Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2007
Nigeria, 2007
Get MicrodataIdentification
NGA_2007_MICS_v01_M
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2007
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Nigeria | NGA |
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey - Round 3 [hh/mics-3]
The MICS3 Nigeria has the following primary objectives:
- To provide up-to-date information for assessing the situation of children and women in Nigeria;
- To furnish data needed for monitoring progress towards goals established by the Millennium Development Goals, and those of A World Fit for Children (WFFC) among others;
- To measure progress towards achievements of goals of NEEDS, NAPEP, NACA and their state and local government extensions, among others;
- To contribute to the improvement of data and monitoring systems in Nigeria and to strengthen technical expertise in the design, implementation, and analysis of such systems;
- To provide statistics to complement and assess the quality of data from recent national surveys like the NLSS, CWIQ and NDHS.
Sample survey data [ssd]
Scope
The scope of Nigeria 2007 MICS includes:
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
o Household listing
o Education
o Water and Sanitation
o Household characteristics
o Insecticide Treated Nets
o Children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS
o Child Labour
o Maternal Mortality
o Salt Iodization
WOMEN QUESTIONNAIRE
o Child Mortality
o Tetanus Toxoid
o Maternal and Newborn Health
o Marriage/Union
o Contraception and Unmet Need
o Female Genital Mutilation
o HIV/AIDS
o Sexual Behaviour
CHILDREN UNDER-5 QUESTIONNAIRE
o Birth Registration and Early Learning
o Child Development
o Vitamin A
o Breastfeeding
o Care of Illness
o Malaria for Under-5
o Immunization
o Anthropometry
Producers and sponsors
| Name |
|---|
| National Bureau of Statistics |
| Name |
|---|
| United Nations Children's Fund |
Sampling
The sample for the Nigeria Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS3) was designed to provide estimates on a large number of indicators on the situation of children and women at the country level, for urban and rural areas; and for each of the 36 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja. The States were the main reporting domains. The sample design was two-stage in each state, where a systematic sample of 30 census enumeration areas (EAs) was selected with equal probability to form the first stage or primary sampling units (PSUs). The updated 1991 Population Census Enumeration Area demarcation was used.
Household listing was conducted in each of the selected EAs to provide an up-to-date frame of housing units (HU) as the secondary sampling units (SSUs). A systematic sample of 25 housing units was subsequently drawn with equal probability within each of the selected EAs, and all the households in each of the selected HUs were canvassed. Thus, in each state, 750 HUs were drawn yielding a total of 27,750 HUs for the country. The sample was stratified by states and was hardly self weighting at either state or national level. Hence, sample weights were used for reporting state or national results.
There are differences between weighted and un-weighted numbers for most categories of the different target populations because the sampling constituted 30 EAs from each state irrespective of the number of EAs in the states. The same sampling situation is true of other classifications of the target populations e.g. classifications by residence, sex, education, wealth quintiles, and geopolitical zones.
A more detailed description of the sample design can be found in Appendix A of the report.
All of the selected EAs were successfully canvassed.A total of 28,603 households including 20,825 in the rural and 7,778 in the urban sectors were sampled; the total number of occupied sampled households was 28,431 including 20,735 rural and 7,696 urban households. The total number of interviewed households was 26,735 including 19,569 rural and 7,166 urban households. These figures translate into 94.0 percent response rates for the total, 94.4 percent for the rural and 93.1 percent for the urban sectors. The total figure of eligible women was 27,093 including 19,674 and 7,419 for rural and urban sectors respectively while the corresponding figures of interviewed women were 24,565, 17,928, and 6,637 respectively; which translate into 85.3, 86.0 and 83.3 percent overall response rates respectively. The eligible children under-five were 17,093, 12,898 and 4,195 and interviewed were achieved for 16,549, 12,494 and 4,055 respectively; again the corresponding overall response rates were 91.0, 91.4 and 90.0 percent respectively.
The sample was stratified by states and was hardly self weighting at either state or national level. Hence, sample weights were used for reporting state or national results.
