Family Life Survey 1993 - Indonesia

Abstract
---------------------------

The 1993 Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS) provides data at the individual and family level on fertility, health, education, migration, and employment. Extensive community and facility data accompany the household data. The survey was a collaborative effort of Lembaga Demografi of the University of Indonesia and RAND, with support from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, USAID, Ford Foundation, and the World Health Organization. In Indonesia, the 1993 IFLS is also referred to as SAKERTI 93 (Survai Aspek Kehidupan Rumah Tangga Indonesia). The IFLS covers a sample of 7,224 households spread across 13 provinces on the islands of Java, Sumatra, Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi. Together these provinces encompass approximately 83 percent of the Indonesian population and much of its heterogeneity. The survey brings an interdisciplinary perspective to four broad topic areas:

• fertility, family planning, and contraception
• infant and child health and survival
• education, migration and employment
• the social, economic, and health status of adults, young and old

Additionally, extensive community and facility data accompany the household data. Village leaders and heads of the village women's group provided information in each of the 321 enumeration areas from which households were drawn, and data were collected from 6,385 schools and health facilities serving community residents.

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

National coverage

Analysis unit
---------------------------

- Communities
- Facilities
- Households
- Individuals

Universe
---------------------------

Household Survey data were collected for household members through direct interviews (for adults) and proxy interviews (for children, infants and temporarily absent household members). The IFLS-1 conducted detailed interviews with the following household members:
- The household head and their spouse
- Two randomly selected children of the head and spouse aged 0 to 14 (interviewed by proxy)
- An individual age 50 and above and their spouse, randomly selected from remaining members
- For a randomly selected 25 percent of the households, an individual age 15 to 49 and their spouse, randomly selected from remaining members.

The Community and Facility Survey collected data from a variety of respondents including: the village leader and his staff and the leader of the village women's group; Ministry of Health clinics and subclinics; private practices of doctors, midwives, nurses, and paramedics; community-based health posts and contraceptive distribution centers; public, private, and religious elementary schools; public, private, and religious junior high schools; public, private, and religious senior high schools. Unlike many other surveys, the sample frame for the survey of facilities was drawn from the list of facilities used by household survey respondents in the area.

Kind of data
---------------------------

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

The Household Survey Sampling Procedure

The household survey component of the 1993 IFLS was designed to collect contemporaneous and retrospective information on a wide array of family life topics for a representative sample of the Indonesian population. In IFLS1 it was determined to be too costly to interview all household members, so a sampling scheme was used to randomly select several members within a household to provide detailed individual information. IFLS1 conducted detailed interviews with the following household members:
- the household head and his/her spouse
- two randomly selected children of the head and spouse age 0 to 14
- an individual age 50 or older and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members, and
- for a randomly selected 25% of the households, an individual age 15 to 49 and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members.

Household Selection
The IFLS sampling scheme stratified on provinces, then randomly sampled within provinces. Provinces were selected to maximize representation of the population, capture the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of Indonesia, and be cost effective given the size and terrain of the country. The far eastern provinces of East Nusa Tenggara, East Timor, Maluku and Irian Jaya were readily excluded due to the high costs of preparing for and conducting fieldwork in these more remote provinces. Aceh, Sumatra's most northern province, was deleted out of concern for the area's political violence and the potential risk to interviewers. Finally, due to their relatively higher survey costs, we omitted three provinces on each of the major islands of Sumatra (Riau, Jambi, and Bengkulu), Kalimantan (West, Central, East), and Sulawesi (North, Central, Southeast). The resulting sample consists of 13 of Indonesia's 27 provinces: four on Sumatra (North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Lampung), all five of the Javanese provinces (DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, DI Yogyakarta, and East Java), and four provinces covering the remaining major island groups (Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan, and South Sulawesi). The resulting sample represents 83 percent of the Indonesian population. (see Figure 1.1 of the Overview and Field Report in External Documents). Table 2.1 of the same document shows the distribution of Indonesia's population across the 27 provinces, highlighting the 13 provinces included in the IFLS sample.

The IFLS randomly selected enumeration areas (EAs) within each of the 13 provinces. The EAs were chosen from a nationally representative sample frame used in the 1993 SUSENAS, a socioeconomic survey of about 60,000 households.The SUSENAS frame, designed by the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), is based on the 1990 census.The IFLS was based on the SUSENAS sample because the BPS had recently listed and mapped each of the SUSENAS EAs (saving us time and money) and because supplementary EA-level information from the resulting 1993 SUSENAS sample could be matched to the IFLS-1 sample areas.Table 2.1 summarizes the distribution of the approximately 9,000 SUSENAS EAs included in the 13 provinces covered by the IFLS. The SUSENAS EAs each contain some 200 to 300 hundred households, although only a smaller area of about 60 to 70 households was listed by the BPS for purposes of the annual survey. Using the SUSENAS frame, the IFLS randomly selected 321 enumeration areas in the 13 provinces, over-sampling urban EAs and EAs in smaller provinces to facilitate urbanrural and Javanese-non-Javanese comparisons. A straight proportional sample would likely be dominated by Javanese, who comprise more than 50 percent of the population. A total of 7,730 households were sampled to obtain a final sample size goal of 7,000 completed households. Table 2.1 shows the sampling rates that applied to each province and the resulting distribution of EAs in total, and separately by urban and rural status. Within a selected EA, households were randomly selected by field teams based upon the 1993 SUSENAS listings obtained from regional offices of the BPS. A household was defined as a group of people whose members reside in the same dwelling and share food from the same cooking pot (the standard BPS definition). Twenty households were selected from each urban EA, while thirty households were selected from each rural EA. This strategy minimizes expensive travel between rural EAs and reduces intra-cluster correlation across urban households, which tend to be more similar to one another than do rural households. Table 2.2 (Overview and Field Report) shows the resulting sample of IFLS households by province, separately by completion status.

