Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Post-Stratification: A Modeler's Perspective

Little, R. J. A.·1993·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Post-stratification is a common technique in survey analysis for incorporating population distributions of variables into survey estimates. The basic technique divides the sample into post-strata, and computes a post-stratification weight w ih = rP h /r h for each sample case in post-stratum h, where r h is the number of survey respondents in post-stratum h, P h is the population proportion from a census, and r is the respondent sample size. Survey estimates, such as functions of means and totals, then weight cases by w h . Variants and extensions of the method include truncation of the weights to avoid excessive variability and raking to a set of two or more univariate marginal distributions. Literature on post-stratification is limited and has mainly taken the randomization (or design-based) perspective, where inference is based on the sampling distribution with population values held fixed. This article develops Bayesian model-based theory for the method. A basic normal post-stratification model is introduced which yields the post-stratified mean as the posterior mean, and a posterior variance that incorporates adjustments for estimating variances. Modifications are then proposed for small sample inference, based on (a) changing the Jeffreys prior for the post-stratum parameters to borrow strength across post-strata, and (b) ignoring partial information about the post-strata. In particular, practical rules for collapsing post-strata to reduce posterior variance are developed and compared with frequentist approaches. Methods for two post-stratifying variables are also considered. Raking sample counts and respondent counts is shown to provide approximate Bayesian inferences when the margins of the two post-stratifiers are available but their joint distribution is not. When the joint distribution is available, raking effectively ignores the information it contains, and hence can be compared with other techniques that ignore information such as collapsing. For inference about means, it is suggested that raking is most appropriate when post-stratum means have an additive or near-additive structure, whereas collapsing is indicated when interactions are present.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.1993.10476368

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Brackstone G. J., 1979, Sankhya, C, 41, 97
  2. Cochran W. G., 1977, Sampling Techniques,
  3. Goksel, H., Judkins, D. R. and Mosher, W. D. “Nonresponse Adjustments for a Telephone Follow-up to a National In-Person Survey,”. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. pp.581–586. American Statistical Association.
  4. Harte, J. M. “Post-Stratification Approaches in the Corporate Statistics of Income Program,”. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association 1982. pp.250–253.
  5. Kalton, G. and Maligalig, D. S. “A Comparison of Methods of Weighting Adjustment for Nonresponse,”. Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Research Conference, U.S. Bureau of the Census. pp.409–428.
  6. Little R. J. A., 1991, Journal of Official Statistics, 7, 405
  7. Little, R. J. A. Discussion of Session “Estimation Techniques With Survey Data,”. Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Research Conference, U.S. Bureau of the Census. pp.441–446.
  8. Oh H. L., 1983, Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys, Volume 2—Theory and Bibliographies, 435
  9. Potter, F. “A Study of Procedures to Identify and Trim Extreme Sampling Weights,”. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. pp.225–230. American Statistical Association.
  10. 10.1080/01621459.1969.10501015 · doi:10.1080/01621459.1969.10501015
  11. Tremblay V., 1986, Survey Methodology, 12, 85
  12. Waterton J., 1987, Journal of Official Statistics, 3, 267

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Little, R. J. A.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1993-09
Volume
88
Issue
423
Pages
1001-1012
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2014908010
Cited by
329
References
16
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Post-Stratification: A Modeler's Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1993.10476368
The paper
Little, R. J. A. (1993). Post-Stratification: A Modeler's Perspective. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1993.10476368

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.