I am working with the METRO variable to classify each observation based on the table below. However, the dataset only includes values from 0 to 4, which do not match the options listed in the table. Please advise.
| 1 | Not in metropolitan area | X |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Metropolitan status indeterminable (mixed) | X |
| In metropolitan area: | ||
| 3 | Not in central/principal city | X |
| 4 | Central/principal city status indeterminable (mixed) | X |
| 5 | In central/principal city | X |
I reviewed your most recent extract (#16), but did not observe this issue. That suggests to me that either the data was not decompressed and/or not correctly loaded into your stats package. I can run through the steps that I took to load the data and maybe this will help you troubleshoot what is happening.
First, I downloaded and decompressed the .dat.gz fixed width file. The Windows 11 decompression tool can have issues decompressing .gz files. Therefore, I used 7-Zip which is our recommended decompression software for Windows (see the Unarchiver for Mac). Since I am a Stata user, I then went ahead and downloaded the Stata .do command file and put it into the same folder as the decompressed .dat file. The process is the same for SAS and SPSS, except you will want to download the corresponding command file. For opening the data in R, you will want to consult this ipumsr vignette. I then ran the Stata. do file. The .do file (as well as the SAS, SPSS, and DDI files) includes the following labels for METRO:
label define metro_lbl 1 `"Not in metropolitan area"'
label define metro_lbl 2 `"Metropolitan status indeterminable (mixed)"', add
label define metro_lbl 3 `"In metropolitan area: Not in central/principal city"', add
label define metro_lbl 4 `"In metropolitan area: Central/principal city status indeterminable (mixed)"', add
label define metro_lbl 5 `"In metropolitan area: In central/principal city"', add
In the screenshot below, I have tabulated METRO and observed that all five values (1-5) are available. Please let me know if anything is still unclear.
I had this issue with extract #15 (ACS 2023). I will compare the frequency table from ACS 2023 with the latest extract, as the distribution is unlikely to change by a lot . I will also review the frequency table for ACS 2024 — extract #16.
Thanks for clarifying that this was from your extract #15. This extract was processed on 2/18/25. However, coding for METRO was recently revised on 1/28/26.
All major data updates and revisions are published on the IPUMS USA revision history page. The following note is included with this update:
For METRO, the code for ‘Metropolitan status indeterminable (mixed)’ changed from 0 to 2 and the code for ‘In central/principal city’ was changed from 2 to 5.
Extracts that were processed prior to 1/28/26 therefore use this earlier 0-4 coding scheme where:
0: Metropolitan status indeterminable (mixed)
1: Not in metropolitan area
2: In central/principal city
3: Not in central/principal city
4: Central/principal city status indeterminable (mixed)
You can continue using data from your extract #15 following this coding pattern, or resubmit this extract for processing to obtain the data using the updated coding pattern. I hope that clarifies what is happening in the data.
Thanks for also sharing your concern with us; it’s helpful as we think about how to better communicate these types of changes to data users.
