
CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE
1982 MERGED METHODS FILE





USER NOTE:
This file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. 
As as result, the user is advised that some errors in character 
recognition may have resulted within the text.









                 AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES

                     1982 Merged Methods File

                 Study Description and Analysis Codebook
                      

                      



                      
                      
                                  By
                      
                      
                            J. Merrill Shanks,
                              Maria Sanchez,
                              Betsy Morton, 
                             Giovanna Morchio
                             Alice Hayes, and
                             Southward Swede









                     ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER 8233                                       
                               CONTENTS




           Note: >>sections in the codebook introduction and
           codebook appendix can be navigated in the
           machine-readable files by searching ">>".





INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL 
---------------------
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE INTRODUCTION
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, MODE OF COLLECTION
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE,  MEASURING ISSUE POSITION
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, NOTE AND WARNING
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, PROCESSING INFORMATION AND FILE STRUCTURE
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, NOTES ON CODEBOOK DOCUMENTATION
>> 1982 NES WORKING PAPERS, 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE
>> CODEBOOK INFORMATION



CODEBOOK
--------



APPENDICES 
----------
>> ABOUT THE NAME EXPRESSIONS IN THE 1982 QUESTIONNAIRE - CANDIDATE 
   NUMBER MASTER CODE
>> 1982 FEELING THERMOMETER
>> 1982 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTERVIEWS          
>> 1982 VOTE QUESTIONS
>> 1982 GEORGIA 04 AND 05
>> 1982 UNOPPOSED RACES
>> 1982 CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER CODE
>> 1982 PARTY CANDIDATE MASTER CODE
>> 1982 IMPORTANT PROBLEM CODE
>> 1982 THE STATE AND COUNTRY CODE
>> 1982 NATIONALITY & ETHNIC CODE
>> 1970 Census Occupation Code
>> 1970 Census Industry Code
>> CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 25,000 OR More Revised 7/82
>> 1982 CPS 2 DIGIT OCCUPATION CODE
>> 1982 FIPS STATE AND COUNTY NOTE
>> 1982 CANDIDATE LIST - PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
>> 1982 CANDIDATE LIST - CATI INTERVIEWS
>> ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SURVEY DATA COLLECTION FOR THE
NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES: A Report on The 1982 NES Method Comparison Project



>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE INTRODUCTION


In early 1982, the National Election Studies obtained additional 
support from the National Science Foundation for a systematic comparison 
of survey data collected through traditional methods (household sampling 
and personal interviewing) and random digit dial (RDD) telephone sampling 
with computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). As proposed, the 
RDD study was to take place in conjunction with the already established 1982 
study of congressional elections. The broad purposes of the data to be 
collected were to permit the NES staff and user community to assess overall 
differences between the two data collection techniques in sample and
measurement  quality, and to carry out a series of additional methodological
experiments concerned  with question format, computer-assisted procedures, 
and survey organization.

The resulting endeavor, called the NES 1982 Method Comparison Project (MCP), 
consisted of 998 complete or partial telephone interviews and 1418 personal 
(Time Series) interviews, all of which were conducted in the three months 
following the 1982 elections. Because of parallel work in the development of
computer-assisted telephone interviewing at Berkeley and Michigan, the
telephone sample was randomly allocated to two different interviewing sites
(or organizations), one operated by the University of Michigan's Survey
Research Center (SRC) and one by UC Berkeley's Program in Computer-Assisted
Survey Methods (CSM).

The rest of this introduction provides essential information and cautionary 
notes for potential analysts of the combined data set described in the MCP 
codebook. This version of the MCP data is the first release of the 1982 
NES telephone sample, and includes 1)all completed interviews and all partial 
interviews in which minimal content requirements were met at the time of 
administration, and 2) all coder-modified variables (e.g., open-ended 
responses, questionnaire checkpoints, etc.). The personal interview component 
of the MCP data set has been released by the ICPSR in a different format and 
with different documentation (American National Election Study, 1982: 
Post-Election Survey File, ICPSR 9042). The inclusion of personal interview 
data in the present data set is not intended for substantive analytic use for 
reasons that will be detailed below. As with other NES studies, this 
experimental data set is released to the NES community at the same time that 
it becomes available for analysis by the NES staff. Further information 
about the study and its preliminary results (based on an initial, and 
incomplete, version of the data) can be found in a report which was 
presented to the HIS Board and the National Science Foundation. That 
report appears as Appendix A to this codebook, and the full (annotated) 
instrument for the study follows this introduction.  The NES also maintains 
a set of method comparison tabulations on all common variables, which may 
be obtained from the NES staff at the cost of reproduction.
   
