Harmonization summary
1 label-stable codes
- Label changes detected
- 0
- Multiple dataset contexts
- 0
- Unique codes
- 1
- Enriched codes in this report
- 0
Praxis Data Lab · Variable History
Variable history and harmonization report.
Review variable definitions, cycle chronology, survey design, laboratory methods, method-change boundaries, detection limits, and evidence-backed harmonization actions.
1matching variable codes
9 release records across 9 datasets and 9 cycles.
Search scope
Results for “SIAINTRP”
Scientific safeguard
Qualified assessment is authoritative; chronology remains supporting evidence.
Praxis separates source-stated method or instrument changes from automated differences in CDC/NCHS method text. The qualified harmonization assessment below is the researcher-facing conclusion; method chronology explains the underlying evidence and does not override that adjudication.
Variable-by-variable chronology
Qualified harmonization assessment and indexed evidence
Each variable first shows the current qualified assessment used by Study Builder, followed by cycle-specific source evidence and method chronology.
SIAINTRPCompatible with harmonization
Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview?
- Observed years
- 2003–2020
- Release records
- 9
- Datasets
- 9
- Components
- Demographics
Qualified Praxis harmonization assessment
Compatible with harmonization · moderate confidence
No blocking method discontinuity is identified inside the selected cycle span, but one or more longitudinal changes require explicit harmonization conditions before pooling.
Evidence provenance: Praxis automated inference from indexed CDC/NCHS evidence
Relevant boundaries: 2003-2004 → 2005-2006 · 2005-2006 → 2007-2008 · 2007-2008 → 2009-2010 · 2009-2010 → 2011-2012 · 2011-2012 → 2013-2014 · 2013-2014 → 2015-2016 · 2015-2016 → 2017-2018 · 2017-2018 → 2017-2020
Praxis harmonization actions
- Verify merge grain, companion variables, and component-specific analytic guidance for the new file context.
- Select the weight appropriate to each cycle and subsample; when pooling cycles, construct the combined weight according to NHANES guidance rather than reusing a single-cycle weight unchanged.
Supporting CDC/NCHS evidence
Variable names / labels over time
- Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — 2003-2004 · 2005-2006 · 2007-2008 · 2009-2010 · 2011-2012 · 2013-2014 · 2015-2016 · 2017-2018 · 2017-2020
Cycle-by-cycle release history
- 2003-2004: DEMO_C — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables & Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2005-2006: DEMO_D — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables & Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2007-2008: DEMO_E — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables & Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2009-2010: DEMO_F — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables & Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2011-2012: DEMO_G — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables & Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2013-2014: DEMO_H — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables and Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2015-2016: DEMO_I — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables and Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2017-2018: DEMO_J — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables and Sample Weights (Demographics)
- 2017-2020: P_DEMO — Was an interpreter used to conduct the Sample Person (SP) interview? — Demographic Variables and Sample Weights (Demographics)