2080.5 - Information Paper: Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset, Methodology and Quality Assessment, 2006-2011  
ARCHIVED ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 18/12/2013   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All  
Contents >> 3. Linkage results >> 3.3 Reasons for unlinked records >> 3.3.1 Missing and/or inconsistent information

3.3.1 MISSING AND/OR INCONSISTENT INFORMATION

In these cases, the true match was present in the pool of all record pairs but it was not identified because there was a high level of inconsistency between information on the 2006 Census sample and the 2011 Census record, or key linking fields were missing altogether. The reasons for the match being missed can be categorised into the following groups:

  • The missing or inconsistent information did not allow the record pair to be compared in the same blocking categories and could not be linked.
  • The record pair did not contain enough common information to distinguish the match from other potential record pairs.
  • The record pair was linked, but was attributed a low link weight as it contained a lot of missing or inconsistent information and was positioned below the cut-off identified in sample clerical review.
  • The record pair was subjected to clerical review, but the high level of inconsistency did not enable it to be deemed a link.

Accurate address coding was crucial in narrowing the search and differentiating between true and false links. It was a particular challenge for persons who had moved, since linkage was then dependent on the information supplied in 2011 about the person's address in 2006. Processing for the 2011 Census involved coding for address five years ago to a fine level of geography, ideally Mesh block. This was not always possible, either due to the insufficient detail of address information supplied or because by 2011, Census respondents may not have accurately remembered their address on Census Night in 2006.



Previous PageNext Page