Decennial Census

Data for Selected

Health Occupations

United States, 1980

Information is presented on the geographic

distribution and supply, and the gender

and race/ethnicity of 24 categories of

health occupations from the 1980 decennial

census. This report also presents a

summary of a comparative analysis of the

census and other health manpower

sources funded by the Bureau of Health

Professions.

Data From the National Health

Survey

Series 14, No. 31

DHHS Publication No. 86-1826

U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

Public Health Service

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Md.

December 1985
Suggested Citation

National Center for Health Statistics, G. G. Kapantais: D~c~nni.s[

census data for selected health occupations, United States, 1980, Vita/

and Hea/th Statistics. Series 14, No. 31. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)

86-1826. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Dec. 1985.

Copyright Information

All matenalappearing lnthisreport isinthe public domain and may

be reproduced orcopled without permission; citation as to source,

however, is appreciated.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kapantais, Gloria.

Decennial census data for selected health occupation.

(DHHS pub.; no. (PHS) 86-1826)

Bibliography p.

Supt. of Dots. no.: HE 20.6209:1 4/31.

1. Medical personnel—United States—Supply and

demand—Statistics. 2. Optometrists—United States—

Supply and demand—Statistics. 3. Veterinarians—

United States—Supply and demand—Statistics.

1. National Center for Health Statistics (U.S.)

Il. Title. 111. Series: DHHS publication ; no,

(PHS) 86-1826. [DNLM: 1. Health Manpower—supply Er

distribution—United States. 2. Health Occupations—

United States—statistica. W2 A NI 48vn no.31 ]

RA4T0.7.K37 1986 331.12’5161069’0973021 85-600133

ISBN 0-8406 -0318-5
National Center for Health Statistics

Manning Feinleib, M.D., Dr.P.H., Director

Robert A. Israel, Deputy Director

Jacob J. Feldman, Ph.D., Associate DirectorforAnalysis

and Epidemiology

Game J. Losee, Associate Director for Data Processing

and Services

Alvan O. Zarate, Ph.D., Assistant Director for International

Statistics

E. Earl Bryant, Associate Director for Interview and

Examination Statistics

Stephen E. Nieberding, Associate Director for Management

Gail F. Fisher, Ph.D., Associate Director for Program

Planning, Evaluation, and Coordination

Monroe G. Sirken, Ph.D., Associate Director for Research

and Methodology

Peter L. Hurley, Associate Director for Vital and Health

Care Statistics

Alice Haywood, Information Officer

Vital and Health Care Statistics Program

Peter L. Hurley, Associate Director

G. Gloria Kapantais, Assistant to the Director for Data

Policy, Planning, and Analysis
Acknowledgment

This report’s evaluation of the utility of the 1980 decennial

census health occupation data for researchers and analysts is

based upon a comprehensive study conducted by the American

Institutes for Research (AIR). The AIR study was funded and

directed by the Bureau of Health Professions, Public Health

Service. Those readers interested in detailed information on

the AIR study should consult its final report, which is available

from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The

NTIS address is 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia

2~161.

Ill
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Relatedreports previouslypublished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Overview ofdecemial census data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Sex ofcivilianpersonnel in health occupations , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Race and ethnicityofcivilianpersonnel in health occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Comparison ofcensus counts anddata from other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Comparisonresults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conclusions andrecommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

List ofdetailedtables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendixes

I. Methodology and definitions employed in the 1980 decennial census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

II. American Institute forResearch comparisons ofcensus and noncensus counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

III, Qualifications ofthe data..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

List of text tables

A. Number andpercentdistributionofpersons employed in health occupations bymajor occupation groups: United States,

198O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. Percent of females employed unselected health occupations: United States, 1970and 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C. Agreement between health occupations supply estimates based on1980 decennial census and other sources . . . . . . . . . . 14

v
Symbols

---

. . .

0.0

z

*

#

Data not available

Category not applicable

Quantity zero

Quantity more than zero but less than

0.05

Quantity more than zero but less than

500 where numbers are rounded to

thousands

Figure does not meet standard of

reliability or precision

Figure suppressed to comply with

confidentiality requirements

vl
Decennial Census Data for

Selected Heatth Occupations

by G, Gloria Kapantaia, OffIce of Vital and Health Care

Statistics

Introduction

This report, based on information collected during the 1980

decennial census, presents data for persomel employed in 24

health occupational categories. All data derived from the 1980

decennial census are as of the reference date of the 1980 census, April 1980. Various demographic characteristics of persons employed in health occupations are presented. These characteristics include sex, race, Hispanic heritage, and residence.

Data are presented for the Nation and for each State.

These data were compiled from the response to the questions on the long-form questionnaire given to approximately 20

percent of all U.S. households in the 1980 decennial census. 1

The particular data file used was the 1980 census/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Special File produced by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census. This file does not provide individual person data but does provide full sample estimates of the

experienced labor force for each occupational category counted

by the 1980 census. (The experienced labor force includes employed persons and those unemployed but seeking work and

available for work.) Refer to appendix I for a description of the

methodology and definitions employed in the 1980 decennial

census.

In addition to summarizing the health occupation data of

the 1980 decennial census for the Nation and for individual

States, this report also summarizes the findings of a study of

these census data by the American Institutes for Research (AIR)

funded and directed by the Bureau of Health Professions, Public

Health Service.z (See appendix II.) The purpose of this study

was to compare the census health occupation data with data

from other private and government studies in an effort to determine its utility and reliability for health manpower analysts.
Related reports previously

published

Previous compilations of similar data obtained during the

1950, 1960, and 1970 decennial censuses have been published

by the Public Health Service.3-5 The 1950 and 1960 reports

contain data on persons employed in 18 health occupations for

the United States as a whole and for each State of residence,

and provide a brief comparison of data from other sources. the

1970 report presents demographic data on persons employed

in 28 selected health occupations and compares the census

data with comparable data obtained by the National Center for

Health Statistics and other sources.
Ovetview of decennial census

data

The U.S. Bureau of the Census used 503 specific categories of occupations to describe the work force of the United

States in 1980, Of the 503 categories, 24 are generally considered to be health occupations. The total number of persons

in the health occupations was 5.2 million, or 5 percent of the

104.4 million persons in the civilian labor force during the 1980

Census of Population. (This does not include those persons

working in the health industry as secretaries, engineers, and so

forth.) The number of persons in each of these health occupations by major occupation group is shown in table A.

Table A. Number and percent distribution of persons employed in

health occupations by major occupation groups: Unitad Statas,

1980

Percent

Occupation Number distribution

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Haalth diagnosing occupations. . . . . . . . .

Physlclsns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dentists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veterinarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optometrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Podiatrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Haslth diagnosing practitioner,

n.e,c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health assessment and treating

occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Registered nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pharmacists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dietitians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

inhalation therapists. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Occupational therapists. . . . . . . . . . .

Physical tharapiata . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . .

Speachtherapista. t, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapists, n,e.c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physician assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technicians and related support

occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clinical laboratory technologists and

technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dental hygienists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health record tachnologiats and

technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rsdiologic technicians. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Licansed practical nurses. . . . . . . . . . . .

Health technologists and technician,

n,e,c. ., . . . . . . . ..o . . . . . ..t. . . . . . .

Heslth service occupations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dantalassiatants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health aides, except nursing . . . . . . . . .

Nursing aidas, orderlies, and

attendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,187,033

646,826

433,255

125,291

34,355

24,605

7,781

21,539

1,722,576

1,286,299

145,637

67,270

193,933

48,738

17,756

43,075

41,296

43,068

30,437

989,347

243,982

46,192

15,147

96,311

435,176

152,539

1,828,284

158,117

292,049

1,376,118

100.0

12.5

8.4

2.4

0.7

0.5

0.2

0.4

33.2

24.8

2,8

1.3

3.7

0.9

0.3

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6

19.1

4.7

0.9

0.3

1.9

8.4

2.9

35,2

3.0

5.6

26.6

The 24 health occupations are classified into four major

categories by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The first group

(health diagnosing occupations) contains the smallest number

of persons. Two occupational categories constitute about twothirds of the health occupational work force; these two groups

include registered nurses and nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants. Each of these occupations has over 1 million practitioners.

Analyses of the 1980 census data for persons in 24 health

occupational categories by sex and race/Hispanic origin are

contained in the following sections of this report.

Sex of civilian personnel in health occupations

In 1980, almost 4 million females were in the 24 health

occupational categories; thk represented 77 percent of all persons in these occupations (table 1). The majority of these females was concentrated in three occupations: 31 percent were

registered nurses; 30 percent were nursing aides, orderlies, and

attendants; and 10 percent were practical nurses.

Practitioners in the health diagnosing occupations who are

involved in patient care have traditionally been predominately

male. Although this is still true, women have substantially increased their number in these occupations in the 10 years since

the 1970 decennial census. For one occupation (veterinarians),

the percent of female practitioners more than doubled, and for

three other occupations (dentists, optometrists, and pharmacists) the percent of female practitioners doubled from 1970 to

1980 (table B).

Women continued to dominate nursing and most of the

other health occupations, with the percent of female practitioners ranging from 56 percent of inhalation therapists to 98 percent of dental hygienists (table 1).

Tsble B. Percent of femalea in selected health occupations:

United States, 1970 and 1980

Females

Occupation 1970 19801

Percent

Dentist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7

Optometrist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8

Pharmacist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 24

Physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13

Podiatrist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8

Veterinarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 13

NOTE: n.e.c. = not elsewhare classified. lThese percents are based on numbers presented in table 1.

3
Race and ethnicity of civilian personnel in

health occupations

Persons of minority races constituted 21.3 percent of all

persons in these 24 health occupations in 1980. Black persons

were the largest minority (13.9 percent), followed by Hispanic

persons (3.8 percent), Asian and Pacific Islanders (3.0 percent), and Native Americans (0.5 percent). (See table 2.)

Nursing occupations include about three-fourths of all the

black persons who are in these 24 health fields. Fifty-two percent are nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants; 13 percent are

registered nurses; and 11 percent are licensed practical nurses.

Over half of the Hispanic persons are also concentrated in

the nursing profession, with 36 percent employed as nursing

aides, orderlies, and attendants: 14 percent as registered nurses;

and 8 percent as licensed practical nurses. In addition, about

10 percent of the Hispanic persons in health occupations are

physicians. (Persons of Hispanic origin or descent are those

who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish origin

categories listed in the decennial census questionnaire as well

as those who indicated that they were of other Hispanic origin.)

Native Americans follow the same trend as described for

black persons and Hispanic persons, and are concentrated in

the nursing profession. Almost half (45.4 percent) are nursing

aides, orderlies, and assistants, while 15.0 percent are registered

nurses and 10.8 percent are licensed practical nurses.

About one-fourth (26.8 percent) of all the Asian and Pacific Islanders in these health occupations are physicians. This

is the largest percent within any racial group including white

persons. Another fourth (27.4 percent) are registered nurses.

Only 12.6 percent are nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants.

This is the lowest percent for any of the minorities.

The distribution pattern in the health care field for nonHispanic white persons is similar to that for minorities in that

the nursing profession is the predominant area. Twenty-set’en

percent are registered nurses; 22 percent are nursing aides,

orderlies, and attendants: and 8 percent are licensed practical

nurses. After nursing, the next most frequent health profession

for non-Hispanic white persons is that of physicians (9 percent).

Tables 3–26 are State tables that give the place of residence,

race, and sex for persons in each of these 24 health occupations. These tables should be used with caution, for the following reasons: Most of these 24 health occupations are small in

total number of practitioners: only 2 (registered nurses and

nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants) have more than 1 million

practitioners; 14 have less than 100,000 practitioners. Given

these small populations, and the presentation of data by racial

and sex subgroups, the sampling errors tend to be large. Appendix III contains a detailed description of the limitations of these

data.
Comparison of census counts

and data from other sources

The American Institutes for Research (AIR), under contract to the Bureau of Health Professions (BHPr) of the Public

Health Service, has conducted an indepth examination of the

census health occupation data and compared the data with that

from other data sources in an effort to determine the feasibility

of using the census data to generate health manpower estimates.

The comparisons presented in the following pages are based on

the findings of that study.q

Methodology

Screening criteria were applied by AIR to the census data

in an effort to further clean the data and to create more refined

occupational groupings. In most cases the screening criteria

consisted of a minimum level of education, or a minimum level

of education by age only. For a few occupations, industry could

also be used to screen out people who were classified with

health personnel because of similar job functions, but who were

not working in health care settings. Respondent, coder, and

processing errors in the census data combined to permit the

inclusion of persons who, by virtue of their stated education,

could not be working in the stated occupation. These were removed via the screening criteria. In other cases the intent of the

census was to include a range of personnel performing similar

job fimctions, not all of whom would necessarily have equivalent

qualifications by the standards of the profession. Here AIR

screening criteria did not remove anyone, but was used to sub

divide the occupation into these different levels of qualification

for analysis. Finally, in the case of more heterogeneous professions, where no firm educational screening criteria could be

identified, education was, nevertheless, cross-tabulated with

most other variables to possibly reveal more homogeneous sub

groups.

When the two variables (education and occupation) disagreed, the AIR screening process assumed that potential for

error was greater for the occupation variable because of the

definitional complexities involved and because of the extra coding step that was required to place this information on the census file. No other variable was readily available to help determine by triangulation whether education or occupation was

more likely correct, Therefore, for those occupations in which

minimum education criteria existed that could be used in screening, AIR staff held detailed conversations with members of the

relevant professional associations to insure that the most appropriate criteria were selected.

AIR staff analyzed cases that failed a screening criterion

to determine how they differed from other cases in the same

occupation that passed the criterion. In a few instances, analyses were performed to compare cases failing the screening

criterion for one occupation with some other specific occupation to which these respondents might belong.

The majority of the analyses, however, were conducted for

cases passing the screening criteria, or when no screening criterion was applicable, for cases subdivided by levels of education.

For each occupation, population estimates and percents were

calculated for labor force status and, among those who were

employed, for age, sex, racelethnic origin, education, citizenship, location by State and by urban or rural area type, class of

worker, industry, and income.