Selection of Respondents within Households
For each household selected, a representative member provided household-level demographic and economic information. In addition, several household members were randomly selected and asked to provide detailed individual information.

The Community Survey Sampling Procedure

The goal of the CFS was to collect information about the communities of respondents to the household questionnaire. The information was solicited in two ways. First, the village leader of each community was interviewed about a variety of aspects of village life (the content of this questionnaire is described in the next section). Information from the village leader was supplemented by interviewing the head of the village women's group, who was asked questions regarding the availability of health facilities and schools in the area, as well as more general questions about family health in the community. In addition to the information on community characteristics provided by the two representatives of the village leadership, we visited a sample of schools and health facilities, in which we conducted detailed interviews regarding the institution's activities.

A priori we wanted data on the major sources of outpatient health care, public and private, and on elementary, junior secondary, and senior secondary schools. We defined eight strata of facilities/institutions from which we wanted data. Different types of health providers make up five of the strata, while schools account for the other three. The five strata of health care providers are: government health centers and subcenters (puskesmas, puskesmas pembantu); private doctors and clinics (praktek umum/klinik); the private practices of midwives, nurses, and paramedics (perawats, bidans, paramedis, mantri); traditional practitioners (dukun, sinshe, tabib, orang pintar); and community health posts (posyandu, PPKBD).The three strata of schools are elementary, junior secondary, and senior secondary. Private, public, religious, vocational, and general schools are all eligible as long as they provide schooling at one of the three levels.

Our protocol for selecting specific schools and health facilities for detailed interview reflects our desire that selected facilities represent the facilities available to members of the communities from which household survey respondents were drawn. For that reason we were hesitant to select facilities based solely either on information from the village leader or on proximity to the village center. The option we selected instead was to sample schools and health care providers from lists provided by respondents to the household survey.

For each enumeration area lists of facilities in each of the eight strata were constructed by compiling information provided by the household regarding the names and locations of facilities the household respondent either knew about or used. To generate lists of relevant health and family planning facilities, the CFS drew on two pieces of information from the household survey. The IFLS queried wives of household heads as to whether they, a family member, a friend, or someone else they knew had ever used a particular health facility, such as a health center (section PP of Book I, excerpted in Appendix B). When women responded positively, they were asked to provide the name and location of a facility of that type. When women responded negatively, they were asked if they knew of any facilities of that type, and if so, were asked about the name and location of the facility. These responses provided one source of information regarding health facilities of relevance to community members. Information was collected for four types of facilities/providers: government health centers and subcenters; private clinics; private doctors' practices; the practices of nurses, midwives, and paramedics; and traditional practitioners.

In Indonesia health facilities are also a source of contraceptives. Ever married women between the ages of 15 and 49 were asked whether they knew about various of methods of contraception (Section CX, Book IV, excerpted in Appendix B). When women knew of a method, they were asked to identify the specific facility from which they could obtain that method. For three methods (oral contraceptives, IUDs, and injectables), the name and location of the facility that the woman mentioned was added to the list of health providers if it fell into one of the five strata to be visited by the CFS team. The information from the "knowledge of contraceptive methods" section is the only source of information about the names and locations of community health posts.

The two sources of household information about health facilities are not tied solely to use of those facilities/providers by household members. Though it is possible (and probable) that someone in the household has used the facility that is mentioned, any facility known to the respondent may be mentioned. An alternative procedure would be to base the list on facilities the respondent (or another household member) has actually used in the recent past. We rejected this approach because we felt it would result in a more limited picture of community health care options (since use of health care is sporadic), and possibly be biased by factors such as what illnesses were common around the time of the interview.

The lists of schools were obtained in a slightly different manner. The respondent to the household roster (Section AR, Book I, excerpted in Appendix B) provided the name and location of all schools currently attended by household members under 25 years of age. Consequently, the lists of schools compiled from household information are all schools attended by at least one member of at least one IFLS household. For each enumeration area eight lists of facilities (one per strata) were constructed based on the combined household responses from that EA. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (Overview and Field Report) provide the cumulative distributions of the numbers of facilities (by strata) identified within EAs. For example, the combined number of health centers identified was less than six in 80 percent of the 132 rural EAs in which we interviewed. The combined numbers of health centers identified was less than six in 68 percent of the 189 urban EAs in which we interviewed. Thus, on average, the combined household responses in urban EAs generate a longer list of health centers than do the combined responses in rural EAs. On average, the lists are longer in urban areas than in rural areas for doctors/clinics and all levels of schools as well. However, on average, the lists are longer in rural areas than in urban areas for nurses/midwives and for traditional practitioners.