Survey instrument
Three questionnaires were used in the survey, namely a household questionnaire to collect information on general characteristics of the household including membership and the dwelling; a questionnaire for individual women and one for children under-five. The latter questionnaires were administered in each household to women aged 15-49; and to mothers or caretakers of under-five children, respectively in households where these persons were identified. The questionnaires and the constituent modules are as follows:
-
Household Questionnaire including the following modules
o Household listing
o Education
o Water and Sanitation
o Household characteristics
o Insecticide Treated Nets
o Children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS
o Child Labour
o Maternal Mortality
o Salt Iodization -
Questionnaire for Individual Women
o Child Mortality
o Tetanus Toxoid
o Maternal and Newborn Health
o Marriage/Union
o Contraception and Unmet Need
o Female Genital Mutilation
o HIV/AIDS
o Sexual Behaviour -
Questionnaire for Children Under Five
o Birth Registration and Early Learning
o Child Development
o Vitamin A
o Breastfeeding
o Care of Illness
o Malaria for Under-5
o Immunization
o Anthropometry
The questionnaires, which were based on the generic MICS3 model English version. The questionnaires were adequately pre-tested during 26?30 December 2006 in four purposively selected typical states; a stakeholdersĀf forum and a MICS3 Central Technical Committee (CTC), reviewed the questionnaires and effected some amendments in terms of inclusion of additional or optional modules and modifying in part the wording and flow of the questionnaires.
Data collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-14 | 2007-04-12 |
Prior to training of field staff, rollout meetings were held in November 2006 at national and in each of the six geo-political zones of the country. The meetings sensitised stakeholders on the MICS3 Nigeria process, discussed strategies for implementation, considered the problems and lessons learnt from the previous MICS, and agreed on steps towards improving MICS3.
Training for the fieldwork was conducted at national and zonal levels. The training of the trainers (TOT) took place in December 2006; while the training for the main survey was held in February/March 2007 in the six geo-political zones simultaneously. Training included lectures on interviewing techniques and the contents of the questionnaires; practice interviews took place in purposively selected EAs that were considered typical of the environment.
In each of the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, data were collected by two teams of field staff, each comprising 4 interviewers, one editor and one supervisor. Thus, a total of 296 interviewers, 74 editors, 74 supervisors, 37 state monitors and 6 zonal co-ordinators participated in the field work. Means of transport were provided for the core field staff to facilitate movement of the fieldworkers. State and zonal coordinators were appointed to monitor the main survey activities 5 at the state and zonal levels respectively. Fieldwork began in March 2007 and was concluded in six weeks by April 2007.
Data processing
Collected data were entered using the CSPro software. Data entry was done simultaneously at each of the six geopolitical zones in the country, each zone handling data from the component states. In order to ensure quality control, all questionnaires were edited, double entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Procedures and standard programmes developed under the global MICS3 project and adapted to the Nigeria questionnaires were used throughout. Data processing, which included further manual editing, computer data entry and validation, commenced few days after the end of data collection in April 2007 and was completed in October 2007.
Data appraisal
The sample of respondents selected in the Nigeria Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey results.
The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:
- Standard error (se): Sampling errors are usually measured in terms of standard errors for particular indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is the square root of the
variance. The Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors. - Coefficient of variation (se/r) is the ratio of the standard error to the value of the indicator
- Design effect (deff) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling. The square root of the design effect (deft) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.
- Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistics will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (p + 2.se or p ? 2.se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.
More detailed information on Estimates of sampling error is available in Appendix C of the final report.
Quality assessment study of the data has confirmed a number of quality problems in MICS Nigeria 2007. In the Appendix Da of the report, these problems were set out offering the likely causes as well as some of the possible implications for data quality and accuracy of estimates of characteristics and indicators emanating from the data.
Data Access
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download of the data files (for datasets obtained on-line)
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Inquiries | UNICEF | childinfo@unicef.org | http://www.childinfo.org/ |
| MICS Programme Manager | UNICEF | mics@unicef.org | http://www.childinfo.org/ |
Metadata production
DDI_WB_NGA_2007_MICS_v01_M
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Economics Data Group | World Bank | Documentation of the DDI |
2011-10-04
Metadata version
Version 01 (October 2011)