The population estimates resulting from these analyses were

compared, where possible, with similar population estimates

derived from noncensus data sources. The f~st step in this comparison analysis was for AIR staff to determine the nature and

extent of the data sources that could provide independent estimates of the supply of health professionals in one or more of

the selected occupations. To do this, a number of primary and

secondary source documents were reviewed and then personal

or telephone interviews were conducted with appropriate personnel at most of the professional associations and government

agencies concerned with the supply of health professionals. As

a result of the discussions and document reviews, three major

categories of external data sources were identified with which

census counts of health professionals could be compared. These

included health profession association inventories, employment

surveys, and subnational data sources. A detailed description

of these three sources and the procedure employed for comparing the independent data with the census data is contained in

appendix II.

The results of the comparisons and a discussion of the

probable causes of observed discrepancies are included in the

section of this report entitled “Conclusions and recommendations.”

Comparison results

Physicians

The estimated number of active civilian physicians in 1980,

based upon the census occupational category, was 408,290.

Note that this number does not agree with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Special File estimate given in the

detailed tables in this report because AIR screened for a min5
imum education level of 6 years of college, which eliminated

those persons having less than this amount of education. In

addition, they used the 5-percent Public Use Microdata Sample

A (PUMSA) file from the census. This is a self-weighted file

that contains person-level data and some sociographic and dem~

graphic characteristics. This number (408,290) represents about

95 percent of the 430,157 active civilian physicians estimated

from the files of the American Medical Association (AMA)

and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). (The standard error equals 3,342, hence the 95-percent conildence interval

ranges from approximately 402,000 to 415,000, and the difference is outside the 95-percent confidence level for the census estimate. )

According to AIR analysis of independent data sources,

the AMA Physician Masterflle data and the AOA data are the

best noncensus data sources for physicians.

The census figure does not include those physicians who

were medical directors, medical scientists, or health care administrators. These were counted in other health occupation

categories (medical science teachers, medical scientists, and

medicine and health managers. Unfortunately, there is no way

to separate the physicians from all the other types of doctoraland master’s-level persons included in these three categories.

One other problem exists with the census figure. According to the AMA and AOA estimates, there are 392,602 physicians engaged primarily in patient care. This is substantially

less than the 408,290 counted by the census. Therefore, it would

appear that some of the physicians who are primarily in teaching, administration, or research have reported their occupation

to the census in such a way that they were simply classified as

physicians rather than as being in these other occupational

categories.

The AIR analysis of the screened PUMSA file yielded a

distribution of 88 percent male physicians and 12 percent female physicians. This compares closely with the distribution

shown in table 1 of this report, where 87 percent are male

physicians and 13 percent are female. However, according to

AMA figures, females constituted only 10 percent of all active

physicians as of December 1979.

There is also a close correspondence in the percent distribution by race and ethnic origin of physicians between the

census EEO file and the screened PUMSA file. The largest

difference is in the Asian and Pacific Islander category, 10.6

percent of physicians on the PUMSA file, and 9.7 percent on

the EEO file. Unfortunately, similar data from other noncensus sources are not available.

The State distribution of physicians shown in table 3 compares closely with the State distribution from the PUMSA file.

The largest difference is for the State ofFlorida 4.5 percent on

the EEO file and 3.9 percent on the PUMSA file. The percents

for physicians by State are also very similar between census

and noncensus files. The differences are generally no more than

0.1 percent and within one standard error of the census population. The most noticeable difference between these estimates

occur in Washington, D.C. (0.4 percent in the census files and

0.8 percent in the AMA and AOA files).

Location on the census files is defined by residence and

thus varies from practice location, particularly when location is

examined for geographic units smaller than whole States. This

may be the reason for some of the discrepancy noted for physicians in the District of Columbia.

Dentists

A screening requirement of at least 5 years of college was

applied by AIR to the dentists on the PUMSA file. This eliminated 9,139 persons, resulting in an estimate of 118,082 active,

civilian dentists in 1980. (Due to the use of a different data file

and the screening criteria, this total differs from that in the

detailed tables in this report.)

The AIR analysis of noncensus data sources determined

that the best “other” estimate of the number of civilian dentists

in 1980 is from the Division of Dentistry of the BHPr. That

estimate (118,330) is close to the PUMSA estimateof118,082.

The difference is approximately one-tenth of one standard error

from the census estimate. (The standard error for the census

estimate is 1,797.)

The distribution of dentists by sex and race and ethnic

origin in the two census files is quite similar. The EEO file has

93.3 percent male dentists and 6.7 percent female, however,

the PUMSA file has 97.3 male dentists and 2.7 percent female.

The main dissimilarities between the two files for race and

ethnic origin occur among Asian and Pacific Islanders (2.5

percent PUMSA versus 3.1 percent EEO file) and other (O,1

percent PUMSA versus 0.05 percent EEO file).

A comparison of these characteristics of dentists with noncensus sources required the use of another file-the 1978–79

American Dental Association (ADA) total population postcard

Suwey.

The ADA figure for female dentists was only 1.6 percent

for 1968. One explanation for some of the difference with the

census estimates may be a reflection of the increasing enrollment of women in dental schools. Therefore, the 1978 figure

may be behind the 1980 figure in estimating female representation in this profession.

State distribution of dentists among the three data files are

similar. The largest difference between the two census files was

0.6 percent in Michigan. Between the PUMSA file and 1979

ADA data, there was also close agreement in the percent distribution by State, with the largest difference again occurring in

Michigan (0.8 percent).

The AIR analysis of the census health occupation data

concluded that the dentist data was ‘Sanaccurate reflection of

the profession and can be used with confidence. . . .“1

Optometrists

Education by age screening criteria was applied by AIR to

the optometrists on the PUMSA file. These criteria take into

account the evolution that has occurred in optometric education

and was as follows:

● For those 45 years of age and under, at least 6 years of

college education

● For those 46-51 years of age, at least 5 years of college

education.

● For those 52–66 years of age, at least 4 years of college

education.

6
● For those 67–74 years of age, at least 3 years of college out do work in a pharmacy setting, but not as licensed phareducatiom

. Forthose75 years ofageand over, anyamountofeducation.

Application of these criteria resulted in the exclusion of

14,4 percent of the cases. The optometrist estimate for 1980

was then 22,653 using the PUMSA file.

Based onthe AIR analysis, the best noncensus estimate

for active civilian optometrists is derived from BHPr estimates

(21,342). After screening for minimum education, the estimate

is 21,707, which has a standard error of 771. The two estimates are, therefore, invery close agreement.

The racial and ethnic distribution of optometrists between

the census EEO and PUMSA files is similar, Both indicate

that non-Hispanic white optometrists are the vast majority (95.4

percent on the PUMSA and 94.7 percent on the EEO tiles).

Both files indicate that, among minorities, the largest group is

the Asian and Pacific Islanders (2.2 percent versus 2.3 percent).

Regarding the sex distribution of optometrists, the EEO

file indicates that 8.3 percent are female while the PUMSA file

has only 3.8 percent female.

A comparison of the racial and sex characteristics of OP

tometrists with the BHPr estimate indicates that females comprise slightly less than 6 percent of optometrists in the noncensus data source. Minorities comprise 3.5 percent of the total

number of optometrists in the BHPr estimate, and 60 percent

of these were of either Japanese or Chinese origin.

Comparison of the State distribution estimated by the two

census files and a noncensus source shows close agreement. As

1978 estimates from the American Optometric Association

were used, this 2-year difference must be noted when comparing

the percents. The largest difference was for Illinois, which ranged

from 6,1 percent in the EEO file to 8,1 percent from the 1978

American Optometric Association estimate.

Pharmacists

Due to changes in the length of the pharmacy curriculum

and the prerequisites over the past several decades, AIR analyzed the pharmacy category after screening for 5 or more years

of college up to 37 years of age, 4 or more years of college for

the age group 38–67 years, or 3 or more years of college for

those 68 years or over. This screening process eliminated 1,388

persons on the PUMSA file, leaving 6,220, Application of the

weighting factor resulted in an estimated number of 125,481

active civilian pharmacists. The standard error of this census

estimate is 1,853, placing the 95-percent conildence interval

from approximately 122,000 to 129,000.

AIR analysis determined that the best noncensus estimate

of active pharmacists was the 1978–79 National Survey of

Licensed Pharmacists sponsored by the National Center for

Health Statistic (NCHS). The estimate from this survey is

138,383. The screened PUMSA estimate of 125,481 is 12,902

or 9 percent below the noncensus estimate. A further analysis

by AIR of the minimum education and age screening criteria,

which was responsible for the reduction of the estimate by 22,686

persons, supported the validity of its application to the census

file, Their conclusion was that many of the persons screened

macists.

The AIR study attributed the overall low PUMSA estimate

to several factors. The first included problems in the classification of those pharmacists who could fit into other health and

nonheakh occupational categories, such as “scientists” or “owners or managers of retail stores.” According to the professional

association, a signillcant number of pharmacy school graduates

move out of dispensing or cliical positions and become businessmen or pharmaceutical company employees. Some go into other

health professions, including that of physicians. Under these circumstances, there may be discrepancies among different counts

of the active pharmacist population. A second factor identified

as affecting the census estimate was the absence of pharmacy

teachers, who may have been coded into an occupation other

than that of pharmacist.

The census tiles indicate that between 20 percent (PUMSA

file) and 24 percent (EEO file) of pharmacists in 1980 were

female. The BHPr projection for December 1980 is 19 percent.

In 1980, the census tiles estimated between 89.6 percent (EEO

file) to 91.2 percent (PUMSA file) to be non-Hispanic white

pharmacists, and 1.8 percent (PUMSA fde) to 2.4 percent (EEO

file) to be white pharmacists of Hispanic origin. The percent of

white pharmacists reported by NCHS in its 1978 survey is 95.0

percent (adjusting for unknown race), and 1.5 percent were reported to be Hispanic. Black persons constituted between 2.3

percent (PUMSA file) and 3.2 percent (EEO file) of all pharmacists according to the 1980 census and 1.7 percent according

to the NCHS. Asian and Pacific Islanders constituted 4.44.5

percent (census) and 3.2 percent (NCHS). About half of the

total number of minority pharmacists identified by the 1980 census were Asian and Pacific Islanders, while the NCHS survey

estimated twc-thirds of all minority pharmacists to be Asian and

Pactic Islanders.

There is close agreement between the State distributions of

pharmacists on the two census tiles. The largest difference cccurs

in Illinois, and measures 1.3 percent.

Podiatrists

The screening criteria used by AIR on the podiatrist data

accounted for the gradual lengthening of the podiatry curriculum and the changes in prerequisites over the past several decades. The estimated number of active podiatrists on the PUMSA

file, after this screening, was 6,740. This estimate has a standard error of 429, so that the 95-percent confidence interval is

from 5,882 to 7,598.

The AIR analysis of noncensus data sources determined

that the best estimate for active civilian podiatrists in 1980 was

the BHPr estimate of 8,791 which is a projection from 1974

survey data. However, this number is 30 percent larger than

the PUMSA estimate and substantially beyond the 95-percent

cotildence interval for that estimate. This difference is too large

to be explained by podiatric faculty who could have been classified in another occupational category. The most likely explanation for this discrepancy would be the misclassification in

the census of a substantial number of podiatrists, probably as

physicians due to similar-sounding professional titles. Because

7
podiatry is such a small profession compared with medicine,

this misclassification would have little impact on the physician

estimates but a major impact on the podiatrist estimates.

Despite the apparently sizable undercounting of podiatrists

in the 1980 census, demographic information from census and

noncensus sources is in fairly good agreement. The EEO census file estimated that 8.4 percent of the podiatrists were female,

while the PUMSA census file estimated 3.4 percent as female.

The noncensus estimate is 4.9 percent female. Both census

files estimated 5.6 percent of the podiatrists as minority, and

between 3.6 percent (EEO file) and 4.1 percent (PUMSA file)

as black persons. The noncensus estimates are 4.5 percent for

minority and 3.3 percent for black persons. The State distribution for podiatrists between the two census files are similar and

indicate that podiatrists are concentrated in five States (New

York, Illinois, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) in which

the colleges of podiatry are located and in one other (New

Jersey) close to two of the States with schools.

Veterinarians

Due to changes in preveterinary requirements over the past

decades, AIR screened this category for 5 years or more of

college 55 years of age and for 4 years or more of college for55

years or over. After weighting, the PUMSA screened count

yielded an estimated 31,575 active veterinarians. (The standard error of this estimate is 292.)

The AIR analysis concluded that the best 1980 noncensus

estimate for veterinarians was the BHPr estimate of 34,146.

The difference between the PUMSA estimate (31,575) and

the noncensus estimate exceeds the 95-percent confidence interval of the census estimate. An AIR comparison of employment data revealed that the undercounting was concentrated

among those veterinarians with Federal and, especially, college

or university employment. Many of these veterinarians seem to

have been classified as health specialty teachers, agricultural

and forestry teachers, and agricultural and food scientists. The

census and noncensus estimates are quite close in counting the

numbers of private-practice veterinarians, and counts for State

and local government and “other” veterinarians are also reasonably close.

The comparisons between census and noncensus sources

are as follows for sex, race, and location by State. Two of the

sources (PUMSA file and the American Veterinary Medical

Association) estimated women to comprise 9.2 percent of the

population of active veterinarians in 1980, while the EEO file

estimate was 13.3 percent. These sources indicated that about

95 percent were non-Hispanic white veterinarians. The distributions by State given by the two census estimates are also

close.

Despite the fact that the margin of error in the census data

is not large, the AIR analysis concludes that the census data

has “little utility,” given the detailed data available from the

masteri31es of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Physician assistants

The census category of physician assistant included two other

sets of occupations not commonly included when estimatingthese

health prm.onnel.The fust set includes paramedics and ambulance

drivers, who tend to be employed by ambulance services or fire

and safety departments. The second set includes those employed

in hospitals, nursing care facilities, and other non-ofilce-based

health services as doctor’s helpers or assistants. These persons

probably have had limited or no formal training. To eliminate

these two sets of occupations from the physician assistant file. a

screen for industry type and for 3-year minimum postsecondary

education was used by AIR Based on this screening criterion,

the PUMSA file yielded an estimate of 6,276 active civilian

physician assistants.