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument
---------------------------

Questionnaire Development:

A team of RAND researchers representing a variety of disciplines (e.g., economists, demographers, sociologists, health experts, and survey methodologists), in conjunction with LD research staff, spent nearly 18 months developing the detailed data collection instruments for the household and community-facility components of the IFLS. Other members of the U.S. and Indonesian research community were consulted through a workshop held at RAND in March 1992, and an informal session in Denver at the 1992 annual meetings at the Population Association of America.

The length and complexity of the IFLS household (HH) and community-facility (CF) questionnaires required a wide array of development techniques in Indonesia to refine the instrument. Specifically, small pilot surveys and focus groups were used for initial questionnaire development, while larger pretests were employed for refinement of questionnaires and field procedures. Where appropriate, existing survey instruments were used as the basis for the first versions of the instrument. Sources included the Malaysian Family Life Surveys (MFLS-1 and -2), for all sections; the Indonesian Resource Mobilization Study for health status, provider utilization, and time allocation; and the Demographic and Health Surveys for fertility and contraception questions. However, questions adapted from English questionnaires often required significant alteration to make them culturally appropriate. Facility questionnaires were presented to officials at the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. Suggestions received during these briefings were incorporated into revised versions of the questionnaires.

During the 18-month development period, a series of small-scale pilot tests and two full scale pretests were conducted as part of the household questionnaire development process. The first pretest site was in Sukabumi, an area in West Java, while the second took place in the province of Lampung. Each pretest sampled 20 urban households and 30 rural households for interview. The first pretest focused on the questionnaire instrument, while the second also tested the training and field procedures. The first pretest was conducted by LD staff who served as interviewers. This approach provided optimal feedback since these interviewers were intimately familiar with the study objectives and questionnaire content. For the second pretest, a separate field staff was hired and trained, with the LD staff serving as trainers. RAND and LD staff were onsite during the training, fieldwork and debriefing sessions of both pretests. The CFS questionnaires and field procedures were pretested in several sites in Jakarta and West Java.

Survey Instruments

Household Survey

The structure of the Household Survey questionnaire is summarized in table 2.6 of the Overview and Field report, and the content summarized under the Survey Instruments section of the same report. The questionnaire subsections are also listed below:

Book K: Control Book
-Module SC: Sampling and enumeration record
-Module IK : Recontact information
-Module PS: Within-household sample selection
-Module FP: Questionnaire tracking form
Book I: Household Roster and Characteristics
-Module AR: Household member roster
-Module KR: Household characteristics
-Module KS: Consumption
-Module PP: Outpatient care provider knowledge
Book II: Household Economy
-Module UT: Farm business
-Module NT: Nonfarm business
-Module PH: Labor and nonlabor income
-Module HR:Household assets
-Module GE: Household economic shocks
-Module AK: Health insurance
Book III: Adult Information
-Module DL: Education history
-Module TK: Employment history
-Module AW: Time allocation
-Module KW: Marital history
-Module BR: Pregnancy summary (women 50+)
-Module MG: Migration history
-Module SR: Circular migration history
-Module KM: Tobacco smoking
-Module KK: Health condition
-Module MA: Acute morbidity
-Module PS: Self-treatment
-Module RJ: Outpatient utilization
-Module RN: Inpatient utilization
-Module BA: Noncoresident family roster and transfers
-Module TF: Other transfers
-Module HI: Individual assets & nonlabor income
Book IV: EMW Information
-Module KW: Marital history
-Module BR: Pregnancy summary
-Module CH: Pregnancy and infant feeding history
-Module CX: Contraceptive knowledge and use
-Module KL: Contraceptive calendar
Book V: Child Information
-Module DLA: Child education history
-Module MAA: Child acute morbidity
-Module PSA: Child self-treatment
-Module RJA: Child outpatient utilization
-Module RNA: Child inpatient utilization
Book CA: Anthropometric Record
-Module CA: Anthropometric Measurements

Community and Facility Survey

Three books constitute the community questionnaire in IFLS-1, while another set of instruments comprise the facility questionnaire. The questionnaire subsections are summarized in Table 3.6. and listed below:

Communities
Book 1: Village Heads
- Module LK: Basic information
- Module A: Transportation
- Module B: Electricity
- Module C: Water sources and sanitation
- Module D: Agriculture and industry
- Module E: History and climate
- Module F: Migration
- Module G: Credit institutions
- Module I: History of schools
- Module J: History of health services availability
- Module K: Respondents’ identities
Book 2: Village Records
- Module LK: Basic information
- Module S: Statistics
- Module OL: Direct observation
Book PKK: Women's Group
- Module LK: Basic information
- Module H: Food prices
- Module I: History of schools
- Module J: History of health services availability