Experimental Aspects of the Merged Methods Data Set. In principle, the 
design for the studies in the 1982 Method Comparison Project will eventually 
make it possible to pool the data from the two sources  (i.e., from personal 
and telephone interviews). This pooling can be done now for methodological
purposes only. Ultimately, when weight variables are produced, it will be
possible to combine personal and telephone data for substantive analyses 
which call for a larger national sample than the traditional (personal
interview) design can provide. However, in discussions concerning
telephone-based methods within the NES Board, no decisions have yet been 
made concerning long-term plans for combining data collected using these 
two different methods--so that the interviews from one method can be used 
to complement (and/or offset the limitations of) the other  method. 
Before making any such decisions, methodological research is needed in 
several areas, most of which will rest on one or more of the experimental
components in the 1982 MCP design. In the interim, users are cautioned 
against pooling the telephone and personal interview data for substantive
analyses.
  
In particular, the MCP data set incorporates explicit experiments (in 
which respondents were randomly assigned to alternative data collection 
treatments) in each of the following areas:
  
1. Mode of collection (i.e., personal or telephone)
2. Type of organization and CATI system used (i.e., SRC or CSM)
3. Method used to collect data on 7-point issue scales (see below)
4. Method used to identify congressional districts (see below)
        
Each of these MCP experiments is discussed briefly below, and instructions 
are given for the use of filter variables to restrict particular kinds of 
methodological analyses to the appropriate subsample. In each of these 
experimental areas, users are advised that the enclosed codebook describes
only  the initial release of an unusually complex data set, and that
subsequent releases will include weight variables and reports on differences
between samples which may substantially influence the interpretation of
previously obtained results.

In addition, the current release contains some inconsistencies between the 
codebook and data, all of which should be resolved before a second release. 
Unlike the creation of weight variables, however, these inconsistencies should 
not substantially effect analytic results.  (See Processing Information
section in this introduction for a description of the data processing applied
to this study).






            
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, MODE OF COLLECTION

As suggested above, the primary purpose of the Method Comparison 
Project (MCP) was to permit comparison of the combined Michigan and Berkeley
telephone sample with the simultaneously administered personal (Time Series)
interview sample. The goal was to estimate the degree to which the sample and
measurement quality of telephone-based data departs from the standard provided
by the lengthy NES time series.  Insofar as differences are slight or
non-existent, the lower cost of telephone interviews might lead the NES Board 
to adopt a mixed mode (or dual frame) design in future studies, in which the
time series of personal interview surveys would be continued but a larger
proportion of the cases (and/or a larger overall sample) could be produced
through telephone methods. If, on the other hand, method differences are
substantial, such designs would be less attractive for extending the time
series. Telephone methods may of course be used exclusively in other contexts,
such as in reinterviews with "face-to-face" respondents or in studies which
call for samples in specific states or very short data collection periods. But
future NES decisions on such all-telephone designs will be based on sample-
and measurement-related comparisons from the 1982 Merged Methods File data set. 
   
In conducting analyses which combine the two types of data, users should be
warned that the present data set does not include a weight variable which
corrects for the (known) demographic differences in the telephone and personal
interview samples--as described in the Preliminary MCP Report to the NES
Board. Subsequent releases of the MCP data will include at least one such
variable, based on consultation between the NES staff and the SRC Sampling
Section. In the interim, method comparisons may produce results which 
are difficult to interpret--for differences which may be caused by measurement
differences between face-to-face contact (with visual displays) and telephone
interviewing  may also be due to compositional differences between the two
samples, or to some combination of  non-coverage (for non-telephone
households) and to differential non-response due to data collection  mode. To
be sure, not all sample- or response-related differences can be removed by
reweighting the  telephone cases to match the personal interview sample in
(known) socio-economic characteristics.  But some of the initial (unweighted) 
differences will almost certainly be reduced--if they do not  disappear
altogether--when such a weight variable is imposed.
   