The AIR final report describes in detail the problems associated with this occupational category and the lack of a clear

minimum education criterion. Due to these problems, AIR analysis concludes that census estimates cannot be as accurate as

existing noncensus counts based on surveys conducted by the

American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) and BHPr

estimate projections. Their analyses indicate that some large group

of hospital-based personnel who are not physician assistants are

in this census category and some actual physician assistants are

excluded.

An example of the problems associated with the census estimates is the total of 30,437 physician assistants on the EEO file

This is about four times the number of active civilian physician

assistants (7,7 18) in 1980 estimated from the best noncensus

source. The total cannot exceed the cumulative number of persons who have passed the Nationaf Certifying Exam for physician assistants (11 ,000 by 1980).

The characteristics of those persons in this occupational

group who were not employed by ambulance services or fire and

public safety agencies, and who reported 3 years or more of

college education were compared by AIR with those of certified

physician assistants, as revealed by the 1978 and 1981 AAPA

surveys, interpolated to 1980.

The PUMSA sample estimates that about two-thirds (66.4

percent) of physician assistants were male in 1980, compared

with the MPA estimate of 65.5 percent males. The PUMSA

tile indicates that 84.9 percent were non-Hispanic white physician assistants, 8.1 percent were black, 3,3 percent were Hispanic, and 3.4 percent were Asian and Pacific Islanders. The

AAPA estimates are 90.2, 3.9, 2.1, and 1.1 percent, respectively. Thus the census estimates are accurate for sex but not

as accurate for race, as they include too many minorities.

Registered nurses

The primary classification problem associated with this occupation is the inclusion on the census file of an unknown percent of licensed practical nurses (LPNs) who cannot be distinguished from the registered nurses (RN’s) on the basis of

their education as recorded by the census. Census coding rules

classified ambiguous nursing titles (those that did not explicitly

state “registered”) into this occupational category rather than

the LPN category. This decision is presumed to be based on

the fact that RN’s outnumber LPNs 2.5 to 1 in the population.

However, the correspondence between job title and Iicensure

in the nursing occupations is much more problematic than among

the independent practitioners. For nursing personnel, title is

not suftlcient for unambiguous classification in all instances.

Those RN respondents intentionally excluded from this

8
occupational category by the 1980 census were those reporting

themselves as “nursing administrators,” “directors of nursing,”

“ inservice coordinators or educations,” and teachers of RN’s

or other nursing personnel,

The AIR analysis revealed one more ambiguity regarding

the inclusion of job titles that refer to RN’s in training or those

that may include RN’s who have graduated but not yet been

licensed. Whether the nursing students actually got counted

into this occupation would depend on whether they perceived

themselves to be “employed.”

The minimum educational requirements associated with

Iicensure as an RN depend on the type of program. Basic nursing education requires 2-4 years of schooling and is offered in

either a college or a noncollege hospital setting. Unfortunately,

the 1980 census makes no provision for the reporting of training beyond high school other than college education, so nurses

who went through 3-year diploma programs based in hospitals

could have reported only 12 years of academic education to the

census. This level of education leaves them indistinguishable

from LPN’s classified into this occupation on the basis of ambiguous job titles. The AIR analysis screened RN’s in this occupation for 12 years or more of education. Separate analyses

were also performed for the subgroup of cases with only 12

years of education or 1 year of college (the group considered

most likely to contain a sizable percent of misclassified LPNs).

The PUMSA file generated a population estimate of

1,297,307 active RN’s in 1980. Of these, 1,097,054 reported

at least 2 years of college, while 200,153 reported only 12

years of high school or 1 year of college. The standard error for

the census estimate of total active RN’s is 5,957.

The best noncensus estimate is the 1980 Sample Survey

of Registered Nurses conducted by the Research Triangle Institute for BHPr. It estimated 1,227,900 active civilian RN’s in

April 1980.

Comparisons between the employed RN’s in the census

files and the 1980 Sample Survey reveals that after adjustments

for nonresponse, 96.9 percent of the nurses in the sample survey

were found to be female; for the census (excluding respondents

with less than 12 years of education), the proportion was 96.0

percent (PUMSA file) and 95.9 percent (EEO file). In the

1980 survey 91.5 percent were not Spanish white nurses, compared with 86.7 percent in the EEO file and 87.8 percent in the

PUMSA file, Hispanic nurses comprised 1.4 percent in the

sample survey, 1.6 percent in the PUMSA file, and 2.1 percent

in the EEO file. Black nurses comprised 4.4 percent in the

sample survey, 6.5 percent in the PUMSA file, and 7.4 percent

in the EEO files. Asians comprised 2.4 percent in the sample

survey, 3,3 percent in the EEO file, and 3.6 percent in the

PUMSA file,

Based on their analyses of the census and noncensus data

sources, AIR concluded that the census estimate for total active

RN’s is between 5 and 17 percent too large.

Licensed practical nursas

It was not possible for AIR to screen for education for this

occupation because some LPN’s have received their licenses

by waiver and others who completed standard training programs were trained during high school or entered training programs without having completed high school.

The PUMSA tile produces an estimate of 449,998 active

LPN’s in 1980, with a standard error equal to 3,509.

At the time of the AIR analysis, there was no reliable

noncensus LPN estimate. (Data from a 1983 sample survey of

licensed practical nurses have since become available. This

study was conducted by the Research Triangle Institute, under

contract to the Division of Nursing of the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.) A BHPr 1980 estimate of

549,300 actively employed LPNs is based on a projection

from the 1974 LPN sample survey. A low estimate of 470,708

LPNs is derived from a survey of State licensing boards by the

National Association of Practical Nursing Education. and

Services.

Given the lack of reliable noncensus sources, AIR analysis

focused on the census data, in an effort to determine the extent

to which potential LPNs in the registered nurse category resemble LPNs in-the LPN file. Therefore, respondents screened

out of the RN category (for example, RNs with less than 12

years of education) were compared with LPNs in this file to

consider whether the similarity of the two groups justified combining them. The AIR comparison indicated that the lowest

education group in the RN category is somewhere between, or

a mixture of, LPN’s and nurse aides. Those with 12 years of

high school or 1 year of college seem to be somewhere between

other RN’s and LPNs. Therefore, their conclusion was that

the majority of the 12-year high school and l-year college respondents in the RN category were indeed RN’s.

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants

Educational backgrounds for these positions can be varied,

ranging from persons with less than 12 years of high school to

college-educated persons temporarily filling such a position.

Compounding the problem is the lack of a single definitive list

of job titles and inconsistencies in the aggregation of specific

job titles for inclusion in this category.

The PUMSA file yields a population estimate of 1,423,612

active nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants. The standard

error is 6,241.

As in the case of LPNs, there is no good noncensus estimate of the total number of nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants. When employment is considered, estimates are available

for the number employed in hospitals from two sources—the

annual hospital survey of the American Hospital Association

(AHA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. However, the AHA and

OES estimates are not in close agreement with each other.

(The OES survey is a periodic survey used to estimate total

employment by ~’pe of occupation on a national, State, and

selected area basis).

The AIR analysis concluded that “it is therefore not posible

to draw conclusions regarding the reliability of the total census

estimate of 1,423,612 active personnel. If the census estimate

does contain an error, it would be in the direction of including

too many persons (such as those) who perform custodial or

clerical support fimctions and not direct patient care.”2

9
Clinical laboratory technologists and technicians

This occupational category includes personnel at several

different levels of training. Technologist-level personnel generally have 4 years or more of training. Technicians generally

have 2 years, which is not necessarily college based. Consequently, no educational screening criterion was established by

AIR for this category of health worker.

The PUMSA file produced an estimate of 247,833 active

civilian clinical laboratory technologists and technicians in 1980.

Added to this estimate was the number of medical scientists

with less than 6 years of college. The combined estimate was

256,484, and the standard error for this figure is 2,105.

The AIR analysis concluded that there are no useful noncensus sources for this occupation in 1980. Estimates of the

number employed by hospitals are available from AHA and

OES, and are in reasonably good agreement with each other.

The adjusted OES estimate was preferred by AIR because the

OES classification scheme is more compatible with the one

used by the 1980 census. The adjusted OES estimate indicates

that there were 140,502 hospital-employed clinical laborato~

technologists and technicians and an additional 3,274 medical

scientists (not controlling for year of education). These numbers

are much smaller than the estimated 182,980 hospital-employed

technologists and technicians in the census category and the

7,983 hospital-employed medical scientists. Even when only

the respondents in the clinical laboratory category are considered, the census estimate of 42,478 is 30 percent larger than

the adjusted OES estimate. Although ultrasound technologists

were included by the census in this occupation and may not be

included in OES estimates, they total only about 2,400 certified hospital-employed sonographers. Therefore, they could

not possibly account for the observed difference.

According to AIR, the best explanation is that the census

clinical laboratory catego~ overestimates the numbers of active

clinical laborato~ technologists and technicians in 1980 due

to the inclusion of laboratory personnel with less skill and

training.

Dental hygienists and assistants

The PUMSA file produced an estimate of 48,494 active

dental hygienists in 1980, with a standard error of 1,152. An

estimate of 164,160 active dental assistants was produced, with

a standard errorof2,119.

AIR analysis concluded that the best noncensus estimates

for these two dental auxiliary personnel are derived from OES

estimates moditled by Division of Dentist~ estimates of annual

growth rates for these professions. Because the OES data come

from workplace surveys that could count individuals with two

employers twice, further modification of the dental hygienist

estimate, reflecting the frequent employment of dental hygienists by more than one practice, was also carried out by AIR.

Census estimates for each of the dental auxiliary professions are higher than the adjusted OES estimates, The census

estimate of 48,494 active dental hygienists is 3,754 (8.4 percent) higher than the noncensus estimate of 44,740. Over half

this discrepancy can be explained by the nearly 2,000 dental

hygienists employed by Federal, State, and local governments,

most of whom were not counted by OES. The census estimate

for active dental assistants is 164,160, which is 30,720 (23.0

percent) larger than the noncensus estimate of 133,440. Only

some 7,000 of these extra cases can be attributed to Federal,

State, and local government employment.

The AIR analysis detected suspected problems with OES

surveys of health services other than hospitals. These problems

involved the exclusion of self-employed persons and the estimation rather than direct sampling of employees in establishments with fewer than four employees. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which estimate (census or OES) is more

likely to be correct. However, the fact that both occupations

are estimated higher in the census lead AIR to conclude that

the problem is not one of misclassification within these dental

auxiliary occupations (for example, dental assistants misclassified as dental hygienists).

Demographic data on dental hygienists can be compared

with data produced by a survey of licensed dental hygienists

conducted in 1979 and sponsored by the Division of Dentistry.b

Both sources characterized the profession as predominantly

female (99 percent). Both sources also indicate that at least 95

percent of the dental hygienists are white.

No noncensus demographic data are available for dental

assistants. Both census files indicate that 98 percent are female.

Between 88.4 percent (EEO file) to 89.5 percent (PUMSA

file) are non-Hispanic white assistants.

Dietitians

Both dietitians and dietetic technicians were included by

the census in this occupational catego~. Unfortunately, disaggregation of these two groups within this category is impossible.

Although registered dietitians have at least 4 years of college

education, many uncertified personnel and dietetic technicians

also have equivalent college education. This is particularly true

because the requirement of a separate internship after graduation to become a registered dietitian is a barrier not overcome

by some dietitian program graduates. Furthermore, although

all dietary personnel certified by the American Dietetic Association (ADA) would have at least 2 years of post high school

education, certified personnel and uncertified personnel overlap in the work force.

In addition to those census respondents who called themselves dietitians, nutritionists, or dietetic technicians despite

the lack of any specialized training, respondents with the following food service titles were also included in this occupational

category

● Supervisor, diet (hospital: nursing and personal care facilities; and health services, not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.)

only).

. Supervisor, food (hospital only).

These individuals do not have to be dietitians and could have

almost any level of education.

The AIR analysis concluded, therefore, that this occupational category includes many individuals who were not trained

in nutrition and dietetics, and that to use unscreened estimates

from it is to seriously overcount the number of registered dietitians.

10
Therefore, the persons in this category on the PUMSA file

were screened by AIR for education. Those who did not have 4

years or more of college were separated from those who did.

These two groups were then used to derive population estimates

for two sets of dietetic services personnel, the first set referred

to as “dietitians:’ and the second as “other dietetic personnel.”

The resulting estimate of the number of active dietitians in

1980 was 32,518, including 32,019 employed. The estimated

population of active dietetic personnel with less than 4 years of

college is 35,148, of whom 33,901 were employed. Standard

errors for total active estimates are 943 and 980, respectively.

The AIR analyses of noncensus sources for this occupation

discovered only limited noncensus estimates for dietetic service

personnel. Within the hospital sector, there is an AHA estimate

of 15,274 dietitians and 41,461 dietetic tectilcians. However,

AIR believed that the later estimate contained large numbers

of food service workers with no formal training. ADA estimates

for registered dietitians (RD’s) are also available, and they indicate an estimated 23,868 active RD’s, including 13,104 in

hospitals, at the time of the 1980 census.

Active dietitians in the census category with 4 years or

more of college were 36 percent more than the estimated RD’s.

Those employed in hospitals were estimated to number 19,026,

25 percent larger than the AHA estimate of 15,274 for all

dietitians in hospitals, and 45 percent larger than ADA estimate

of 13,104 for RISs. According to AIR, these comparisons reinforce the conclusion that the 4-year college educational screen

is imperfect and results in a population that probably includes a

large fraction (up to one-third) of uncertified persomel or dietary

workers with lesser responsibilities.

Health record technologists and technicians

The weighted PUMSA file produced an estimate of 15,398

active health record technologists and technicians in 1980, with

a standard error of 649.

The AIR analysis of noncensus data sources revealed that

there are not any reliable noncensus estimates for the total

population of active medical record personnel. AHA estimates

can be used in comparison with census estimates of medical

record personnel employed in hospitals, although the classification procedures used by AHA and the census are not entirely

compatible. AHA estimated 7,235 medical record administrations and 38,055 medical record tecludcians in hospitals in

1980. The latter figure, however, is believed to include sizable

numbers of individuals at a clerical level.