Health Facilities
- Module LK: Basic information
- Module A: Head of facility
- Module B: Development of facility
Book PUSK: Government Health Centers
- Module C: Service availability
Book DR: Private doctors and clinics
- Module D: Staff
Book BIDAN: Nurses, midwives, and paramedics
- Module E: Equipment and supplies
Book PPKB: Community health and FP post
- Module F: Direct observation
Book TRAD: Traditional healers
- Module G: Family planning services
- Module H: Family planning vignette
- Module I: Preg exam vignette
- Module J: Cough, fever vignette
- Module K: Vomit, diarrhea vignette

Schools:
- Module LK: Basic information
Book SD: Primary
- Module A: Principal
Book SMP: Junior Secondary
- Module B: School characteristics
Book SMA: Senior Secondary
- Module C: Teachers
- Module D: Classrooms
- Module E: Test scores, revenues

Cleaning operations
---------------------------

All data entry was conducted centrally in Jakarta by a staff of data entry personnel. Data entry supervisors were members of LD’s permanent staff, while keypunchers were recruited from local universities for the data entry period. Data entry personnel were trained in data entry techniques and in the use of ISSA, a computer-assisted data entry program that allowed immediate checks on data consistency and logic. Once an enumeration area was completed, the questionnaires were packed and shipped to Jakarta with a packing sheet identifying the enclosed questionnaires by number.Questionnaires were then assigned for data entry in batches by enumeration area. Data were entered using ISSA with 100 percent verification (i.e., double entered). Batch editing programs were used in Indonesia to further check the data for completeness and consistency.

Data Entry
The data was transcribed from the recording forms into the PC-based data entry system ISSA(Integrated System for Survey Analysis)6 , by staff at Lembaga Demografi (LD) of the University of Indonesia. The data entry program was developed by Nick Murray of RAND with the assistance of LD staff. All data was 100%-verified at data entry (i.e., double entered) and the data entry program contained checks on valid ranges and skip patterns. Upon receipt of the IFLS data at RAND, the ISSA ASCII files were converted into SAS® files for use in the data cleaning process and the preparation of a public use file version of the data. Due to the double entry and data entry program checks, data entry errors were basically nil. The source of remaining data errors was interviewer error and respondent error. Based on problems uncovered so far, there appears to be about a 1-2 percent interviewer/respondent error rate. For files that have, for example, 20,000 records, the 1-2 percent error rate suggests 200-400 records with potential problems. In more complicated sections of the questionnaire, this rate may be a bit higher.

Data Cleaning
Given the size and complexity of the IFLS-HH and IFLS-CF databases and the available project resources, the preparation of the public use files required a data cleaning strategy that would meet basic user needs and make the data available to the research community in a reasonable time frame. Given 100%-verification at data entry, the basic approach, then, was to concentrate on those data cleaning activities which required access to information that was privacy protected. Such cleaning activities could only be done at RAND. Priorities were given to the cleaning of identifier variables--respondent identifiers, anthropometry roster identifiers, household members mentioned elsewhere in the IFLS-HH besides the household roster, the non-coresident sibling and children rosters, and facility identifiers. Within the IFLS-HH, efforts also focused on trying to clean the household roster data so that it could serve as the main source of basic demographic information on household members.

Users could then take information from the household roster and use it throughout to provide consistency in characteristics. Additional areas where data checking efforts were made reflect those sections of interest to projects within the P01 grant that included original IFLS funding and those of interest to the report prepared for AID, a sponsor of the survey. Those areas included anthropometric data, income data, outpatient and inpatient utilization, education status and expenses, pregnancy histories and infant feeding, and interhousehold transfers. Efforts also focused on trying to provide as much translated material as possible. Users should be aware that similar information was sometimes collected in more than one section and sometimes from different individuals. One data preparation activity that was not able to be done in much detail before public release was the examination of inconsistencies in responses by household members to the same item or event, or by a given respondent to the same event asked about in more than one place. In general, the public use files do not include efforts to reconcile possible differences.

Data problems due to interviewer error were the types of problems on which cleaning efforts focused. Discrepancies or oddities due to respondent confusion or to different respondents referring to the same event were generally not addressed during data cleaning. After public release, subsequent data cleaning efforts sponsored by RAND projects will continue and results of those efforts will be made available to the IFLS user community.

Following a policy of not “over-cleaning” data, only those changes for which we had solid information on the correct value were incorporated in to the IFLS-HH and IFLS-CF data. Numerous other suggested changes are available in a set of “fixes” files which contain SAS® programming statements to fix variable values that we believe are in error with our best guess at the correct response. Many of these suggested fixes came from preliminary analyses of selected sections of the IFLS database. The IFLS-HH and IFLS-CF codebooks identify those variables which have suggested fixes available. Users are welcome to incorporate these corrections in their data if they so choose. These “fixes” files are listed in the respective IFLS codebook introductory sections.