This same cautionary note applies to substantive analyses not centered on
methodological issues where the telephone interviews are simply pooled with
the personal interviews to produce a larger national sample. In this initial
release, the telephone interviews have not been weighted to make the two
samples equally representative of the eligible electorate.
   
In addition, many analyses involving questions about contact with
congressional candidates or congressional districts should be restricted to
two of the three samples involved--because of differences between the Michigan
and Berkeley approaches to identifying congressional districts. If you plan on
analyses involving questions about congressional candidates, see the
instructions and cautionary notes in the section below on "Identifying
Congressional Districts."


         
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE,  MEASURING ISSUE POSITION

Since the preparation of the 1979 NES pilot survey, several analysts have 
suggested that our measures of respondents' positions (and perceptions of 
candidate positions) on public policy issues might be improved by replacing
the traditional (single) 7-point scale item by a sequence of two questions. In
such a plan, the first question would be a simple trichotomy which captures 
the broad direction of the respondent's preferences (or perceptions), and the 
second item would be one of three (different) follow-up questions which locate 
the respondent in a final seven category classification. This "branching" 
technique, in which the second question depends upon the respondent's answer
to the first question, is of course a natural format for questions
administered through Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), since
the computer programs  involved control the more numerous skip instructions
involved. 
      
Regardless of the technical support provided by a CATI system, the
methodological question remains: Can a sequence of simpler questions using the
branching format produce "better" data  than the traditional 7-point scale?
   
To address this question, the telephone portion of the 1982 Method Comparison 
Project utilized the random assignment of each case in either the Berkeley or 
Michigan sample to carry out an experiment in which three of the six questions 
which use the 7-point scale were administered using a close approximation to the 
traditional 7-point scale (where spoken explanations replaced the visual display 
presented to respondents in face-to-face interviews) and three questions were
administered using the branching  format. In particular, respondents with
telephone numbers that were randomly assigned to the  Michigan and Berkeley
samples were handled in the following fashion:
                            
                                         VAR.                      VAR.
                       MICHIGAN FORMAT    #       BERKELEY FORMAT   #

Liberal/Conservative       7-point scale  MC0396    branching      MC0471

Aid to Minorities*         7-point scale  MC0418    branching      MC0547

Government Services        7-point scale  MC0446    branching      MC0600

Defense Spending           branching      MC0507    7-point scale  MC0410

Jobs/Standard of Living*   branching      MC0553    7-point scale  MC0428

Status of Women*           branching      MC0594    7-point scale  MC0438
   

*Because of the shorter length of the telephone interview, placements based on 
the respondent's perception of candidate and party positions were not
requested for three of these issues (status of women, government guaranteed
jobs, and aid to minorities), so that placement-related data analyses based on
this methodological experiment must be limited to the remaining three scales
(ideology, jobs, and government services). But all six scales can be compared
in terms of the respondent's own position.
   
In preparing this data set and codebook, the NES staff has reconstructed
7-point scale variables for each of these six "branching" scales but has
deliberately refrained from assigning them the same record of location of
complete items administered in a 7-point format.  This decision was made for
two reasons. First, analysts who intend simply to compare telephone interviews
with personal interviews should not use the data produced by the branching
format. When both formats are used to compare personal with telephone
interviews, differences due to mode of collection (--i.e., to differential
non-response, respondent motivation, or the absence of visual displays) could
be confounded by differences due to item format. Second, analysts who wish to
compare the two measurement formats should familiarize themselves with the
details of the two procedures involved, before proceeding with their analyses.
The two formats are fundamentally different in their definition of "missing
data," in addition to any differences in the apparent central tendency or
variability of substantive answers.  Researchers conducting such analyses
should make their own decisions concerning the best way to construct variables
which combine the answers from the two formats.
   