This census category can be presumed to include a sizable

proportion of medical record administrators (especially if they

call themselves medical librarians, historians, or specialists) as

well as medical record technicians. (The admhistrators are

responsible for planning developing, and administering medical

record systems, and the technicians assist the administrators in

the performance of their duties.) The census estimate of persons

employed in hospitals as medical record administrators was

12,452, and census estimates indicate an additional 36,663

record clerks employed in hospitals. The combined estimate

from these two categories is 49,115, only 3,825 (8.4 percent)

greater than the combined AHA estimate of 45,290. According

to AIR, hospital record clerks not employed in medical records

could easily account for this difference, ” although ambiguities

in the census classitlcation of medical record administrators

also serve to confound this comparison and could indicate a

greater level of discrepancy than is apparent on the surface.”2

The only source of comparative demographic information

on medical record personnel found by AIR was a 1983 survey

of members of the American Medical Record Association

(AMRA). However, as this survey had only a 48-percent response rate, caution must be used in generalizing to the universe

of AMRA members. In addition, because AMRA members

include medical record administrators, medical record technicians, students, and others in unspecitled proportions, it is impossible to determine which are the most appropriate census

groups for comparisons.

With this caveat in mind, a study of the AMRA survey

data showed the membership to be overwhelmingly female (96.8

percent of those respondents who indicated gender). Both census files had 91 percent of the respondents as female. The proportion of black AMRA member respondents (2.8) percent

was much lower than the proportion in the census files (9.5

percent PUMSA and 9.8 percent EEO).

Occupational therapists

A screening criterion of 4 years of college (except for those

53 and over) was applied by AIR to this PUMSA file. this

yielded an estimate of 14,435 active registered occupational

therapists (OTR’S), with a standard error of 628.

The AIR analysis of noncensus sources revealed that only

rough estimates of the total population or particular subpopulations of occupational therapy personnel in 1980 can be made

on the basis of available noncensus data. The best estimates for

OTR’S, adjusted to 1980, provide a range of from 17,800 (BHPr

and American Occupational Therapy Association) to 19,500

American Occupational Therapy Association persons. The

PUMSA estimate of 14,435 OTR’S who meet the basic educational requirements for registry is quite a bit lower from both of

the noncensus estimates. According to AIR a possible explanation for the low census estimate is that about 19–26 percent of

the OTR’S may have,been placed by the census into other occupation groups for medicine and health managers and health

specialties teachers. If, as estimated by BHPr, such persons

amount to 18 percent of the active OTR’S, then the census

might have as little as 82 percent of the population, which could

then be estimated to total 17,604 active OTR’S. This figure

approximates the lowest noncensus estimate. However, such

adjustment may also produce an overestimate because the AIR

analysis found that in”theother professions examined, the basic

occupational category was used for many persons considered

by their profession to be primarily administrators or teachers.

The census estimate of the number of OTR’S employed in

hospitals in 1980 is 7,766, with a standard errorof461. This

estimate corresponds exactly to the adjusted AHA estimate of

7,766 (adjusted to exclude OTR’S employed in facilities for the

mentally retarded) and is 27 percent smaller than the adjusted

OES estimate of 10,638 (adjusted to include Federal hospitals).

Some noncertified personnel are probably included in the latter

two estimates.

According to the census files, 92 percent (EEO) to 93

11
percent (PUMSA) of OTR’S were female in 1980 (compared

with the BHPr estimate of 95 percent in 1978). The census

files indicate that 91 percent (EEO) to 95 percent (PUMSA)

were non-Hispanic white OTR’S. The BHPr 1978 estimate

was 91 percent.

Physical therapists

An educational screening criterion of 4 years of college was

applied by AIR to this PUMSA file. This yielded an estimate

of 32,224 active physical therapists. A further adjustment was

then made by AIR to include the 2 percent of physical therapists thought to lack 4 years of college, as indicated by the

membership of the American Physical Therapy Association

(APTA). This further adjustment yielded a census-based estimate of 32,882 active and 32,616 employed physical therapists.

This estimate has a standard error of 886. The best noncensus

estimates of the total number of physical therapists employed

in the United States in 1980 were judged by AIR to be the

APTA membership estimates, interpolated to 1980. The interpolated APTA estimate of 32,333 employed physical therapists

is in very close agreement with the adjusted census estimate of

32,616 employed physical therapists.

There is also close agreement between the census estimate

of the number of physical therapists employed in hospitals

(18,578 when adjusted for the 2 percent with less than 4 years

of college) and the adjusted OES estimate of 18,180. These

two estimates, however, are somewhat higher than the APTA

estimate of hospital employment, which is set as 14,420 in the

interpolation to 1980.

APTA estimated from its 1978 and 1982 membership surveys the number of physical therapists who had” administration

and management” or “teaching” as their primary professional

responsibility. If these survey results are averaged to obtain

intermediate 1980 estimates, the APTA would estimate 98

percent active physical therapists primarily in administration

and management and 3.6 percent in teaching. If all of the managers and teachers had been coded into groups other than the

physical therapist category by the census, the census estimate

of 32,224 active physical therapists would include only 86.6

percent of the total population (37,210 persons). However, this

approach probably overestimates the number of active physical

therapists, because the census estimate of physical therapists

employed in hospitals is so close to the adjusted OES estimate,

which ought to have included the majority of managers, although

perhaps not the teachers. The AIR conclusion is, therefore,

that “the vast majority”2 of physical therapists who had teaching and management responsibilities were coded as physical

therapists by the census.

Data from the APTA 1978 and 1982 member surveys

permit some comparison with the census data. The proportion

of female physical therapists, according to the census, is between 71.5 percent (PUMSA file) and 73.9 percent (EEO file).

The APTA estimate (averaged for 1978 and 1982) is 71.7

percent. The census estimates that between 87.7 percent (EEO

file) and 93.4 percent (PUMSA) are non-Hispanic white persons while APTA estimates that 96.0 percent are “Caucasian”

and 0.8 percent are Hispanic persons. The census and APTA

estimates of the proportion of black persons are 6,8 percent

(EEO tile) to 3.3 percent (PUMSA file) versus 1.3 percent

12

(APTA). The census estimate of the number of black persons

appears slightly high, at least when compared with APTA

membership.

In general, the AIR analysis indicated that the census data

for physical therapists are better than the data for many of the

other allied health occupations.

Radiologic technicians

No screen for minimum educational preparation can be applied to this occupational catego~ because educational requirements for radiologic persomel (even at the technologists level)

are not entirely uniform. Accredited training programs can be

located in hospitals, vocational schools, or colleges and universities, and they range from 1 to 4 years of post-high-school

preparation. In addition, as is true in many of the allied health

occupations, personnel are working in the field who are not

accredited and who did not have any formal post-high-school

education. There also is no effective maximum educational

screen because many radiologic therapists are also registered

nurses or medical technologists and because a small number of

master’ s- and even doctoral-level degrees have been awarded

in radiolo@c therapy.

Radiologic technology personnel are primarily counted by

the census in the occupational group for radiologic technicians,

which includes both radiologic technologists and radiologic technicians, as well as the technologist and technician tiers in nuclear

medicine.

However, the job title list used by the census for this occupation omits one of the primary professional titles (radiographer).

Instead, this job title, which is often used interchangeably with

radiologic technologist, was included in the occupation for” technicians, n.e.c.” in addition, only radiographers in hospitals,

nursing and personal care facilities, and health services, n. e. c.,

were classified into this occupation group. Others were classified into the occupation for “science technicians, n.e,c.” Therefore, the AIR analysis attempted to disaggregate this radiologic

group of personnel from the non-health-related occupations in

“technicians, n.e.c.” Analysis of this group was then carried

out by AIR but kept separate from the analysis of the radiologic

technicians group.

The number of cases in the PUMSA tile for the category

of radiologic technicians, when weighted, yield an estimate of

96,825 active radiologic technologists and technicians, of whom

95,391 were employed at the time of the census. Among these

employed respondents, 74,500 (or 78 percent) were employed

in hospitals in 1980, with an additional 11,664 (or 12.2 percent) employed in physicians’ ofllces. About 7.9 percent were

employed in other health care facilities, and 1.7 percent in other

non-healthcare industries. The censtis estimate of 74,500 radiologic technicians and technologists employed in hospitals was

compared by AIR with OES, AHA, and the American Regist~

of Radiologic Technicians (ARRT) hospital employment estimates. These estimates are 75,158, 68,719, and 67,439, respectively. The census estimate would appear to be somewhat

high compared with the AHA and AART estimates, but the

latter include only certified (technologist-level) personnel. Of

those in the health care industries, the census estimate of 79,5

percent employed in hospitals corresponds closely to the AART

estimate of 79.9 percent.
While general correspondence of these estimates would

seem to indicate that no radiographers in health care settings

were coded into the “technicians, n.e.c.,” category, the AIR

analysts do not believe that this conclusion is justified. This is

because the title “radiographer” appears in the category “technicians, n.e.c,” and is the preferred title for professionals who

primarily do diagnostic x rays and scans.

The estimated number of active radiographers on the

PUMSA tile for “tectilcians, n.e.c.” is 16,699, with 16,257

employed, The majority of these persons are employed by hospitals (11,1 54 or 68.6 percent). About 10 percent are employed

in the ofllces of physicians, 2.8 percent are in nursing care

facilities, 4.4 percent in oflices of other types of health practitioners, and the remaining 14.4 percent in health services, n.e.c.

Their distribution in industries, therefore, approximates the distribution for the radiologic technologists and technicians in the

radiologic technician category, although the radiographers are

somewhat less likely to be employed by hospitals or physicians

and somewhat more likely to be employed in health services,

n.e.c. (an industry category that includes “x-ray offices” and

“x-ray laboratories” as well as medical and dental clinics).

The AIR analysis also revealed that those in the “technicians, n,e,c.” category have a somewhat higher level of education than the radiologic technicians and technologists-56 percent have 2 years or more of college, compared with 20 percent

of those in the radiologic technician category. This difference

in level of education is to be expected, according to AIR, because the radiologic technician category includes technicians

and technologists, whereas radiographer is a technologist-level

job title.

The AIR analysis of these two categories concludes that

the census estimates for radiologic technology personnel based

on the occupational catego~ radlologic technicians should include some of those in the “Technicians, n.e.c.,” group in health

care industries. Thus it is only possible to produce maximum

and minimum estimates of the numbers of radiolo~c technology

personnel from census data. The range developed by the AIR

analysis is an estimate of between 96,825 and 113,524 active

civilian radiologic technology personnel from the census data.

No reliable noncensus data were found by AIR for comparison with the census radlologic data.

Inhalation therapists

Because college education, while available, is not required

for employment as respirato~ therapy personnel, no educational screen was developed by AIR for this occupation,

The PUMSA estimate for this occupation was 50,472 active

respiratory therapists, with a standard error of 1,175. About

96 percent of the employed respiratory therapists, or 47,549

individuals, worked in hospitals, with a standard error of 1,141.

According to Am the best noncensus estimate for employed

respirato~ therapy personnel in hospital settingsis from a 198l–

82 survey by the American Association of Respiratory Therapists (AART), This survey estimate is 63,181, which includes

46,473 registered and certified or graduated therapists and technicians and 16,708 other personnel above the aide level who

were classified as on-the-job trainees, The number of therapists

and technicians alone compares closely with the census count

of 47,549 respiratory therapists employed in hospitals—the

discrepancy is only 1,076, less than the standard error of the

census estimate. However, caution must be used when citing

the survey results because the error of the AART estimate may

be much larger. This is because it is based on a survey with a

response rate lower than 40 percent, and because the adjustment

from winter 1981 to spring 1980 was determined by. assuming

a constant rate of growth between mid-1977 and late 1981.

The 1981-82 AART survey reported data for all persomel

employed by hospital departments of respiratory therapy, includlng on-the-job trainees, RN’s, physical therapists, aides

and assistants, nonmedical interns, clerical workers, and other

workers, as well as the therapists and technicians counted by

the census. Consequently, exact agreement between AART

and the census estimate are not possible. The AIR analysis

revealed that the demographic data are in reasonable agreement between the two sources. As might be expected from the

exclusion of sizable numbers of aides, assistants, and clerical

workers, census data show a somewhat lower proportion of

female workers (56 percent on both census files versus 61 percent for the AART survey). The racial distributions are very

similar in the two sources. Both agree that 82 percent are nonHispanic white persons and that black persons comprise the

largest minority (10 percent).

In summary, the AIR analysis concluded that “the census

estimate of 50,472 total active respiratory therapy personnel is

a reliable measure of therapist and technician level personnel,”

and, therefore, “can be used with reasonable confidence.”2

Speech therapists

The AIR analysis set a screening requirement of 4 years of

college education for this occupation. The resulting estimate of

the total number of active speech and hearing therapists on the

PUMSA file is 39,805, with a standard error of 1,044.

According to the AIR analysis of noncensus sources, the

best estimates of employed speech and language pathologists

and audiologists are the OES estimate as adjusted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association of 42,198 and the

BHPr projection to 1980 of 42,095. The PUMSA estimate of

39,436 is very close to the OES estimate if the teachers of

speech pathology (40,245) are deleted. Teachers were presumed

by AIR to have been classified by the census into the occupation for health specialties teachers.

Both census files (PUMSA and EEO) indicate that 11

percent of the speech and hearing therapists in 1980 were male.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association membership

data suggest a figure of 15 percent. According to the census,

92-93 percent were non-Hispanic white persons, 1.5-1.7 percent were white Hispanic persons, 4.3-4.9 percent were black

persons, and 0.9–1.1 percent were Asian and Pacific Islanders.

The AIR analysis of this occupation concludes that “the

census estimate of 39,805 total active speech and hearing therapists is in close agreement with the best noncensus estimates,

particularly if teachers of speech therapy are excluded from the

noncensus estimate.”2

The remaining health occupations included in the first portion of this report are heterogeneous occupational categories

used as catch-all groups by the census. As such, they bear no

correspondence to any specific health professions and will not

be discussed in this section.

