I’m examining MSA data using 2022 1-year ACS data. I noticed that Beckley, WV (MET2013 = 13220) is not listed as available in the variable description, but is in my dataset. Before using the data, I wanted to ask whether I should be concerned about its reliability given that it is not in the list. Another strange case is Dover, DE, (20100) which is in the list but indicates it should not be available for 2022. Finally, it was notable to me that the standard errors for these estimates for a variable I constructed based on other existing variables was 0, and thus the CVs were also 0.
My gut is to not use these estimates, but any guidance or advice?
It appears that listing Beckley, WV (MET2013 = 13220) was simply overlooked when updating the documentation listing metropolitan areas when the new 2020 PUMAs were integrated into the data. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. The code will be added to the codes tab for MET2013 and labels that identify this code as the Beckley MSA will be added to the data with the next release. Regarding Dover, Delaware, observations for this metropolitan area are available in the 2022 ACS. I’m attaching a screenshot that notes this information (the “X” denotes that it is available).
It’s difficult for me to comment on whether your standard errors are correct or not since this depends on the specific analysis that you run. Standard errors will likely be small when using large datasets such as the ACS, but they should not be 0. This suggests to me that the variable you construct has the same value for all observations (hence the differences between your observations and mean are all equal to zero). The Census Bureau recommends that researchers use replicate weights (REPWT for households and REPWTP) for standard error estimation. The IPUMS replicate weight FAQ provides sample code for incorporating these weights into analyses using a statistical package such as Stata or R.