Observations on Data Quality
Data problems that were uncovered in the survey are discussed in detail in the IFLS1 User's Guide under "Observations on Data Quality" pages 8-29. Many of the problems discussed have been corrected in the IFLS public use database so are noted in the User's' Guide data quality section. In some cases, however, only suggested corrections are provided via the “fixes” files described above, and are noted accordingly. In other cases, decisions on how to handle a particular problem belong in the hands of the research analyst and in such cases, we alert users to the type of problems we have uncovered, but do not provide suggested fixes. The discussion in the User's Guide may help users understand remaining interviewer and respondent errors not detected before public release.The User's Guide is provided as external resources.

Response rate
---------------------------

HH Survey:
Of the 7,730 households sampled, a complete interview was obtained for 7,039 households or 91.1 percent of households. A partial interview (i.e., roster-level information was obtained but only a subset of selected household members were interviewed) was obtained for another 185 households (2.4 percent of households), while 506 sampled households (6.5 percent) were not interviewed.2 The completion rate ranged from a low of 87 percent to a high of 97 percent across the thirteen provinces. The final sample of 7,224 partially or fully completed households consists of 3,436 households in urban areas (90.7 percent partial/full completion rate), and 3,788 households in rural areas (95.9 percent partial/full completion rate).

Community and Facility Survey:
Not all identified facilities are eligible for interview. Facilities were excluded if they had been interviewed in connection with a previous EA, if they were more than a 45 minute motorcycle trip, or if they were located in another province. The facilities on each list were ranked by frequency of mention. These ranked lists provided frames for each stratum from which a sample of two to four facilities was drawn. In all strata, the most frequently mentioned facility was always visited. Additional facilities were randomly selected to fill the quota for that stratum. In each EA, the interview target for health centers and subcenters was four. The target was three for nurse/midwife/paramedic's practices, community health posts, elementary schools, and junior secondary schools. The target was two for senior secondary schools, traditional practitioners, and doctors' practices/clinics. In some enumeration areas the pooled household responses did not generate a
sufficient number of facilities to fill the quota. In these cases information from the village leader was used to supplement the sample. The average number of facilities (by strata) interviewed per EA is presented in Table 3.3. Numbers of facilities (by strata) interviewed in each province are presented in Tables 3.4 and 3.5(Overview and Field Report).

摘要
---------------------------

1993 年印度尼西亚家庭生活调查（IFLS）提供了个体和家庭层面的数据，涵盖生育、健康、教育、迁移和就业等方面。该调查伴随有广泛的社区和设施数据。调查是由印度尼西亚大学人口统计学研究所（Lembaga Demografi）和 RAND 协同进行的，并得到美国国家儿童健康和人类发展研究所、USAID、福特基金会和世界卫生组织的支持。在印度尼西亚，1993 年的 IFLS 也被称为 SAKERTI 93（印度尼西亚家庭生活调查）。IFLS 涵盖了分布在爪哇、苏门答腊、巴厘、西努沙登加拉、加里曼丹和苏拉威西群岛的 7,224 户家庭的样本。这些省份共同构成了约 83% 的印度尼西亚人口及其多样性。该调查为以下四个广泛的主题领域提供了跨学科视角：

• 生育、家庭规划和避孕
• 婴儿和儿童的健康与生存
• 教育、迁移和就业
• 成年人、青年和老年人的社会、经济和健康状况

此外，还伴随有广泛的社区和设施数据。来自每个抽取家庭所在 321 个抽样区域（ Enumeration Areas）的村长和村妇女小组负责人提供了信息，并从为社区居民服务的 6,385 所学校和卫生设施中收集了数据。

地理覆盖范围
---------------------------

全国覆盖

分析单元
---------------------------

- 社区
- 设施
- 家庭
- 个人

总体
---------------------------

家庭调查数据通过直接访谈（针对成年人）和代访访谈（针对儿童、婴儿和临时缺席的家庭成员）收集家庭成员的数据。IFLS-1 对以下家庭成员进行了详细访谈：
- 家庭户主及其配偶
- 户主和配偶随机选取的 0 至 14 岁的两名子女（由代访者访谈）
- 从剩余成员中随机选取的 50 岁以上个人及其配偶
- 对于随机选取的 25% 的家庭，从剩余成员中随机选取的 15 至 49 岁个人及其配偶。

社区和设施调查收集了来自各种受访者的数据，包括：村长及其工作人员和村妇女小组负责人；卫生部的诊所和分诊所；医生的私人诊所；护士、助产士和急救人员的私人实践；基于社区的卫生站和避孕药具分发中心；公立、私立和宗教小学；公立、私立和宗教初中；公立、私立和宗教高中。与许多其他调查不同，设施调查的样本框架来自家庭调查受访者所在地区的设施清单。

数据类型
---------------------------

样本调查数据 [ssd]