13
Conclusions and

recommendations

For 1980, health manpower data are available from three

sources: 1980 decennial census counts, employment survey data

from the American Hospital Association and the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, and various membership and survey estimates

from the Federal government and health professional associations. This report summarizes the findings of a comparative

study of the decemial census data and the other data sources.

No single conclusion or recommendation is possible, as

the results of this comparative analysis vary by occupation,

Table C summarizes the agreement between the census estimates and the best other source for each of these occupations.

In general, the estimates based on census data are of limited

interest if other reliable estimates are available. This is the case

for the independent health practitioners and registered nurses,

where data are available from the respective health profession

associations.

Concerning the allied health occupations, for which there

are no good alternative sources of supply data, the census data

are of greater value. However, it must be noted that the very

absence of reliable alternative estimates for these professions

means that the census estimates cannot be confirmed. As the

American Institutes for Research analysis states, “the best that

can be said is that, when more than one noncensus estimate

was available for a profession, the census/noncensus discrep

ancy was generally no greater than the discrepancy between

the different noncensus sources.”2 Therefore, the allied health

supply estimates from the 1980 census are likely to be used,

because they may well be the only comprehensive estimates

available for these professions.

Comparisons of demographic characteristics from census

and noncensus sources indicate that, for those occupations where

the estimates match or are slightly undercounted by the census,

the census data are in reasonable agreement with the other

sources. However, for those occupations where the census overestimates the total supply because of classification or definition

differences, the characteristic data become less reliable because

Table C. Agreement batwaen health occupations and supply estimates based on 1980 decannial census and other sources

American

U.S. Bureau Institutes

of the for Research

Census adjusted Othar

Occupation estimate 1 estimate2 estimate2

Physicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433,255

Dentists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

408,300 430,200

125,291

Optometrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118,100 118,300

24,605 22,700 21,300

Pharmacists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145,637

Podiatrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$4......

125,!300 138,400

7,781

Veterinarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6,700 8,800

34,355 31,600

Physician assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34,100

30,437

Registered nurses...........,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6,300 7,700

1,265,299

Licensed practical nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,297,300 1,227,900

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435,176

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

450,000 549,300

1,378,116

Clinical laboratoV technologists and technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,423,600 (3)

243,982 247,800

Dental hygienists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $...+....

(3)

46,192 48,500

Dental assistanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44,700

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,117

Dietitians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164,200 122,400

67,270

Health record technologists and techniciana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32,500 23.900

15,147

Occupational therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15,400 (3)

17,756

Physical therapists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14,400 17,800

43,075 32,200

Radiologic technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32,300.

96,311

Inhalation therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96,800 75,200

48,738 50,500

Spaechtherapists and audiologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3)

41,296 39,800 42,100

1Based on cases with nonallocated occupation, age, and education on the 5-percent Public Use Microdata Sample A file.

‘American Institutes for Rasaarch and other estimates are rc,unded to nearest 100.

3N0 acceptable other estimate for total 1980 supply is available for this occupation.

NOTE: See the body of this report for a mora datailed summary of estimate comparisons. Noncensus estimates ara highly variable in reliabllny and in the extent to which

they measure the same population being estimated by the census. It should not be assumed, therefore, that census data are unreliable for occupations exhibiting a large

discrepancy in the last column. However, a small discrepancy does not, by itself, confirm the reliability of census data.

14
the extraneous cases tend to distort the overall distributions in

a nonrandom way. Such was the case, for example, with the

registered nurse distributions, and especially the physician assistant distributions,

For most allied health occupations, information on employment, especially hospitals, can be estimated ftom the American Hospital Association or the Occupational Employment

Statistics survey data. In many cases the registered or certified

component of the allied health supply (but not the entire workforce) can be estimated from professional society surveys or

membership rosters. However, as the American Institutes for

Research analysis indicates, most of these later data sources

have methodological problems as well as problems describing

a restricted population, and the response rates may be low.

Census-based estimates, therefore, are a viable alternative, and

can be used with suitable qualification.

15
References

lU.S. Bureau of the Census: Detailed occupation and years of school

completed by age, for the civilian labor force by sex, race, and Spanish

origin: 1980.1980 Census of Population. Supplementary Report PC

80-S1-8. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 1983.

2An In-Depth Examination of the 1980 Decennial Census Employment Data for Health Occupations. OADM Report No. 16-84. Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health Professions, July 1984.

sDePa~ent of He~th, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,

Division of Public Health Methods: Health Manpower Source Book,

Industry and Occupation Data. PHS Pub. No. 263, Sec. 5. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954.

4Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,

Division of Public Health Methods: Health Manpower Source Book,

Industry and Occupation Data From the 1960 Census, bv State.

PHS Pub. No. 263, Sec. 17. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Oftice, 1963.

5Departrnent of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,

National Center for Health Statistics: Decennial Census Data for

Selected Health Occupations: United States, 1970. DHE W Pub. No.

(HRA) 76-1231. Washington. U.S. Government Printing OfYice,Sept.

1975.

6Department of Health and Human Services, Bureau of Health Prw

fessions; Analysis of Data From Survey of Dental Hygienists’ Life

Cycle Labor Market Partic@ation. DHHS Pub. No. (HRA) 81-17.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

7U.S. Bureau of the Census: Persons of Spanish origin by State. 1980

Census of Population. Supplementary Report PC 80-S 1-7. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1982.

16
List of detailed tables

1. Number of persons in health occupations by occupation

andsex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Number of persons in health occupations by occupation,

race, and Hispanic origin United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . .

3. Number of physicians, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Number of dentists, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

5, Number of optometrists, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

6, Number of pharmacists, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Number of pdlatrists, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Number of veterinarians, by State, place of residence, race,

Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

9, Number of physician assistants, by State, place of residence,

race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

10. Number of registered nurses, by State, place of residence,

race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

11. Number of licensed practical nurses, by State, place of

residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States,

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Number of nursing aides, orderlies, and assistants, by State,

place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United

States. 1980. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. Number of clinical laboratory technologists and technicians,

by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic ongin, and sex:

United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14, Number of dental hygienists, by State, place of residence,

race, Hkpanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

15. Number of dental assistants, by State, place of residence,

18 race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

16. Number of dietitians, by State, place of residence, race,

19 Hispanic ongin, and sex: United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . .

17. Number of health record technologists and technicians, by

20 State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex

4 United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 18. Number of occupational therapists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States,

22 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. Number of physical therapists, by State, place of residence,

23 race, Hkpanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980. . . . . . .

20. Number of radiologic technicians, by State, place of resi24 dence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States,

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 21. Number of inhalation therapists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States,

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

22. Number of speech therapists, by State, place of residence,

27

race, Hispanic ori~n, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

23. Number of health diagnosing practitioners, n.e.c., by State,

place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United

States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

24. Number of health technologists and technicians, n.e.c., by

State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex

United States, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

25. Number of health aides, except nursing, by State, place

of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and ser. United States,

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

26. Number of therapists, n.e.c., by State, place of residence,

31

race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980 . . . . . . .

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

17
Table 1. Number of persons in health occupations by occupation and aex United States, 1980

Both

Occupation sexes Males Females

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health diagnosing occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dentists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veterinarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optometrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Podiatrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health diagnosing practitioners, n.e.c.l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health aasesament andtreating occupationa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Registered nuraes ...,....,..,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pharmacists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dietitians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inhalation therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Occupation therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Speech therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapists, n.e.c.l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physician assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technicians sndrelated support occupations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clinical laboratow technologists and technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dental hygienists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health record technologists and technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Radiologic technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Licenaed practical nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health technologists andtachnicians, n.e.c.l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health sewice occupationa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dental assiatanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health aides, except nursing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .

5,187,033

646,626

433,255

125,291

34,355

24,605

7,781

21,539

1,722,576

1,285,299

145,637

67,270

193,933

48,738

17,756

43,075

41,296

43,068

30,437

989,347

243,982

46,192

15,147

96,311

435,176

152,539

1,828,284

158,117

292,049

1,378,118

1,190,320

570,546

375,289

116,916

29,797

22,569

7,124

18,851

240,569

52,755

110,635

6,787

52,181

21,179

1,499

11,234

4,485

13,784

18,211

162,175

62,175

708

1,314

27,356

14,764

55,858

217,030

3,294

45,375

168,361

3,996,713

76,280

57,966

8,375

4,558

2,036

657

2,688

1,482,007

1,232,544

35,002

60,483

141,752

27,5!59

16,257

31,841

36,811

29,284

12,226

827,172

181,807

45,484

13,833

68,955

420,412

96,681

1,611,254

154,823

246,674

1,209,757

1n.e. c. = not elsewhere classified.

18
Table 2. Number of persons in heelth occupations by occupation, race, and Hispanic origin: Unitad Statas, 1980

White Black Asian and

All non- Total non- Native Pacific Other

Occupation races Hispanic minority Hispanic Hispanic Americans Islanders minority

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health diagnosing occupation. . . . . . . . . .

Physicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dentists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Veterinarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Optornetriat s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Podiatrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health diagnosing practitioners, n.e.c.l. . .

Heekh assessment and treating

occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Registered nursas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pharmacists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dietitians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inhalation therapista. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Occupational therspista. . . . . . . . . . . .

Physical therapista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Speech therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Therapists, n.e.c,l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physician aasiatante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technicians and related support

occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clinical laboratory technologists and

technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dental hygienista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Haalth record technologists and

technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Radiologic technician. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Licensed practical nureea. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heelth technologists and technicians,

n,e,c.l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Health service occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dental assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Haalth aides, except nursing. . . . . . . . . .

Nursing aidea, orderliaa, and

attendants, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5,187,033

646,826

433,255

125,291

34,355

24,605

7,781

21,539

1,722,576

1,285,299

145,637

67,270

193,933

48,738

17,756

43,075

41,296

43,068

30,437

969,347

243,982

46,192

15,147

96,311

435,176

f52,539

1,828,284

158,117

292,049

1,378,118

4,082,043

557,625

3!57,842

115,880

32,922

23,309

7,343

20,329

1,484,576

1,114,314

130,436

47,513

167,504

39,835

16,158

37,797

38,060

35,654

24,809

783,619

191,214

44,125

12,422

82,099

333,132

120,627

1,256,223

139,746

215,271

901,206

1,104,990

89,201

75,413

9,411

1,433

1,296

438

1,210

238,000

170,985

15,201

19,757

26,429

8,903

1,598

5,278

3,236

7,414

5,628

205,728

52,768

2,067

2,725

14,212

102,044

31,912

572,061

18,371

76,778

476,912

718,462

17,696

13,243

3,134

522

254

281

262

133,444

95,372

4,715

14,400

15,950

5,106

774

2,930

2,039

5,101

3,007

136,176

28,076

699

1,478

7,897

77,852

20,174

431,146

6,635

52,302

372,209

198,382

22,246

18,853

2,193

388

432

62

318

41,562

27,540

3,492

2,483

6,296

2,586

330

1,276

711

1,393

1,751

37,126

10,092

754

602

3,977

15,062

6,639

97,448

8,391

17,477

71,580

25,741

838

513

185

62

44

0

34

5,327

3,856

247

332

681

208

50

111

76

236

211

5,136

862

37

176

377

2,790

894

14,440

832

1,918

11,690

156,562

47,413

41,918

3,832

432

558

95

578

55,971

42,946

6,582

2,483

3,328

970

428

925

382

623

632

26,219

13,498

554

441

1,862

5,897

3,967

26,959

2,436

4,831

19,692

5,843

1,008

886

67

29

8

0

18

1,696

1,271

165

59

174

33

16

36

28

61

27

1,071

240

23

28

99

443

238

2,068

77

250

1,741

in.e.c. = not slsewhere classified.

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census dsveloped dsts on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spsnish origin. In the rsce and

ethnic trsnsformstion, only Spsnish-origin persons indicating their race ss white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

19
Table 3. Number of physician, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United Statea, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- FeState sexes Male male Male male Mala male Male male Male male Male mele Male male

4,333

51

6

54

28

556

60

75

11

18

195

80

16

12

229

72

39

43

50

65

19

121

151

169

75

27

85

11

24

11

14

168

24

476

89

10

183

44

49

237

18

39

7

74

230

25

11

100

72

28

74

5

3,753

46

5

49

25

481

53

66

9

15

171

73

14

11

189

65

36

38

43

58

17

100

126

145

68

24

75

10

21

10

14

141

20

391

78

9

160

40

44

205

16

35

7

65

206

22

9

87

65

24

66

5

580

5

1

5

2

75

7

9

2

4

24

7

2

1

40

7

3

5

7

7

2

22

24

24

8

3

10

1

3

1

1

27

4

85

11

1

23

4

6

32

2

4

1

9

24

3

2

13

7

3

8

1

1,638

18

3

31

12

267

32

21

1

15

65

17

9

3

85

26

15

14

14

40

1

34

60

57

27

7

20

3

12

6

3

26

10

210

31

2

52

23

14

71

9

9

2

34

132

10

34

26

5

20

1

302

3

1

3

1

47

5

3

1

4

9

2

1

22

4

2

2

2

5

1

9

14

13

4

1

4

2

6

2

56

4

9

3

3

16

1

2

5

17

1

5

4

1

3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana. . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

NOTE The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 cenaua variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spaniah write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

2,115

28

2

18

14

214

21

45

8

106

56

5

8

104

39

20

24

29

18

15

66

67

88

41

17

55

8

9

4

11

115

10

181

47

7

108

17

29

134

7

26

5

32

74

13

9

52

39

20

46

4

277

3

2

1

27

3

5

1

15

6

1

18

3

1

3

4

2

1

13

10

11

4

2

6

1

1

1

1

22

3

28

7

1

13

1

3

16

1

3

1

4

7

1

2

8

3

3

4

3,171

42

5

45

24

412

50

59

7

10

127

63

9

11

138

57

33

33

38

51

16

76

116

115

64

22

63

10

20

9

13

109

17

307

72

8

129

37

42

179

15

33

6

59

172

21

9

74

62

18

60

5

407

4

1

4

2

54

7

7

1

3

16

5

1

1

22

6

3

3

5

6

2

13

21

15

6

2

7

1

3

1

1

13

3

51

10

16

3

5

24

2

3

1

7

18

2

2

10

6

2

6

1

101

2

15

1

1

4

3

3

7

1

1

2

6

1

6

1

2

5

14

2

5

4

1

2

3

3

1

1

32

4

1

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

318

2

2

1

39

1

5

1

8

3

6

34

6

2

3

3

3

1

11

7

20

3

1

6

1

21

1

53

3

1

20

2

1

17

1

1

3

10

1

6

2

4

4

115

1

12

1

1

2

1

1

13

1

1

1

1

6

3

6

1

1

12

26

5

1

1

6

1

1

3

2

1

1

163

1

2

15

1

1

1

33

4

10

1

1

1

1

2

7

2

4

1

3

6

2

18

1

6

1

5

1

1

21

3

2

1

26

5

5

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

20
Table 4. Number of dentists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[F}yures In thl. table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- Fe- FeState sexes Male male Male male Male male Male mala Male male Male male Male male

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . ,,,

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. , . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia, . . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinow . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Incflana . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas ..,.......,..

