Hi,
If I’m correct, there are some missing MSAs in the MET2013 variable such as Abilene, TX. Is this because the error for the MSA is larger than 15%? If that’s the case, are they assigned Not Identified for MET2013?
Thanks!
Yes, that’s correct. The exact label that MET2013 uses for unidentified cases is “Not in identifiable area”, which can mean either that the majority of PUMA residents don’t live in any single metro area or that they live in a metro area that has a total mismatch greater than 15%.
It’s possible to use the crosswalks provided at the bottom of the MET2013 description to determine the mismatch for any metro area. There’s another batch of files there that report mismatch errors for identified metro areas, but not for unidentified metro areas. I recently created new versions of those files to report mismatch errors for all of the 2013 metro areas. We haven’t yet updated the web page with the new files, and I’m not sure when we will, so I’ve gone ahead and attached the new files here. The last of these files shows that the sum of mismatch errors between the Abilene metro area and 2010 PUMAs is 20.4%.
MSA2013_PUMA2000_match_summary_pop2000.xlsx (49.7 KB)
MSA2013_PUMA2000_match_summary_pop2010.xlsx (50.0 KB)
MSA2013_PUMA2010_match_summary.xlsx (49.5 KB)
1 Like