抽样程序
---------------------------

家庭调查抽样程序

1993 年 IFLS 的家庭调查部分旨在收集有关印度尼西亚代表性人口的广泛家庭生活主题的同期和回顾性信息。在 IFLS1 中，确定对所有家庭成员进行访谈的成本过高，因此采用了一种抽样方案，随机选择家庭中的几个成员以提供详细的个人信息。IFLS1 对以下家庭成员进行了详细访谈：
- 家庭户主及其配偶
- 户主和配偶随机选取的 0 至 14 岁的两名子女
- 从剩余成员中随机选取的 50 岁以上个人及其配偶
- 对于随机选取的 25% 的家庭，从剩余成员中随机选取的 15 至 49 岁个人及其配偶。

家庭选择

IFLS 抽样方案在省份层面进行分层，然后在省份内部进行随机抽样。选择省份旨在最大限度地代表人口，捕捉印度尼西亚的文化和社会经济多样性，并在考虑国家的规模和地形的情况下具有成本效益。由于在更偏远省份进行现场工作准备和执行的高成本，东努沙登加拉、东帝汶、马鲁古和伊里安查亚的东部省份被排除在外。出于对该地区政治暴力和对访谈员潜在风险的担忧，阿切（苏门答腊最北部的省份）被删除。最后，由于相对较高的调查成本，我们省略了苏门答腊主要岛屿上的三个省份（柔佛、巨港和班达）以及加里曼丹（西、中、东）和苏拉威西（北、中、东南）的三个省份。最终样本包括印度尼西亚的 27 个省份中的 13 个：苏门答腊的四个省份（北苏门答腊、西苏门答腊、南苏门答腊和 lampong）、所有五个爪哇省份（DKI 雅加达、西爪哇、中爪哇、日惹和东爪哇），以及涵盖其余主要岛屿群体的四个省份（巴厘、西努沙登加拉、南加里曼丹和南苏拉威西）。最终样本代表了 83% 的印度尼西亚人口。（参见概述和现场报告的外部文件中的图 1.1）。同一文件中的表 2.1 显示了印度尼西亚人口在 27 个省份的分布，突出了 IFLS 样本中包含的 13 个省份。

IFLS 在 13 个省份中随机选择了抽样区域（EA）。EA 来自 1993 年 SUSENAS 使用的全国代表性样本框架，SUSENAS 是一项大约有 60,000 户家庭的社会经济调查。SUSENAS 框架由印度尼西亚中央统计局（BPS）设计，基于 1990 年的人口普查。IFLS 基于SUSENAS 样本，因为 BPS 最近已列出并绘制了每个 SUSENAS EA（为我们节省了时间和金钱），并且从结果 1993 年 SUSENAS 样本中产生的补充 EA 级信息可以与 IFLS-1 样本区域相匹配。表 2.1 总结了包含在 IFLS 覆盖的 13 个省份中的约 9,000 个 SUSENAS EA 的分布。SUSENAS EA 每个包含约 200 到 300 户家庭，尽管 BPS 仅列出约 60 到 70 户家庭，用于年度调查的目的。使用 SUSENAS 框架，IFLS 在 13 个省份中随机选择了 321 个抽样区域，过度抽样城市 EA 和小省份的 EA，以促进城市-农村和爪哇-非爪哇的比较。如果采用简单的比例样本，可能会受到爪哇人的主导，他们占人口的 50% 以上。共抽取 7,730 户家庭，以获得 7,000 户完成的家庭的最终样本量目标。表 2.1 显示了每个省份适用的抽样率以及总 EA 分布，以及分别按城市和农村状况划分的分布。在选定的 EA 内，现场团队根据从 BPS 地区办事处获得的 1993 年 SUSENAS 列表随机选择家庭。家庭被定义为居住在同一住宅并共享同一烹饪锅中的食物（BPS 的标准定义）的一群人。每个城市 EA 选择 20 户家庭，而每个农村 EA 选择 30 户家庭。这种策略最大限度地减少了在城乡 EA 之间的昂贵旅行，并减少了城市家庭之间的集群相关系数，因为城市家庭通常比农村家庭更相似。表 2.2（概述和现场报告）显示了按省份划分的最终 IFLS 家庭样本，分别按完成状况划分。

家庭内部受访者的选择

对于每个选定的家庭，一名代表提供了家庭层面的人口和经济信息。此外，随机选择了几个家庭成员，并要求他们提供详细的个人信息。

社区调查抽样程序

CFS 的目标是收集有关家庭问卷受访者的社区信息。信息以两种方式征求。首先，每个社区的村长接受了有关村庄生活各个方面的访谈（本节中描述了该问卷的内容）。村长的信息由对村妇女小组负责人进行的访谈补充，该负责人被问及该地区卫生设施和学校的情况，以及有关社区家庭健康的更一般的问题。除了由村庄领导的两名代表提供的社区特征信息外，我们还访问了样本学校和卫生设施，并就机构的活动进行了详细访谈。