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . ,. .,.,.

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . .

Michigan . .,, ..,....

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi , ., . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska, ., ...,...,

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. ., . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . . . .

Ohio, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . . . .

South Carolina . . . . . .

South Dakota . . . . . . .

Tennessee. , . . . . . . . .

Texas ., . .,, ,. .,,..,

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virgin id . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . .

1,253

14

2

13

7

153

18

26

2

3

52

25

6

6

62

23

14

13

13

20

4

27

39

54

26

8

21

6

9

4

4

50

5

131

24

2

53

12

20

72

5

13

3

22

61

10

3

25

29

7

31

2

1,169

14

2

12

7

140

17

25

2

3

46

22

6

5

57

22

13

12

13

16

4

25

37

52

24

7

20

6

8

4

4

47

5

124

21

2

50

11

19

68

5

10

3

20

58

9

3

23

28

7

28

2

84

1

1

12

1

1

1

7

4

5

1

1

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

7

2

3

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

389

4

1

7

2

70

9

7

3

14

5

3

1

20

6

4

4

2

10

6

10

16

5

1

3

1

3

2

1

7

2

46

6

11

5

4

17

2

2

1

8

33

2

7

6

2

7

38

1

8

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

780

9

1

5

5

70

8

18

2

32

17

2

4

37

16

9

8

10

7

4

19

27

36

19

6

17

5

5

1

3

41

3

78

16

2

39

6

15

51

3

9

2

12

26

7

3

17

21

5

22

2

46

4

1

1

4

3

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1,090

13

2

12

7

117

16

24

2

1

41

21

1

5

54

21

13

12

13

17

4

21

35

49

24

7

20

5

8

3

4

45

4

118

20

2

48

10

18

65

5

10

2

18

54

9

3

22

27

6

26-

2

69

1

1

8

1

1

5

3

4

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

5

2

3

1

1

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

27

3

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

5 34

16

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

6

3

1

18

5

4

1

1

1

3

4

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. 8uresu of the Census developed dsta on rsce and ethnic orig!n by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

t?thnlc transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

.

21 ‘
Table 5. Number of optometrists, by State, plsce of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United Ststes, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totala because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana ..,......

Main . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minneaota . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virgin id . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

Weat Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

246

2

4

2

31

3

3

9

3

1

1

17

8

5

4

3

3

2

4

8

9

4

2

6

2

2

1

7

2

18

5

1

12

4

4

14

1

2

1

4

10

1

1

4

5

2

6

226

2

4

2

28

2

2

8

3

1

1

15

8

5

4

3

2

2

3

7

8

4

2

5

2

2

1

7

2

18

5

1

11

3

3

13

1

2

1

4

10

1

1

4

5

2

5

20

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

71

2

16

1

2

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

7

1

3

1

1

3

1

1

6

1

1

1

8

2

1

1

1

155

2

1

1

12

1

2

6

3

1

1

10

6

4

3

2

1

2

3

5

6

3

2

4

1

2

1

6

2

10

4

1

9

2

3

10

2

1

3

4

1

3

4

1

4

12

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

215

2

3

2

24

2

2

8

3

1

14

8

5

4

3

2

2

3

7

8

4

2

5

1

2

1

7

2

17

5

1

11

3

3

13

1

2

1

4

9

1

1

4

4

2

5

18

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1 5

3

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

.

NOTE The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race snd

athnic transformation, only Spanish-origin parsons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

22
Table 6. Number of pharmacist, by State, place of rasidence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United Statea, 1980

[Figures m this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total, . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama ...,...,

Alaska . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas. , . . . . . .

California . . . . . . .

Colorado. . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . .

Delaware , . . . . . .

District of

Columbia. . . . ., .

Florida ..,,.....

Georgia, ...,.,,.

Hawaii ..,..,...

Idaho, .,,,,.,.,

Illinois ..,,.,,,.

Indiana . . . . . . . . .

Iowa ...,..,.,,.

Kansas . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . ,

Maryland ...,..,

Massachusetts. . .

Michigan . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . , .

Mississippi. . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . .

Nebraska ., ., ., .

Nevada ..,......

New Hampshire, ,

New Jersey . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . .

New York . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . .

North Dakota ., . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma. . . . . . .

Oregon .,......,

Pennsylvania . . . .

Rhode Island . . . .

South Carolina. . .

South Dakota, . . .

Tennessee . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . .

Utah, . .,..,,...

Vermont . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . .

West Virginia. . . .

Wisconsin ,.. , , .

Wyoming . . . . . . .

1,456

28

2

19

14

134

20

19

3

3

61

39

4

6

93

34

21

13

22

30

4

27

43

61

26

15

33

4

11

7

5

51

10

111

37

6

70

21

19

76

7

22

5

32

81

9

3

30

28

9

29

3

1,106

21

1

14

12

102

15

15

3

2

47

30

2

4

59

25

15

10

16

24

3

19

35

45

20

13

26

3

6

5

4

41

8

91

27

4

53

17

14

58

5

17

4

23

61

7

2

21

20

7

23

2

350

7

1

5

2

32

5

4

1

1

14

9

2

1

33

9

5

3

6

6

1

6

9

16

6

2

7

1

3

1

1

10

2

20

10

1

17

4

5

18

2

6

1

9

19

2

:

8

2

6

1

371

6

10

3

58

7

4

2

13

3

1

19

7

5

4

3

9

4

13

16

4

1

7

1

3

2

1

8

3

40

5

1

14

5

3

19

2

2

8

31

3

7

6

1

7

140

2

3

1

20

3

1

1

4

2

1

12

2

2

1

1

3

2

4

7

3

3

1

1

3

1

10

3

1

6

2

1

7

1

1

4

12

1

3

2

2

736

16

1

4

9

44

8

11

2

34

27

1

4

40

18

11

7

13

15

3

15

21

29

15

12

19

2

5

3

3

34

5

51

22

4

39

12

11

39

3

15

3

16

30

5

2

15

13

6

17

2

210

5

2

2

12

2

3

1

10

7

1

21

6

3

2

4

3

6

5

9

4

2

4

1

1

1

1

7

1

10

7

1

11

2

3

11

1

5

1

5

7

1

1

6

6

2

3

1

1,011

21

1

13

11

76

14

14

3

40

28

1

4

52

24

15

10

16

22

3

17

34

44

20

13

24

3

8

5

4

36

6

82

26

4

51

16

13

56

5

16

4

23

52

7

2

20

18

7

23

2

294

6

1

4

2

18

4

4

1

8

8

1

1

27

8

5

3

6

6

1

6

8

14

6

2

7

1

2

1

1

7

2

15

9

1

16

4

4

16

2

5

1

9

14

1

1

8

7

2

6

1

29

1

2

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

1

18

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

46

21

1

1

1

3

1

1

3

6

1

1

1

1

1

24

1

10

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

20

1

3

3

1

1

2

1

5

15

2

1

4

1

1

1

2

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin parsons indicating thsir race as white or a Spanish write-in ent~ were coded as Hispanic.

23
Table 7. Number of podiatrists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to neareat hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Famale Male Female Male Femala Male Female Male Femala Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . .,. .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebrasks . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dskota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

78

1

10

1

4

1

5

1

1

1

1

2

4

3

1

1

5

10

1

5

1

7

2

1

1

1

2

71

1

9

1

3

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

5

10

1

5

1

6

2

1

1

1

2

7

1

1

1

1

28

1

5

1

2

1

1

1

4

2

3

1

3

1

1

43

4

1

3

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

4

6

3

4

1

1

1

1

4

1

68

1

8

1

3

1

4

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

5

9

1

5

1

6

2

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

1

2

1

I 1 1

NOTE: Tha U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic wlgln by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish ortgln. In the race and

ethnic tranaformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanmh write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

24
Table 8. Number of veterinarians, by State, place of raaidence, race, Hispanic origin, and sax United States, 1980

[Fqures m this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Mala Female Male Female Male Femala Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansan . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia. . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana. , . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky ..,..,...

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine. . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland ..,..,...

Massachusetts . . . .

Mlchtgan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey, . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York. . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. ., . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma .,..,...

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania, . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota ., . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont. . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin , . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

344

6

1

4

4

37

7

3

1

16

8

1

3

15

9

12

7

6

5

2

7

6

13

8

3

9

2

4

2

1

7

2

17

6

1

14

5

6

14

1

3

2

6

22

2

1

9

8

2

10

1

298

.5

1

4

4

32

6

3

1

13

6

1

3

13

8

11

6

6

4

1

6

5

11

7

2

8

2

4

2

1

6

2

15

5

1

12

5

5

12

1

3

2

5

20

2

1

7

8

2

9

1

46

1

6

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

61

1

2

1

12

2

1

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

7

1

1

1

12

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

237

4

2

3

20

4

3

1

10

6

1

3

10

7

10

5

4

3

1

6

4

9

7

2

7

2

4

1

1

6

1

12

4

1

10

4

4

10

1

2

2

4

13

1

1

6

7

1

8

1

28

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

287

5

1

4

3

30

6

3

1

12

6

3

12

8

11

8

5

4

1

6

5

11

7

2

8

2

4

2

1

5

2

14

4

1

12

5

5

11

1

2

2

5

19

2

1

7

7

2

9

1

42

5

1

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

1

1 4

1

1

1 3

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnm transformation, only Spaniah-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-!n entry were coded as Hispanic.

25
Table 9. Number of physician sssistanta, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totala because of rounding to neareat hundred]

Placa of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Othar Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Famale Male Female Male Female Male Famale Male Female Mala Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

lowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnasota . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nabraaka . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

Naw Hampshire . . .

Naw Jersey . . . . . . .

Naw Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessae. . . . . . . .

Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

304

8

1

6

2

33

5

3

1

1

25

6

3

1

18

5

3

3

3

6

1

9

4

13

4

2

9

1

2

3

1

7

3

21

7

14

3

3

14

1

5

1

6

18

2

6

6

3

4

182

4

1

4

1

23

3

1

1

15

3

1

1

12

3

;

2

1

1

6

2

8

3

1

6

1

2

3

2

11

3

9

2

2

9

3

1

4

11

1

3

4

2

2

122

4

2

1

10

1

2

11

3

2

6

2

1

1

1

4

3

2

5

1

3

1

1

4

1

9

3

5

1

1

6

3

2

6

3

2

2

2

75

1

2

13

2

1

4

1

6

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

6

1

3

1

1

4

2

5

1

1

1

51

1

1

6

1

4

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

6

1

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

107

3

2

1

10

1

1

11

3

1

6

2

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

4

2

1

5

1

1

2

1

5

2

6

1

2

4

3

1

2

6

1

2

3

2

2

72

3

1

1

4

1

1

7

2

1

3

2

1

1

2

3

1

3

1

2

3

1

3

2

3

1

3

3

1

3

2

1

2

1

153

3

1

3

1

18

3

1

13

3

1

1

10

3

1

2

2

1

1

4

2

6

3

1

6

1

2

2

1

8

3

8

1

2

8

2

3

8

1

2

4

2

2

95

3

1

1

7

1

2

8

2

1

5

2

1

1

1

3

3

2

4

1

3

1

2

1

6

3

4

1

1

5

2

2

4

2

2

1

2

14

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

16

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

4

1

1

10

1

2

1

1

1

2

7

1

1

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data onracaand athnicorigin bycroaaingl cenauavariable onracewith another on Spanish origin. lntherece and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white ora Spanish write-in entry wera coded as Hispanic.

26
Table IO, Number ofregistered nurses, by State, place ofresidence, race, Hispanic origin, andsex United Statea, l98O

[Figures In this table may not add to totals because of rounding to neareat hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizone . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado. ., . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia. . . . . . .

Florida, . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho .,, ..,.....

Illinois . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky ...,,...

Louisiana . . . . ., . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. . .

New Jersey . . . . . .

Naw Mexico. , . . . .

New York. . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . .

North Dakota. , . . .

Ohio ..,, . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma. . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . .

South Carolina, , . .

South Dakota. . . . .

Tannesaee . . . . . . .

Texan . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah. . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . .

Weat Virginia. , , . .