Differences Between Survey Organizations and CATI Systems. As emphasized
above, the 1982 MCP data were collected through a random assignment of
telephone numbers to either the Michigan or Berkeley CATI facility. The
consequence of this assignment is to combine several kinds of "house" 
differences into a single experimental variable--for the two organizations
involved differed in  the type of organization, in the software used for
computer-assisted interviewing and coding, and in the detailed procedures used
for training and supervising the interviewers and coders. This "bundle" of
differences deserves a brief comment, even though relatively few consistent 
differences have so far been found between the two samples. First, the 1982
NES experiment utilized two quite different kinds of organizations to collect
a single national sample. The University of Michigan's Survey Research
Center's telephone interviewing facility is an established production unit,
and has been responsible for national survey work on a continuing basis for
over five years. In contrast, the Computer-Assisted Survey Methods Program
(CSM) on the Berkeley campus is a research and development group, which
concentrates on the development and dissemination of basic systems for
computer-assisted data collection and analysis. As a result, each
CSM-affiliated study has required the recruitment of a new staff of
supervisors, interviewers, and coders, rather than relying on an established 
or continuing staff. On the other hand, the 1982 NES CATI project was the 
fourth CATI-based data collection for the CSM group, while it was the first 
large-scale application of the CATI system developed at Michigan's Survey 
Research Center. As a result, the two organizations brought different 
kinds of prior experience to the 1982 project. These differences were
instructive in identifying areas where new technical procedures are needed,
but they also contributed to several delays in producing a coordinated data
set as a final product.
  
Because of the above differences, and despite those aspects of interviewing 
that were standardized by the CATI systems, the two organizations involved
used slightly different procedures in the recruiting and training of
interviewers, in the instructions given to interviewers for probing and
recording answers to open ended questions, and in the way in which coders
handled exceptional or difficult cases.  These latter differences are
(presumably) responsible for all apparent "house effects" between the two
(random) halves of the national telephone sample. In a subsequent release,
documentation in the codebook may include references to specific variables on
which Michigan and Berkeley projects differed in interviewing or coding. Very
few annotations of this sort appear in the current version. Given the size of
the two samples, "house" differences in most cases are small or insignificant.
NES analysts are encouraged to join the staff in identifying those areas (if
any) where organization-related survey practices appear to have made a
difference.
  
Alternative Techniques for Identifying Congressional Districts.  The problem 
of congressional district classification is a formidable task in studies 
where respondents are sampled through random digit dialing (RDD) instead of 
a technique using a prior list of addresses, as has been the case in 
conventional designs. No other aspect of the 1982 MCP design received as much 
attention--or was as difficult to implement--as the assignment of respondents 
to specific congressional districts in circumstances where information
available before the telephone interview could only assign that telephone
number to one of two or three possible districts. The CATI system was equipped
with full information about the (multiple) districts involved, for each 
sampled telephone cluster, but the interview itself carried the burden of
making an appropriate choice. 
  
Throughout the 1982 design period, several computer-assisted approaches to
district identification were discussed and pretested.  During the late stages
of preparation for the two CATI instruments used in the 1982 study, the
Berkeley instrument diverged from the Michigan approach, so that two of these
techniques were used in final data collection, with respondents randomly
assigned to one or the other "treatment," depending upon whether they were
included in the Berkeley or Michigan sample. This experimental manipulation
was not part of the original design, but it permits a direct comparison of the
two approaches to district identification.
  
    These two alternative approaches are:

1. Restrict all questions about congressional candidates to those respondents
who can  recall or recognize the name of at least one of the candidates for
Congress in the district(s) judged to correspond to the territory covered by
the respondent's telephone exchange. That is, do not attempt to classify or
assign respondents to a congressional districts if they fail to recall or
recognize (on the NES thermometers) the names of any candidate in any of the
districts in which they might reside. Then automatically assign respondents to
the district for which they recall or recognize at least one of the
candidates' names in only one district, and only ask the respondent to choose
between alternative local districts when recall or recognition answers are in
conflict. This is the approach used on the Michigan sample. (See pages 106-107
of the interview schedule for a schematic description of  Michigan CATI
district assignment procedures.)
      
    OR
      
2. Attempt to assign a congressional district for all telephone respondents, 
including those who say they do not recognize the names of any candidates 
in any of the districts they might reside in. Thus, ask each respondent to 
identify their congressional district unless they have already implicitly done
so in unaided recall of candidate names--i.e., do not use the fact that
candidates are "recognized" in only one district to automatically assign that
respondent to the district in which those candidates ran. This is the approach
used for the Berkeley sample.
      
(For a more complete description of the ways in which Michigan and Berkeley 
assigned respondents to congressional districts, see questions D2 and D3 in
the codebook.)






