Demographie Survey in Panama in 1976.

They illustrate some of the of this type are often due to changing marriage pattems, but the fact
probiems encountered when dealing with real dala.
A quiclc examination of table 187 reveals that, especially at older
ages, the marital status of a substanţial proportion of the persons
interviewed is unknown. It is difficult to imagine a reason for this
omission since a priori it would seem easy for a person to remember
whether he or she had been married.
A possible source of misunderstanding may be that the term “ever
married” was used in a broad sense to mean “having belonged to a
stable union". Because in many countries, unions not legalized by
marriage are socially unacceptable, a respondent in such a situation
might tend to avoid acknowledging his or her “marital status”. It then
seems plausible to assume that most of the “unknowns” were, in fact,
“ever married”. The validity of this assumption is, however, impossi-
ble to establish without recourse to further Information. But if the
data available are to be used in computing singulate mean ages at
marriage for each sex, it is necessaiy to make some assumption about
their true meaning. As suggested, one extreme assumption is to sup-
pose that all the “unknowns" are ever married. Another, less extreme
possibility is to assume that both the single and the ever-married per­
sons within each age group have an equal probability of being
classified as “unknown” (this assumption would be plausible if most of
the unknowns were the result of random errors produced while Pro­
cessing the data). Under this assumption, the proportion single in
each age group would remain the same if the unknowns were ignored
as if they had declared their marital status properly.
Each of these assumptions leads to a different way of computing the
proportion single in each age group and to somewhat different esti-
mates of the desired singulate mean ages at marriage. The computa­
ţional procedures and results are shown below.
(a) Calculation of singulate mean age at marriage ignoring those of un­
known marital status
In the first instance, the proportions single are calculated by ignor­
ing the unknowns. The resulting proportions are shown in table 188
Then, using these proportions single, the singulate mean ages at mar­
riage are computed as usual.
T able 188. P roportions single ignorino those of unknown
MARITAL STATUS, PANAMA, 1976
that the proportion single declines at ages 50-54 suggests that the rela-
tively high value observed at ages 45-49 may be due, at least in part, to
misreporting of status rather than to true changes in the marriage pat­
tems of the past.
Thetefore, to calculate the singulate mean age of marriage in this
case, the reported proportions single were adjusted by replacing the
value of 0.0470 for age group 45-49 by the average of the two values
adjacent to it, which happen to be also the two smallest proportions
single observed. Thus, it was assumed that the proportion single at
ages 45-49 was 0.0324. Under this assumption, the singulate mean age
at marriage is computed in the usual way. The results of the main
steps are shown below:
RSi = 5.0(1.584)= 7.92
AS2= 7.92 +15.0= 22.92
RN = (0.0324 +0.0323) /2.0 = 0.0324
RM = 0.9677
RS }= 50.0(0.0324)= 1.62
SMAM = (RS2 -RS3 )/RM = 22.01.
It is interesting to note that the value of SMAM would have been
21.88 if the observed data, without adjustment, had been used, a value
that is very similar to that obtained above.
(b) Calculation of singulate mean age at marriage assuming that those of
unknown marital status are ever married
The values of SMAM are computed next by assuming that the
“unknowns” belong, in fact, to the ever-married categoty. The pro­
portions single obtained under this assumption are shown in table 189.
The computations needed to arrive at the final value of SMAM are
summarized in cases 3 and 4.
(i) Case 3: males (unknowns considered to be ever married)
The results for case 3 are shown below:
RS 2 = 5.0(2.416)+15.0= 27.08

Agt RS 2 = 50.0( (0.0783 +0.0542)/2.0) = 50.0(0.0663)= 3.3125

Omm Mak$ Ftmaies
iîy (2) m
SMAM = (*Sj-/tSj)/0.9337 = 25.45.
15-19............... 0.9749 0.8101
20-24................ 0.6947 0.3918
(ii) Case 4: females (unknowns considered tobe ever married)
25-29................ 0.3257 0.1608
30-34................ 0.1722 0.0936 Once moţe, the inconsistency apparent in age group 45-49 was
35-39................ 0.1248 0.0628 corrected by replacing the reported proportion single, 1/(7) (0.0441),
40-44................ 0.0946 0.0325 by the average of those adjacent to it (0.0305). An outline of the cal-
45-49................ 0.0893 0.0470 (0.0324) culations follows:
50-54................ 0.0626 0.0323
RS 2 = 5.0(1.5605)+15.0= 22.80

RS 2 = 50.0(0.0302)= 1.51
(i) Case 1: males (unknowns ignored)
The results of the main steps for case 1 are given below: SMAM = (KS2—/tSj)/0.9698= 21.95.
/tS,= 5.0(2.4762)= 12.381

*S2=/IS,+15.0= 27.381 T able 189. P roportions single assuming that those of unknown
MARITAL STATUS ARE EVER MARRIED, PANAMA, 1976
RN = (0.0893 +0.0626)/2.0 = 0.076 Proportions Angli
Agr
Males Ftmatn
RM = 0.924 *zr m tl)
RS 2 =S0.0RN = 3.798 15-19................ 0.9731 0.8056
20-24................ 0.6861 0.3847
SMAM = (RS2 -RS2 )/RM = 25.52. 25-29................ 0.3143 0.1575
30-34................ 0.1624 0.0910
35-39................ 0.I16S 0.0602
(ii) Case 2: females (unknowns ignored) 40-44................ 0.0853 0.0310
Note that the proportions single among females do not, as expected. 45-49................ 0.0783 0.0441 (0.0305)
deciease consistently as age increases. The proportion single at ages 50-54................ 0.0542 0.0300
45-49, for example, is greater than that at ages 40-44. Inconsistencies

226