Wisconsin ,., . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

12,853

164

19

151

78

1,314

182

237

45

28

547

252

44

39

734

285

185

143

150

152

73

290

502

478

298

88

265

41

103

41

70

486

55

1,206

271

39

637

123

148

824

67

143

41

216

601

60

36

290

230

87

277

20

528

10

1

4

5

69

7

5

1

2

30

12

2

2

26

6

6

6

5

10

3

12

15

19

13

4

13

2

3

2

2

11

4

55

10

1

18

7

8

24

2

5

2

13

35

3

1

8

10

4

10

1

12,325

154

18

146

72

1,246

174

232

44

26

518

241

43

37

708

279

179

137

145

142

70

278

486

459

284

84

252

40

100

38

68

474

51

1,152

261

37

619

118

140

800

65

138

39

203

566

57

35

282

220

82

267

19

238

3

1

3

3

42

5

2

2

9

2

1

1

12

2

2

3

1

5

3

6

7

6

1

6

1

1

3

2

31

4

1

7

3

2

9

1

1

6

23

1

3

4

1

4

4,628

51

10

105

25

727

102

74

5

26

145

46

20

9

277

93

61

47

36

71

8

62

175

173

84

13

87

10

43

20

10

90

20

560

71

7

189

53

41

202

27

17

10

94

339

23

98

70

8

92

2

290

6

1

3

27

3

3

1

20

9

1

1

14

3

4

3

4

5

2

9

9

12

8

3

8

1

2

1

1

8

2

24

7

1

11

4

5

15

1

4

1

7

12

1

1

5

5

3

6

1

7,698

103

8

42

47

518

73

158

39

373

194

22

29

431

186

118

90

108

72

63

216

311

286

200

71

165

30

58

18

58

384

30

592

190

30

430

63

99

598

38

121

30

109

227

35

35

184

150

74

174

16

426

8

1

4

5

50

6

5

1

1

22

9

1

2

20

5

6

6

5

9

3

7

15

16

13

3

12

2

3

2

2

7

3

36

9

1

16

6

7

22

2

4

2

11

26

3

1

7

9

4

10

1

10,717

129

16

133

85

963

162

222

39

10

442

194

21

36

574

261

177

130

138

123

70

226

470

406

280

73

222

39

97

33

67

394

42

864

233

37

579

103

135

758

64

119

38

177

449

56

35

250

208

81

261

18

54

1

6

1

1

3

2

3

1

3

2

1

1

2

12

1

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

900

23

3

5

84

4

6

3

15

44

41

58

13

1

4

6

16

40

10

32

1

10

24

1

1

44

1

191

25

32

6

1

29

1

17

23

52

22

3

1

3

22

6

1

3

1

1

1

4

2

459

1

1

5

2

134

2

2

1

1

14

3

20

1

66

2

1

1

1

9

4

16

2

1

4

1

2

27

2

63

2

5

5

3

9

1

2

25

1

7

8

2

26

7

1

4

1

1

2

5

249

1

6

1

66

6

2

18

2

1

11

2

1

2

1

2

3

2

5

1

1

2

1

1

8

6

34

1

2

2

1

4

1

1

40

1

3

2

1

NOTE: The U. S. Bureau of the Census developed data onraceand ethnic origin bycrosaingl census variable onracewith another on Spanish origin. lnthe race and

ethnic transformation, only Spaniah-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded aa Hispanic.

27
Table 11. Number oflicansed practical nurses, by State, place ofresidance, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[Figures In thts table may not add to totals becauae of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race end Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black

Both

Other Hispanic

State sexes Male Famale Male Famale Male Female Male Female Male Famale Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dakota . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma ..,.....

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

4,352

95

3

35

63

383

42

62

10

10

170

116

16

18

184

79

64

43

55

87

24

60

133

205

104

58

102

14

34

12

16

120

20

307

98

17

248

66

33

243

22

59

13

108

339

23

14

104

76

35

105

5

148

2

1

2

26

2

1

1

6

3

1

1

6

1

2

1

1

4

1

4

5

7

1

1

3

1

4

1

12

3

1

4

2

1

6

1

2

12

1

3

4

1

2

4,204

92

2

33

61

357

40

61

10

10

164

113

15

17

178

78

62

43

54

84

23

56

128

198

102

57

98

14

33

12

16

115

19

295

95

16

244

64

32

237

22

58

13

106

327

22

13

101

72

34

103

5

67

1

1

1

16

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

3

1

1

2

6

1

2

1

2

1

8

1

1

2

1

1,456

28

1

24

13

213

21

22

2

10

44

23

5

2

68

29

17

15

8

33

1

15

43

67

20

6

31

3

12

5

3

27

6

128

21

3

85

19

8

64

10

7

3

36

156

9

35

20

3

35

1

81

1

2

10

1

4

3

1

1

4

1

1

1

2

1

3

3

4

1

1

2

2

1

6

2

1

2

1

1

4

1

2

4

2

2

1

1

2,748

64

1

9

48

144

20

39

8

121

90

10

15

110

49

45

28

46

51

21

41

85

131

82

51

68

11

21

7

13

89

13

168

74

13

159

45

25

172

12

51

10

70

171

73

13

66

52

31

68

5

107

1

1

2

17

1

1

5

2

1

4

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

5

6

1

1

3

1

2

7

2

1

3

1

1

5

1

2

7

1

2

3

1

2

3,225

62

2

27

51

227

33

55

7

1

123

68

5

16

127

68

61

38

48

56

23

34

120

164

101

40

78

13

31

10

16

82

10

203

68

16

200

53

30

198

21

36

13

84

205

21

13

71

65

32

98

5

29

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

2

4

1

1

2

2

1

749

30

2

9

64

3

5

3

9

35

43

44

9

1

4

5

26

20

5

30

16

19

1

1

29

1

73

25

42

6

2

36

22

21

70

29

3

1

4

5

2

87

2

30

1

3

8

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

7

1

1

5

1

1

4

1

2

1

7

2

3

143

3

36

4

1

4

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

6

12

1

2

1

1

1

49

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by creasing 1 census variable on race with another on Span!sh origin, In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race aa white or a Spanish wnte-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

28
Table 12. Number of nursing aides, orderlias, end attendants, by State, place of residence, race, Hispenic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total Urban Rural White Black Othar Hispanic

Both Fe- Fe- Fa- Fe- Fe- Fe- FeStete sexes Male male Male male Male male Male male Male male Male male Male male

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas .,.......

California . . . . ...!.

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii, . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . .

Indians . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan ...,,.,.,

Minnesota. . ., ..,.

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey. . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dakota . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma, . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia ... .,,,,. .

Washington . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming ,. . . . . . .

13,781

248

14

109

162

1,167

126

215

32

48

495

292

26

37

674

363

240

197

220

281

88

251

454

591

353

165

372

50

119

25

58

376

50

1,283

350

52

648

223

139

697

80

147

59

268

843

51

32

314

186

114

375

20

1,684

41

1

13

15

174

18

26

3

9

66

45

2

3

66

27

16

16

22

33

8

36

60

73

41

21

36

5

10

5

6

41

8

188

56

4

67

18

17

96

12

21

4

41

79

8

4

50

22

15

32

2

12,098

207

13

96

147

994

108

189

29

38

429

247

24

35

607

337

223

181

199

248

80

214

394

518

312

144

336

45

109

20

53

335

42

1,094

294

47

581

206

122

601

68

125

54

227

763

44

28

264

164

100

343

19

755

14

1

9

6

112

12

12

9

21

11

1

1

32

11

5

7

7

18

13

30

34

16

3

15

1

5

3

1

17

3

106

13

1

33

8

7

34

6

4

19

48

4

18

10

2

12

4,410

54

4

60

26

566

58

83

5

38

135

57

9

4

219

106

44

44

41

105

4

83

176

200

71

18

112

5

28

8

9

118

8

605

63

5

214

55

28

182

29

14

6

84

357

17

89

48

8

104

1

929

27

1

4

10

62

6

14

2

46

34

1

2

34

16

11

9

15

15

7

23

30

39

25

18

21

4

5

2

5

24

5

82

43

3

34

10

10

62

6

17

4

22

32

4

4

32

12

13

20

1

7,687

153

9

35

121

428

50

106

23

294

191

14

31

389

231

179

137

158

143

76

131

218

316

242

126

224

40

81

12

43

217

33

490

231

42

368

150

94

419

39

111

48

143

406

27

28

175

116

91

239

17

1,032

17

1

9

10

99

12

20

2

1

36

18

3

41

22

16

12

17

14

8

16

49

51

37

9

26

4

9

4

6

14

3

88

28

4

45

12

15

72

11

9

3

27

35

7

4

28

17

12

28

1

7,980

107

7

66

105

555

75

139

15

2

220

116

6

32

417

271

215

155

163

95

79

96

340

375

300

62

248

41

101

15

52

160

18

530

168

44

431

152

109

467

60

49

50

158

346

39

27

151

139

91

305

17

495

23

1

5

32

2

5

1

8

22

26

18

5

3

5

18

19

9

19

2

12

9

1

22

74

27

21

4

21

1

11

13

27

20

2

2

3

3,227

98

1

7

40

196

10

41

13

35

177

128

154

59

5

18

34

147

113

39

127

5

81

82

4

3

154

2

474

122

139

31

4

125

6

74

67

258

1

106

11

7

30

46

1

12

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

285

1

4

9

1

74

3

2

6

2

16

1

19

2

2

3

1

2

1

3

5

8

5

1

3

3

1

2

7

4

21

3

2

4

19

4

5

1

4

1

9

1

4

10

1

4

1

111

2

31

4

1

7

4

1

1

2

2

1

1

4

5

21

1

1

1

1

1

17

1

1

1

604

2

14

1

169

20

7

1

26

2

1

1

17

5

1

6

1

3

1

2

10

8

2

1

3

1

2

1

14

18

70

2

6

4

4

5

1

1

2

150

3

3

4

3

1

NOTE:The U.S. Buraau of ths Census developed data on race snd ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variabla on rata with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race aa white ors Sp~nish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

29
Table 13. Number of clinical laboratory technologiata and technicians, by State, place of residenca, race, Hispanic origin, and aex United

States, 1980

[F,gures in this tsble may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

Stata sexes Mala Female Mala Female Male Female Mala Femala Male Female Male Famale Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas .,.......

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia, . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii. . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illlnola . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Miaaissippi. ., . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. . .

New Jersey . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dakota . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota ., . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . .

Texts . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

2,440

34

2

25

17

249

33

31

8

8

101

63

8

7

160

52

27

26

34

29

14

61

81

98

55

21

61

7

21

7

8

72

12

194

70

7

116

31

25

125

12

27

8

54

141

16

5

52

39

17

56

3

622

9

1

8

4

86

7

6

1

3

30

16

2

2

38

12

5

5

7

11

2

19

18

24

10

5

14

1

4

2

2

16

4

60

18

1

27

8

8

24

3

6

2

13

39

5

1

11

9

3

11

1,818

24

2

18

13

162

26

25

7

4

71

47

6

5

123

40

22

21

27

28

12

42

63

74

45

16

46

6

17

6

6

56

8

134

52

6

89

24

18

101

9

21

6

41

102

11

4

42

30

14

46

3

298

3

1

6

1

56

4

3

3

10

4

2

18

6

3

2

3

6

6

9

11

4

1

6

2

1

5

2

38

5

13

3

2

10

2

2

6

24

2

5

4

4

782

9

1

13

4

104

16

10

1

4

23

11

3

1

54

15

9

10

9

17

1

12

26

36

16

4

16

2

10

4

1

14

4

71

15

1

33

12

6

37

3

3

2

21

65

5

14

12

1

20

1

324

6

2

3

31

3

3

1

20

12

1

1

20

6

2

3

4

5

2

13

9

13

6

4

9

1

2

1

2

12

2

22

13

1

14

4

6

15

2

4

1

7

14

2

1

6

4

3

6

1.036

15

1

5

8

58

10

14

6

48

36

4

4

69

24

12

12

18

11

11

31

37

38

29

12

30

4

7

2

5

42

4

64

36

5

56

12

11

64

5

18

4

20

37

6

4

27

18

13

26

2

458

8

1

6

4

55

5

5

1

20

11

1

2

24

11

5

5

6

8

2

12

15

20

9

4

12

1

4

1

2

10

2

33

13

1

23

7

7

20

3

5

2

10

27

4

1

8

7

3

10

1,454

21

1

15

12

107

23

22

5

1

55

33

3

5

88

34

21

19

24

20

12

29

59

60

44

13

37

6

16

5

6

39

6

97

40

6

77

20

17

90

8

18

6

31

73

10

4

33

27

13

44

3

80

1

9

2

3

5

7

1

2

5

1

3

1

1

2

14

5

3

1

3

1

2

3

2

201

3

1

1

11

1

1

1

3

6

13

21

4

2

2

6

9

2

10

3

8

7

20

11

9

2

8

3

9

14

5

1

1

45

14

1

1

5

2

1

1

1

2

6

1

1

2

1

1

101

33

2

1

3

10

1

4

2

3

1

1

7

10

1

2

1

1

2

3

3

2

1

39

1

8

1

6

2

1

1

1

1

7

6

62

2

11

1

8

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

8

1

1

12

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Cenaua developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spaniah origin. In the race and

athnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persona indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry ware codad as Hispanic.

30
Table 14. Number of dental hygienists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figures [n this table may not add to totala becauae of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Rece and Hispanic origin

Totel

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexas Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Famale

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama, . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware ...,..,..

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana. . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan, ..,.....

Minnesota ,., ..,..

Missiaaippi ., . . . . .

Missouri. ..,,.....

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas, . ., ...,,..,

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. ., . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

VJsconsin ., .,,..,

Wyoming, . . . . . . . .

462

11

1

5

3

49

7

10

2

23

15

2

1

18

9

4

4

4

5

3

9

20

24

11

2

5

2

3

1

2

14

2

44

15

1

22

4

6

21

2

5

1

7

23

1

2

8

12

4

12

1

7

1

1

455

11

1

5

3

47

7

10

2

22

14

2

1

18

9

4

4

4

5

3

9

20

24

11

2

5

2

3

1

2

14

2

43

14

1

21

4

6

21

2

5

1

7

22

1

2

7

12

4

12

1

3

1

155

3

4

2

23

4

3

6

2

1

5

2

1

2

1

3

2

6

8

4

2

1

2

1

16

4

6

2

2

5

1

1

3

14

1

3

3

4

4

1

300

8

1

1

1

24

3

7

2

16

12

1

13

6

3

2

3

2

3

7

14

16

7

1

4

1

1

2

12

28

11

1

15

2

4

16

2

5

1

4

9

1

2

5

8

4

8

1

6

1

436

11

1

5

3

42

7

10

2

21

14

1

1

18

9

4

4

4

5

3

8

20

24

11

2

5

2

3

1

2

13

1

42

14

1

21

4

6

21

2

5

1

7

21

1

2

7

11

4

12

1

7

1

1

1

1 5

3

1

7

2

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Buresu of the Census developed dats on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census varisble on race with snother on Spsnish origin. In the race and

ethnic tranaformatlon, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

31
Table 15. Number of dental assistants, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United Stetee, 1980

[Figures ,n this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Placa of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Femala Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas. . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware .,......

