TABLE 1.
Weighted Sample Characteristics of Asian Americans: California Health Interview Survey, 2003
| Sample size,a no. | 3875 |
| Women, no. (%) | 2174 (56) |
| Age, y, mean (SD) | 43 (0.23) |
| Ethnicity, no. (%) | |
| Chinese | 1264 (33) |
| Filipino | 689 (18) |
| Korean | 492 (13) |
| Vietnamese | 470 (12) |
| Japanese | 360 (9) |
| South Asian | 400 (10) |
| Other Asian | 200 (5) |
| Household income as percentage of federal poverty level, no. (%) | |
| 0–99 | 588 (15) |
| 100–199 | 655 (17) |
| 200–299 | 542 (13) |
| ≥ 300 | 2090 (55) |
| Education, no. (%) | |
| Less than high school | 366 (11) |
| High school diploma | 721 (18) |
| Some college | 752 (21) |
| College degree or more | 2036 (50) |
| Married, no. (%) | 2408 (62) |
| Employed, no. (%) | 2406 (63) |
| Percentage of life lived in the United States, mean (SD) | 52 (0.68) |
| Language spoken at home | |
| Speaks only English at home, no. (%) | 775 (20) |
| Speaks English and other language at home, no. (%) | 1938 (50) |
| Does not speak English in the home, no. (%) | 1162 (30) |
| Self-reported frequent mental distress, no. (%) | 276 (7) |
| Components of the neighborhood SES scale, mean (SD) | |
| Percentage of families with annual income ≥ $75 000 | 35 (0.03) |
| Percentage of individuals in poverty | 11 (0.18) |
| Percentage of college-educated residents | 41 (0.26) |
| Percentage of home ownership | 57 (0.51) |
| Components of the neighborhood social cohesion scale, no. (%) | |
| Neighborly helpfulness (yes)b | 3354 (87) |
| People do not get along with each other (yes)c | 662 (17) |
| Neighborly trust (yes)d | 3236 (84) |
| People do not share the same values (yes) | 1985 (51) |
| People know each other (yes)e | 2308 (60) |
| Percentage of Asians living in a census tract, no. (%) | |
| 25% Asian residents | 1606 (41) |
| 50% Asian residents | 465 (12) |
Note. SES = socioeconomic status.
All sample statistics were calculated on the basis of the weighted sample size shown in this row.
Based on the respondent's level of agreement with the statement, “People in my neighborhood are willing to help each other.” The item presented here was dichotomized into 2 levels: strongly agree or agree (yes) versus strongly disagree or disagree (no).
Based on the respondent's level of agreement with the statement, “People in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other.” The item presented here was dichotomized into 2 levels: strongly agree or agree (yes) versus strongly disagree or disagree (no).
Based on the respondent's level of agreement with the statement, “People in this neighborhood can be trusted.” The item presented here was dichotomized into 2 levels: strongly agree or agree (yes) versus strongly disagree or disagree (no).
Based on the respondent's level of agreement with the statement, “Most people in this neighborhood know each other.” The item presented here was dichotomized into 2 levels: strongly agree or agree (yes) versus strongly disagree or disagree (no).