On Lin and Yauger's Cross-National Comparison of the Process of Occupational Status Achievement

3 broad methodological issues in quantitative comparative studies are addressed: sampling adequacy, response rates, & measurement validity. Presented is a critique of these aspects of a recent article by N. Lin & D. Yauger on status attainment in Great Britain, the US, Costa Rica, & Haiti (see SA 1020/H9831). Inconsistencies are pointed out in the Costa Rican & Haitian data & reference is made to a longitudinal study of status attainment in Costa Rica to substantiate the claims that Ru samples are not representative of national population. High nonresponse rates weaken the use of sample estimates for population parameters. Occupational titles must be defined with extreme caution. Error introduced from these 3 sources is likely to deflate status parameters. Where it is not constant among national samples, it inevitably exaggerates differences between parameters. Conclusions flowing from comparisons of the parameters are likely to be erroneous. In REPLY TO HANSEN AND HALLER, Nan Lin & Daniel Yauger (State U New York, Albany & Emory U, Atlanta, Ga) take several positions: (1) With regard to the objection that Ru samples do not constitute national samples, it is "not usual for studies of mobility to exclude specific sectors of the population ... since the exclusion is made explicitly & conceptually, the majority of the population ... constitute the parameters for estimation ..." (2) As for the issue of nonresponse rates, the comparative information regarding the US & British data used was ignored; the "ratio of retained observations over the total sample ... showed no evidence that the Costa Rican & Haitian data suffered high loss." (3) Regarding problems of measuring occupational status, interviewers were not "Ur interviewers" but rather those who either worked or lived in the Ru areas studied. Further, an attempt was made to "gather sufficient information to differentiate farm workers." Modified AA.