                
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, NOTE AND WARNING

Analysts interested in comparing CATI data to personal interviews for detailed 
questions about congressional candidates (Section E; Section J. congressional 
candidate issue placements) should discard: a) all the Berkeley-based
telephone interviews and b) those personal interviews where the respondent did
not have a phone, and c) personal and telephone interviews for respondents who
failed to recall or recognize any of the congressional candidates involved for
their district of residence. To select that particular subsample, a special
filter variable (V950) has been constructed. If, on the other hand, the
analyst wants to document further the consequences of the above two approaches
to congressional district classification, all the personal interviews must of
course be omitted (using the sample selection filter, VMC0003).
  
Voting behavior and choice in the 1982 races were obtained for all the 
telephone respondents. If the congressional district had not been assigned in
the course of the telephone interview, the voting choice questions were asked
in open-ended fashion. If the district had been assigned, telephone
respondents were read the names of the House candidates running in that
assigned district, and asked to state whom they voted for. This procedure
paralleled the situation for personal interview respondents who were presented
a Ballot Card for their district of residence. Therefore, analyses on turnout
and vote choice in the 1982 races need not be limited to the subsample
described above in connection with detailed questions about congressional
candidates.
  






          
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, PROCESSING INFORMATION AND FILE STRUCTURE

This integrated data set contains both complete and partial interviews. Strict 
requirements were established for the inclusion of partial interviews in this
file.  The following criteria were used to define minimal requirements for a
partial interview in the telephone sample:
  
1. Sections A-D had to be completed and the respondent had to have at least
started  Section E (Congressional battery);
      
2. In addition, in order for the telephone interview to be accepted, the
following questions had to have been answered:
      
              a. FOl-FO1 D/E (party ID)
              b. LOl-L09b (vote questions)
              c. Y01 (birthrate)
              d. Y03-Y03E (education)
              e. Y64B (city where R lives)
              f. Y67 B/C (street and cross-street)
              g. Z2-Z3 (race and ethnicity)
               
The CATI data were reordered and recoded where necessary to fit the format and 
numerical coding schemes used in the personal interview.  In addition, all 
data were checked for wild codes and inconsistencies in contingent variables 
(except for the open-ended questions). Most of the errors were corrected by 
this operation. Because of the nature of the telephone interviewing 
process and the way in which congressional districts were identified, an 
independent operation was performed by the NES staff to identify the true 
congressional district and its type of congressional race, and the true county 
in which the interview was conducted (VMC0009, VMC0952 and VMC0016,
respectively) based on geographic information provided by the respondent (city
of residence, names of own street and nearest cross-street). The actual locale
was verified by matching the respondent s address to area maps.
  
Several filter variables were created for the MCP data set. VMC0003 allows the 
user to distinguish among the various components of the study: personal 
interview, Michigan CATI and Berkeley CATI. VMC0017 verifies whether the 
congressional district assigned during the CATI interview administration 
matches the congressional district subsequently identified by the NES staff 
by nap lockups of respondent addresses. A final filter, VMC0950, was created
to facilitate any analyses dealing with the congressional district candidate 
data. This filter variable selects those cases from the Michigan CATI sample 
which should be used in comparing telephone and personal interviews on  
congressional candidate questions. Specifically, this filter variable 
removes the Berkeley CATI cases and those personal interviews in which 
no congressional candidates were recognized. Construction of VMC0950 is 
described in NES Working Paper No. 1 listed on page 11.
  

          
>> 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE, NOTES ON CODEBOOK DOCUMENTATION
  
1.  Each variable specifies whether the question was asked in the Personal, 
Telephone, or both portions of the study. Variables are further distinguished 
according to whether they are responses or are built i.e., combined by the 
Direct Data Entry/CATI system from several individual responses. The mode of 
interviewing, and whether a variable is built or not, are distinguished as
follows:
     
    TP = asked in Telephone and Personal
     P = asked in Personal only
     T = asked in Telephone only
  (TP) = built for Telephone and Personal
  T(P) = asked in Telephone and built for Personal
  (T)P = asked in Personal and built for Telephone
                        
2.  Sometimes different INAP patterns were used for the Telephone and the 
Personal. In such cases the INAP will contain the phrase (for TEL only) 
or (for PERS only).

