Table 5.
Detection of list experiment design effect violations by socioeconomic characteristic and list among Rajasthani women aged 15–49a
| Design Effect P‐Value | ||
|---|---|---|
| List A | List B | |
| Age | ||
| 15–19 | 0.208 | 0.001 |
| 20–29 | 0.545 | 0.562 |
| 30–39 | 0.271 | 0.661 |
| 40–49 | 0.653 | 0.423 |
| Marital status | ||
| Currently married/cohabiting | 0.645 | 0.567 |
| Divorced or separated/widowed | 0.523 | 1.000 |
| Never married | 0.450 | 0.079 |
| School | ||
| Never attended | 0.043 | 0.998 |
| Primary | 0.557 | 0.222 |
| Secondary | 0.171 | 0.061 |
| Higher or postgraduate | 0.812 | 0.696 |
| Wealth | ||
| Poorest | 0.318 | 0.260 |
| Second poorest | 0.912 | 0.509 |
| Middle | 0.473 | 0.428 |
| Second wealthiest | 0.063 | 0.701 |
| Wealthiest | 0.836 | 0.557 |
| Caste of household head | ||
| Scheduled caste | 0.380 | 0.814 |
| Scheduled tribe | 0.527 | 0.017 |
| Other backward classes | 0.002 | 1.000 |
| General | 1.000 | 0.171 |
| Religion of household head | ||
| Hindu | 0.574 | 0.035 |
| Muslim | 0.550 | 0.433 |
| Other | 0.281 | 0.289 |
| Residence | ||
| Rural | 0.901 | 0.149 |
| Urban | 0.071 | 0.961 |
| Parity | ||
| 0 | 0.501 | 0.003 |
| 1–2 | 0.596 | 0.219 |
| 3–4 | 0.125 | 1.000 |
| 5+ | 0.776 | 1.000 |
| Abortion (direct question) | ||
| No | 0.513 | 0.009 |
| Yes | 0.320 | 0.996 |
| Total | 0.531 | 0.119 |
a
Each list/subgroup specific p‐value is Bonferroni‐corrected to account for multiple comparison within the design effect test. Bolding indicates p‐value less than 0.05.