique Meekers, 1991. "The Effect of Imputation Procedures on First Birth Intervals: Evidence from Five African Fertility Surveys," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 28(2), pages 249-260, May.
    2. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    3. Marie-Claire Robitaille & Ishita Chatterjee, 2018. "Sex-selective Abortions and Infant Mortality in India: The Role of Parents’ Stated Son Preference," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 47-56, January.
    4. Albert Marckwardt, 1973. "Evaluation of an experimental short interview form designed to collect fertility data: The case of Peru," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 10(4), pages 639-657, November.
    5. Shelley Clark, 2000. "Son preference and sex composition of children: Evidence from india," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 37(1), pages 95-108, February.
    6. Stéphane Helleringer & Li Liu & Yue Chu & Amabelia Rodrigues & Ane Barent Fisker, 2020. "Biases in Survey Estimates of Neonatal Mortality: Results From a Validation Study in Urban Areas of Guinea-Bissau," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(5), pages 1705-1726, October.
    7. Itismita Mohanty & Tesfaye Alemayehu Gebremedhin, 2018. "Maternal autonomy and birth registration in India: Who gets counted?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Stephan Klasen & Claudia Wink, 2002. "A Turning Point in Gender Bias in Mortality? An Update on the Number of Missing Women," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 28(2), pages 285-312, June.
    9. Yoonjoung Choi & Qingfeng Li & Blake Zachary, 2018. "Measuring fertility through mobile‒phone based household surveys: Methods, data quality, and lessons learned from PMA2020 surveys," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(55), pages 1663-1698.
    10. Helleringer, Stephane & Liu, Li & Chu, Yue & Rodrigues, Amabelia & Fisker, Ane Baerent, 2020. "Biases in Survey Estimates of Neonatal Mortality: Results from a Validation Study in Urban Areas of Guinea-Bissau," SocArXiv qx2kn, Center for Open Science.
    11. Laura Lindberg & Kathryn Kost & Isaac Maddow-Zimet & Sheila Desai & Mia Zolna, 2020. "Abortion Reporting in the United States: An Assessment of Three National Fertility Surveys," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(3), pages 899-925, June.
    12. Desai, Sonalde & Dubey, Amaresh & Joshi, Brij Lal & Sen, Mitali & Sharif, Abusaleh & Vanneman, Reeve, 2010. "Human Development in India: Challenges for a Society in Transition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198065128.
    13. Sarah Hayford & S. Morgan, 2008. "The quality of retrospective data on Cohabitation," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 45(1), pages 129-141, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heather Congdon Fors & Annika Lindskog, 2023. "Son preference and education Inequalities in India: the role of gender-biased fertility strategies and preferential treatment of boys," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 1431-1460, July.
    2. Hathi, Payal, 2022. "Population science implications of the inclusion of stillbirths in demographic estimates of child mortality," SocArXiv sz8n9, Center for Open Science.
    3. Scott South & Katherine Trent & Sunita Bose, 2014. "Skewed Sex Ratios and Criminal Victimization in India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 1019-1040, June.
    4. Srinivas Goli & Somya Arora & Neha Jain & Sekher T. V., 2024. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 43(4), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Hallie Eilerts & Julio Romero-Prieto & Jeffrey Eaton & Georges Reniers, 2021. "Age patterns of under-5 mortality in sub-Saharan Africa during 1990‒2018: A comparison of estimates from demographic surveillance with full birth histories and the historic record," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(18), pages 415-442.
    6. MATTHEW McCARTNEY & AISHA GILL, 2007. "From South Asia to Diaspora: Missing Women and Migration," Working Papers 152, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    7. Keera Allendorf, 2015. "Fertility Decline, Gender Composition of Families, and Expectations of Old Age Support," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 34(4), pages 511-539, August.
    8. Scott South & Katherine Trent & Sunita Bose, 2012. "India’s ‘Missing Women’ and Men’s Sexual Risk Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 31(6), pages 777-795, December.
    9. Arokiasamy Perianayagam & Srinivas Goli, 2012. "Provisional results of the 2011 Census of India," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 39(10), pages 785-801, August.
    10. Claus C Pörtner, 2010. "Sex Selective Abortions, Fertility and Birth Spacing," Working Papers UWEC-2010-04-R, University of Washington, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2010.
    11. Vitor Miranda & Johan Dahlberg & Gunnar Andersson, 2018. "Parents’ Preferences for Sex of Children in Sweden: Attitudes and Outcomes," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 37(3), pages 443-459, June.
    12. Portner, Claus C, 2015. "Sex-selective abortions, fertility, and birth spacing," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7189, The World Bank.
    13. Abhishek Singh & Ashish Kumar Upadhyay & Kaushalendra Kumar & Ashish Singh & Fiifi Amoako Johnson & Sabu S. Padmadas, 2022. "Spatial heterogeneity in son preference across India’s 640 districts: An application of small-area estimation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(26), pages 793-842.
    14. Qianqian Shang & Quanbao Jiang & Yongkun Yin, 2022. "How Does Children's Sex Affect Parental Sex Preference: Preference Adaptation and Learning," Working Papers wp2022_2202, CEMFI.
    15. Neha Jain, 2022. "Patrilocality and Child Sex Ratios in India," Working Papers 2265, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
    16. Ebert, Cara & Vollmer, Sebastian, 2022. "Girls unwanted – The role of parents’ child-specific sex preference for children’s early mental development," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    17. Barik, Debasis & Desai, Sonalde & Vanneman, Reeve, 2018. "Economic Status and Adult Mortality in India: Is the Relationship Sensitive to Choice of Indicators?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 176-187.
    18. Bhagowalia, Priya & Chen, Susan E. & Masters, William A., 2011. "Effects and determinants of mild underweight among preschool children across countries and over time," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 66-77, January.
    19. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    20. Sonia Bhalotra & Abhishek Chakravarty & Dilip Mookherjee & Francisco J. Pino, 2019. "Property Rights and Gender Bias: Evidence from Land Reform in West Bengal," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 205-237, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fertility history; Panel data; Measurement error; Missing data; Survey Methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nca:ncaerw:166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: B Ramesh (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ncaerin.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.