事先，我们想要有关主要门诊医疗保健来源的数据，包括公立和私立，以及小学、初中和高中。我们定义了八个设施/机构层，我们想要有关这些设施的数据。不同的卫生保健提供者构成了五个层，而学校占另外三个层。五个卫生保健提供者层是：政府卫生中心和分中心（卫生所、卫生所辅助所）；私人医生和诊所（公共卫生所/诊所）；助产士、护士和急救人员的私人实践（护士、助产士、急救人员、曼德里）；传统从业者（杜库恩、辛希、塔比布、奥朗·皮塔尔）；和社区卫生站（Posyandu、PPKBD）。三个学校层是小学、初中和高中。只要它们提供这三个层次中的任何一个层次的教育，私立、公立、宗教、职业教育和普通学校都是合格的。

我们选择特定学校和卫生设施进行详细访谈的协议反映了我们希望所选设施代表来自家庭调查受访者所抽取的社区的成员可获得的设施。因此，我们犹豫仅基于村长提供的信息或与村庄中心的位置相近来选择设施。我们选择的方法是，从家庭调查受访者提供的清单中抽取学校和卫生保健提供者。

对于每个抽样区域，根据家庭提供的信息，每个八个层中的设施清单被构建。这是通过编译家庭关于其已知或使用的设施名称和位置的信息来完成的。为了生成有关相关卫生和计划生育设施的数据，CFS 利用家庭调查中的两条信息。IFLS 询问户主妻子，她、家庭成员、朋友或她认识的其他人是否曾经使用过特定的卫生设施，例如卫生中心（第一本书的 PP 部分，摘录在附录 B 中）。当妇女做出积极回应时，她们被要求提供该类型设施的名字和位置。当妇女做出消极回应时，她们被问及是否知道该类型的任何设施，如果是，则被问及该设施的名字和位置。这些回应提供了一个关于社区成员相关卫生设施的信息来源。收集了四种类型设施/提供者的信息：政府卫生中心和分中心；私人诊所；私人医生的实践；护士、助产士和急救人员的实践；和传统从业者。

在印度尼西亚，卫生设施也是避孕药具的来源。曾结婚的 15 至 49 岁妇女被问及她们是否了解各种避孕方法（第四本书的 CX 部分，摘录在附录 B 中）。当妇女知道某种方法时，她们被要求确定她们可以从哪个设施获得该方法。对于三种方法（口服避孕药、宫内节育器和注射剂），如果妇女提到的设施属于 CFS 团队要访问的五个层之一，则将该设施的名字和位置添加到卫生提供者的名单中。关于“避孕方法知识”部分的信息是关于社区卫生站的名字和位置的唯一信息来源。

关于卫生设施的家庭信息并不完全与家庭成员使用这些设施/提供者有关。尽管家庭中有人可能使用提到的设施是可能的（并且很可能是这样），但任何受访者所知的设施都可能被提到。另一种程序可能是基于受访者（或另一位家庭成员）最近实际使用的设施来制定名单。我们拒绝了这种方法，因为我们认为它会导致社区卫生保健选项的更有限图景（因为卫生保健的使用是间歇性的），并且可能受到诸如在访谈时常见的疾病等因素的影响。

学校的名单以略不同的方式获得。家庭名单受访者（第一本书的 AR 部分，摘录在附录 B 中）提供了所有 25 岁以下家庭成员目前就读的学校的名称和位置。因此，从家庭信息中编制的学校名单都是至少有一户 IFLS 家庭成员就读的学校。对于每个抽样区域，根据该 EA 的家庭响应，为每个层构建了八个设施清单（每个层一个）。表 3.1 和表 3.2（概述和现场报告）提供了每个 EA 中识别的设施（按层划分）的累积分布。例如，在 80% 的我们进行了访谈的 132 个农村 EA 中，识别出的卫生中心数量不到六个。在 68% 的我们进行了访谈的 189 个城市 EA 中，识别出的卫生中心数量不到六个。因此，平均而言，城市 EA 的家庭响应生成的卫生中心列表比农村 EA 的更长。平均而言，城市地区的列表比农村地区更长，包括医生/诊所和所有级别的学校。然而，平均而言，农村地区的列表比城市地区更长，包括护士/助产士和传统从业者。

数据收集方式
---------------------------

面对面 [f2f]

研究工具
---------------------------

问卷开发：

由 RAND 研究人员组成的团队代表各种学科（例如，经济学家、人口统计学家、社会学家、卫生专家和调查方法学家），与 LD 研究人员合作，花了近 18 个月时间开发 IFLS 家庭和社区-设施部分的详细数据收集工具。通过 1992 年 3 月在 RAND 举行的研讨会和 1992 年美国人口协会年度会议在丹佛举行的非正式会议，咨询了美国和印度尼西亚研究社区的成员。

IFLS 家庭（HH）和社区-设施（CF）问卷的长度和复杂性要求在印度尼西亚使用一系列开发技术来完善工具。具体而言，使用小型试点调查和焦点小组进行初始问卷开发，而使用更大的预测试来完善问卷和现场程序。在适当的情况下，使用现有的调查工具作为工具的第一版的基础。来源包括所有部分使用的马来西亚家庭生活调查（MFLS-1 和 -2）；印度尼西亚资源动员研究，用于健康状况、提供者利用和时间分配；以及人口和健康调查，用于生育和避孕问题。然而，从英语问卷改编的问题通常需要重大的修改，以使其具有文化适宜性。将设施问卷提交给卫生部和教育部官员。在简报期间收到的建议被纳入问卷的修订版本。