3.  Different coding schemes were sometimes used for a question or different 
question formats. In such questions the following headings were used:
 
     TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
     PERSONAL INTERVIEW
                        
a. If only a portion of the code differed, however, that portion of the code 
is headed by Coded for TELEPHONE ONLY
              
b. Questions not appearing in either the Telephone or the Personal are
designated in the INAP code as: OMITTED FROM TELEPHONE INTERVIEW or OMITTED
FROMPERSONAL INTERVIEW

4.  (TEL) was used to indicate a question skipped due to a partial  interview
or a possible flaw in the CATI program specifications. 
  
5.  In the J Section for the branching and the seven point scales, the
variables asked in the Michigan portion and those asked in the Berkeley
portion are designated \as such in the boxes in the following manner:

          ISR CATI
          HALF SAMPLE
          VMC0404-VMC0408
 
          BERKELEY CATI
          HALF-SAMPLE
          VMC0412-VMC0417
  
a. The J Section also carries two variables names--one gives the dictionary
variable name and the other (in brackets) the CATI name:

      VMC0471 JOlA-BR (Jla)
                        
6.  Notes will also appear with some variables, referencing inconsistent data
patterns that occurred because of flaws in the CATI specification program.
These inconsistencies or flawed skips were left in the data to record the
methodological problems that can arise with CATI.

7.  A Note Section (NOTES A-F) is included which was created for the earlier 
1982 Personal Interview release. These Notes have not been updated to include 
all districts in the  Telephone Interviews for this release (see Notes B. D, 
and F). Nota A refers to a procedure used in the Personal interviews which was 
done by computer for the Telephone Interviews; the Candidate 
Number Master Code attached refers to both Telephone and Personal Interviews.






  
>> 1982 NES WORKING PAPERS, 1982 MERGED METHODS FILE
                        
         
Giovanna Morchio and Maria Sanchez.   "Creation of a Filter Variable to Be
Used When Analyzing Questions about Congressional Candidates in the 1982
Integrated Personal/ISR Berkeley, CATI Dataset: A Report to the Board of
Overseers, National Election Studies."  Working Paper No. 1. Ann Arbor: CPS, 
February 28, 1984. 40 pages.
  
Giovanna Morchio and Maria Sanchez.   "Comparison of the Michigan Method of 
District Assignment on the Telephone with the Personal Interview Simulated 
Data: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 
Working Paper No. 2.  Ann Arbor: CPS, March 2, 1984.10 pages.
      


>> CODEBOOK INFORMATION

The following example from the 1948 NES study provides the standard 
format for codebook variable documentation. 

Note that NES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually
omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for
variable name).


Line

1  ==============================                                              
2  VAR 480026    NAME-R NOT VT-WAS R REG TO VT                                 
3                COLUMNS 61   - 61                                             
4                NUMERIC                                                       
5                MD=0 OR GE 8                                                  
6                                                                              
7                  Q. 17.  (IF R DID NOT VOTE)  WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE)
8                  TO VOTE.                                                   
9                  ...........................................................
10                                                                            
11            82       1.  YES                                                
12           149       2.  NO                                                 
13                                                                             
14             0       8.  DK                                                 
15             9       9.  NA                                                 
16           422       0.  INAP., R VOTED                                     
                                                                            


Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME.  Note that in the codebook the variable name
         (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is 
         used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files
         (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those
         which do not have 'number' names.  For example the variable
         "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition
         files.

Line 2 - "NAME".  This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS
         data definition files (.sas and .sps files).  Some codebooks 
         exclude this.

Line 3 - COLUMNS.  Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file).

Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC.  If numeric and the variable is a decimal
         rather than integer variable, the numer of decimal places is 
         also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC  DEC 4")

Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's
         SAS and and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files).

Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of 
         non-survey variables (for example, congressional district).
         Survey items usually include the question number (for example
         "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 
         non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example
         "CSheet.1").

Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from
         any other documentation which follows.

Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented
         below the question text/description and preceding code values.

Lines 11-16
         Code values are listed with descriptive labels.  Valid codes
         (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented
         first, followed by the values described in line 5.  For
         continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range
         of possible values.  A blank line usually separates the 'valid'
         and 'missing' values.

Lines 11-16
         Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables.  The
         counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the Study codebook
         introductory text to determine weight usage.