在 18 个月的开发期间，作为家庭问卷开发过程的一部分，进行了系列小型试点测试和两次大规模预测试。第一个预测试地点在西爪哇的苏卡布米，第二个在南苏拉威西省。每个预测试抽取了 20 个城市家庭和 30 个农村家庭进行访谈。第一个预测试侧重于问卷工具，而第二个预测试还测试了培训和现场程序。第一个预测试由 LD 员工担任访谈员，这些访谈员对研究目标和问卷内容非常熟悉，因此提供了最佳的反馈。对于第二个预测试，聘请了单独的现场工作人员并进行培训，LD 员工担任培训师。RAND 和 LD 员工在两个预测试的培训、现场工作和简报会议期间都在现场。

调查工具

家庭调查

家庭调查问卷的结构总结在概述和现场报告的表 2.6 中，并在同一报告的“调查工具”部分中总结了内容。以下列出了问卷子部分：

K 书：控制簿
- 模块 SC：抽样和抽样记录
- 模块 IK：重新联系信息
- 模块 PS：家庭内部样本选择
- 模块 FP：问卷跟踪表

I 书：家庭花名册和特征
- 模块 AR：家庭成员花名册
- 模块 KR：家庭特征
- 模块 KS：消费
- 模块 PP：门诊护理提供者知识

II 书：家庭经济
- 模块 UT：农场业务
- 模块 NT：非农场业务
- 模块 PH：劳动和非劳动收入
- 模块 HR：家庭资产
- 模块 GE：家庭经济冲击
- 模块 AK：健康保险

III 书：成年人信息
- 模块 DL：教育历史
- 模块 TK：就业历史
- 模块 AW：时间分配
- 模块 KW：婚姻历史
- 模块 BR：怀孕总结（50 岁以上妇女）
- 模块 MG：迁移历史
- 模块 SR：循环迁移历史
- 模块 KM：烟草吸烟
- 模块 KK：健康状况
- 模块 MA：急性发病
- 模块 PS：自我治疗
- 模块 RJ：门诊利用
- 模块 RN：住院利用
- 模块 BA：非居民家庭成员名单和转移
- 模块 TF：其他转移
- 模块 HI：个人资产和非劳动收入

IV 书：EMW 信息
- 模块 KW：婚姻历史
- 模块 BR：怀孕总结
- 模块 CH：怀孕和婴儿喂养历史
- 模块 CX：避孕知识和使用
- 模块 KL：避孕日历

V 书：儿童信息
- 模块 DLA：儿童教育历史
- 模块 MAA：儿童急性发病
- 模块 PSA：儿童自我治疗
- 模块 RJA：儿童门诊利用
- 模块 RNA：儿童住院利用

CA 书：人体测量记录
- 模块 CA：人体测量测量

社区和设施调查

IFLS-1 的社区问卷由三本书组成，而另一套工具组成设施问卷。问卷子部分在表 3.6 中总结，如下所示：

社区

I 书：村长
- 模块 LK：基本信息
- 模块 A：交通
- 模块 B：电力
- 模块 C：水源和卫生
- 模块 D：农业和工业
- 模块 E：历史和气候
- 模块 F：迁移
- 模块 G：信贷机构
- 模块 I：学校历史
- 模块 J：卫生服务可用性历史
- 模块 K：受访者身份

II 书：村记录
- 模块 LK：基本信息
- 模块 S：统计数据
- 模块 OL：直接观察

PKK 书：妇女小组
- 模块 LK：基本信息
- 模块 H：食品价格
- 模块 I：学校历史
- 模块 J：卫生服务可用性历史

卫生设施
- 模块 LK：基本信息
- 模块 A：设施负责人
- 模块 B：设施发展

PUSK 书：政府卫生中心
- 模块 C：服务可用性

DR 书：私人医生和诊所
- 模块 D：人员

BIDAN 书：护士、助产士和急救人员
- 模块 E：设备和用品

PPKB 书：社区卫生和计划生育站
- 模块 F：直接观察

TRAD 书：传统从业者
- 模块 G：计划生育服务
- 模块 H：计划生育情景
- 模块 I：孕检情景
- 模块 J：咳嗽、发热情景
- 模块 K：呕吐、腹泻情景

学校：
- 模块 LK：基本信息
SD 书：小学
- 模块 A：校长

SMP 书：初中
- 模块 B：学校特征

SMA 书：高中
- 模块 C：教师
- 模块 D：教室
- 模块 E：测试成绩，收入

清理操作
---------------------------

所有数据录入均由雅加达的数据录入人员集中进行。数据录入监督员是 LD 的常任员工，而键控员则从当地大学招募，用于数据录入期间。数据录入人员接受了数据录入技术和使用 ISSA（综合调查分析系统）的数据录入程序的培训，该程序允许立即检查数据的一致性和逻辑。一旦完成一个抽样区域，问卷就被打包并运往雅