District of

Columbia . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . , .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. . . .

Michigan, ..,...,

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana, . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey ., . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dakota . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tenneaaee . . . . . . .

Texan . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . .

Weat Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

1,581

19

3

18

11

228

26

22

4

3

59

29

8

9

75

35

22

17

20

22

5

30

42

71

34

12

33

5

14

6

4

60

7

129

31

3

68

17

25

71

6

14

5

27

69

13

4

34

43

9

36

3

33

6

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1,548

18

3

18

11

222

25

22

4

3

58

28

8

8

73

34

21

17

20

22

5

29

41

69

33

12

33

5

13

6

4

59

7

127

31

3

67

17

25

69

6

14

5

26

87

13

4

33

43

9

36

3

17

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

548

5

2

12

2

121

14

7

3

17

5

4

1

26

10

7

5

4

8

1

6

15

26

7

1

8

1

5

3

1

11

3

57

5

21

7

5

18

3

1

1

9

45

4

10

11

1

10

16

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1,000

14

2

6

8

101

11

15

4

41

23

4

7

47

25

15

12

16

13

4

23

26

44

26

11

25

4

9

3

3

48

5

69

25

3

46

10

20

51

4

12

4

17

42

9

4

23

32

8

26

2

25

4

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1,373

17

3

15

10

169

22

21

4

1

48

24

2

8

64

33

21

16

20

20

5

26

40

65

33

11

30

5

13

5

4

54

4

107

28

3

63

15

24

65

6

13

4

25

71

13

4

31

40

9

35

3

4

1

62

1

9

2

3

3

6

1

1

3

3

1

2

2

6

2

3

3

1

1

3

2

2

1

31

1

13

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

82

2

31

2

1

7

1

3

.

1

1

2

2

12

1

1

1

12

1

1

NOTE The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variabla on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spaniah-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in ent~ were coded aa Hispanic.

32
Table 16, Number of dietitians, by Stete, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence

Total

Race and Hispanic origin

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total. , ., ..,,....,

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. ., . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Dalawara ..,,.,,..

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . .,.,,,..,

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . ., ..,,.....

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana., . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. .,, .,...,...

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana ..,......

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland, ..,,..,.

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan ..,......

Minnesota. . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana ..,..,,..

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire ,..

New Jersey .,.....

New Mexico . . . , . .

New York, ..,.....

North Carolina. ., . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio, , . . ...,.....

Oklahoma, ..,....

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania, . . . . .

Rhode Island, , . . . .

South Carolina ... ,

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennassae. . . . . . . .

Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah. ., . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont. .,,.,,.,.

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginie . . . . .

Wisconsin ., . . . . . .

Wyoming, ..,..,.,

673

13

1

8

6

63

8

9

1

4

21

17

1

3

37

15

11

7

11

15

3

16

24

23

12

8

14

3

6

2

2

22

3

61

21

3

36

9

6

33

3

10

3

15

36

3

2

14

9

6

13

1

68

1

1

1

10

1

1

2

2

5

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

8

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

2

1

1

1

605

12

1

7

5

53

7

8

1

3

19

15

1

2

32

14

11

7

10

14

3

14

22

22

11

7

13

2

6

2

2

20

3

53

19

3

34

8

5

30

2

9

2

14

34

3

2

13

8

5

12

1

34

1

6

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

249

4

4

1

31

4

4

3

7

3

1

15

6

3

2

3

5

4

12

10

2

1

4

3

1

6

1

30

5

1

15

3

2

10

1

2

6

21

1

5

3

4

34

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

2

1

1

1

356

8

2

4

22

3

4

1

12

12

1

2

18

8

8

4

7

9

2

10

10

12

9

7

9

2

3

1

1

15

1

24

13

2

19

5

4

19

2

7

2

7

13

2

2

8

5

5

8

1

42

1

5

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

433

7

1

5

4

37

5

7

1

11

10

2

23

11

10

6

8

6

3

7

19

18

11

4

11

2

5

1

2

13

1

32

10

3

26

6

5

24

2

5

2

10

21

3

2

8

7

5

11

1

19

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

125

5

1

6

1

1

3

6

5

5

3

1

2

8

6

2

4

3

2

5

15

8

7

1

5

4

3

8

4

2

1

26

6

1

3

1

1

1

2

5

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

21

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

NOTE: Ths U, S, Buraauof the Cenausdeveloped data onraceand ethnlccrigin bycrosaingl cenauavariable onracewith another on Spaniah origin. lnthe race and

ethnio transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating thair race as white ora Spanish write-m entry were coded as Hispanic.

33
Tabla 17. Numb@rof health record technologists andtechnicians, by State, place ofresidence, race, Hispanic origin, and sax United States,

1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of rasidence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Masaachuaatts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Miaaouri. . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska ..,......

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hsmpahire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico ., . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina, . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tenneaaae. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin, . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

151

3

4

1

18

3

2

1

7

3

1

1

8

3

2

2

2

3

4

4

7

4

2

4

1

1

1

4

1

11

3

1

7

2

2

4

1

2

1

3

8

1

3

3

1

4

13

2

1

1

1

1

1

138

3

3

1

16

3

1

6

3

1

7

2

2

2

2

3

4

4

7

3

1

3

1

1

1

4

1

9

3

1

6

2

2

4

1

2

1

3

7

1

3

2

1

4

6

1

1

1

57

1

2

11

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

3

1

2

1

5

1

3

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

7

1

1

81

2

2

1

5

1

1

4

2

5

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

4

2

1

2

3

1

5

2

1

4

1

1

3

2

1

2

3

2

2

1

2

9

1

1

1

1

115

2

2

1

11

3

1

5

2

6

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

6

3

1

3

1

1

1

3

1

7

2

1

6

2

2

3

2

3

5

1

3

2

1

3

2 13

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 6

1

2

1

1 5

1

1

1

1

NOTE Tha U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on rata and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spamsh ongln. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating thsir race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

34
Table 18, Number of occupational therapists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figuresm this table msy not add to totals because of rounding to nesrest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Famale Male Female Male Female Male Famale Male Female Male Female Male Female

TotsI, .,, ..,......

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska, ,,, ..,.,,.

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut, . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia .,, ,. ...,.

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illlnoia . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa. , . . ...+.....

Kanaaa . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana ...,.,..,

Maine, . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland, ..,,....

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota ... ..!..

Miaaiasippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana ...,.....

Nebraska ...,.....

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampahire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico , . . . . .

Naw York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. , . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . ,., ,

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania, . . . . .

Rhode Island. , , . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah. , . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont, . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . ..<......

Washington. , , ., . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . ... ,.

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

178

1

2

1

19

4

2

1

1

5

2

1

9

4

2

2

1

2

1

3

10

10

7

4

1

1

1

2

5

20

2

1

7

1

2

10

1

1

1

9

1

3

5

8

1

15

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

163

1

2

1

18

3

2

1

4

2

1

8

4

2

2

1

2

1

3

10

9

6

4

1

1

t

2

5

17

2

1

7

1

2

9

1

1

9

1

3

5

8

6

1

1

72

1

11

2

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

4

4

3

2

1

1

8

3

1

1

3

6

1

1

2

4

9

2

1

91

1

7

1

2

2

2

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

6

6

4

2

1

4

9

1

3

1

1

6

1

3

2

3

4

12

1

1

1

2

1

1

150

1

2

1

15

3

2

1

4

2

7

4

2

2

1

1

1

3

10

9

6

4

1

1

1

1

4

16

2

1

6

1

2

9

1

1

7

1

2

4

8

2 6

1

1

1

1 4

2

1

1 3

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of tha Census developed data on race and athnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on rata with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnw transformation, only Spanish-origin parsons indicating thalr rata as whita or a Spanish writs.in entry were coded as Hispanic.

35
Tabla 19. Numbar of physical therapists, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United Statas, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to neareat hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota , . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texan . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia , ., . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

431

5

1

5

2

59

8

10

1

1

18

7

1

1

21

7

5

5

3

4

3

9

20

16

10

2

9

1

2

1

2

13

2

37

10

1

17

6

5

23

2

4

1

7

24

2

2

8

9

2

11

112

1

1

1

18

1

2

6

2

5

2

2

1

1

2

1

3

3

4

3

1

2

1

4

1

10

2

5

2

2

8

1

1

2

5

2

2

2

2

318

4

1

4

2

41

7

9

1

1

13

6

1

1

16

5

3

5

3

3

2

6

17

12

7

2

7

1

2

1

2

9

2

27

7

1

13

4

4

15

2

3

1

5

18

1

1

6

7

2

9

44

1

11

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

130

2

3

24

4

2

1

4

1

1

6

3

1

2

1

2

2

7

4

2

3

1

1

1

13

2

4

2

1

4

1

1

2

11

3

2

4

68

1

1

7

1

1

4

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

3

1

6

2

3

1

1

6

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

189

2

1

1

17

3

6

1

8

5

10

3

2

3

2

1

2

5

11

7

5

1

4

1

1

2

8

1

14

5

1

8

1

3

11

1

2

3

7

1

4

4

1

5

96

1

1

1

14

1

2

5

1

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

3

1

2

3

8

2

4

1

2

8

1

2

4

2

1

2

2

282

3

1

4

2

34

7

8

1

10

4

1

1

14

5

3

5

3

2

2

6

17

11

7

1

6

1

2

1

2

8

2

23

7

1

11

3

3

14

1

3

1

4

15

1

1

5

6

2

9

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

19

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

8

3

1

4

2

1

9

2

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with anothar on Spanish ongm. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as whine or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispenic.

36
Table 20. Number of radiologic technicians, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figures In this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

963

16

1

10

8

104

11

16

3

2

42

21

3

4

55

23

10

13

13

19

5

19

31

42

20

9

20

3

8

3

4

30

5

69

23

3

51

14

11

54

6

11

2

17

53

5

2

21

18

7

25

2

274

5

1

4

2

42

2

2

1

1

14

5

1

1

16

5

1

2

3

7

1

5

6

12

3

3

6

1

1

1

1

9

2

28

4

1

10

4

3

12

1

3

1

5

18

1

5

6

2

4

690

10

1

6

6

62

9

13

2

1

28

16

2

3

39

18

9

10

10

12

4

14

24

30

16

6

14

2

6

2

4

21

3

42

19

2

41

9

8

42

5

8

2

12

35

4

2

17

12

5

21

2

115

1

2

1

25

1

1

1

3

1

1

7

2

1

1

1

3

1

3

5

1

1

3

1

2

17

1

4

2

1

3

2

11

1

2

2

263

4

4

2

37

5

4

1

9

3

1

1

15

6

4

5

2

7

4

9

14

5

1

5

1

2

1

1

4

1

18

5

12

4

2

15

2

1

5

20

2

5

4

1

9

158

4

1

2

17

1

1

1

10

4

1

1

9

3

1

1

2

4

1

4

4

7

2

3

3

1

1

7

2

10

3

1

6

3

2

9

1

2

4

7

1

3

4

2

3

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine. .,.... . . . . .

Maryland .,..,....

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . ... ,..

Mississippi ., . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshira . . .

New Jersey ..,....

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. , , . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . , . .

Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyommg . . . . . . . . .

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race wtth another on Spanish orrgin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin parsons indicating their rata aa white or a Spaniah write-in entry ware codad as Hispanic.

426

6

2

4

24

4

9

2

19

12

1

2

24

12

5

5

7

5

4

10

16

16

11

5

9

1

4

1

3

17

1

23

14

2

29

5

6

28

3

7

2

7

15

2

2

11

8

5

12

1

211

5

3

2

28

2

2

1

10

4

1

10

5

1

2

3

5

1

4

6

10

3

3

5

1

1

1

1

7

1

18

3

1

8

4

2

10

1

2

1

5

10

1

4

5

2

4

610

9

1

6

6

49

8

13

2

24

14

1

3

33

17

9

9

9

10

4

12

23

26

16

5

12

2

6

2

4

19

2

33

17

2

39

8

8

38

5

8

2

11

26

4

2

15

12

5

21

2

29

3

1

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

5

1

1

1

2

1

50

1

5

1

2

2

4

1

1

2

2

4

1

2

2

5

1

2

1

4

1

4

2

14

5

1

2

1

1

1

1

10

4

1

1

21

6

2

1

3

5

.—

19

4

2

1

1

3

5

37
Table 21. Numbar of inhalation therapists, by State, place of rasidence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United Statas, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals becauae of rounding to neareat hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indians . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Maasachuaetta . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnasota . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

487

8

6

5

60

6

7

1

1

24

11

1

2

26

15

6

6

8

9

3

9

15

25

6

4

13

1

3

2

2

10

2

25

9

1

28

6

5

23

2

5

2

12

38

3

1

9

7

4

8

212

3

3

2

32

3

3

1

1

13

5

1

9

5

2

2

3

3

1

5

7

11

2

2

5

2

1

1

5

1

14

4

1

11

2

3

10

1

1

4

16

1

4

3

1

3

276

6

3

3

29

3

4

1

11

6

1

1

17

10

4

3

5

6

1

4

8

14

4

2

8

1

2

1

1

5

1

11

5

1

17

5

2

13

1

3

2

8

23

2

5

5

2

6

99

1

2

1

20

2

2

1

5

1

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

1

2

1

1

1

8

1

5

1

1

4

1

1

11

1

1

112

2

3

1

17

2

2

3

1

8

4

2

1

1

3

1

3

7

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

7

1

1

6

1

1

3

14

1

2

1

2

113

2

1

1

12

1

1

8

3

4

3

1

2

3

2

1

3

5

7

1

2

3

1

1

4

1

6

3

1

6

1

2

6

1

3

5

2

2

1

1

163

4

1

2

11

1

3

8

5

1

9

6

2

2

4

3

1

3

5

8

3

2

6

1

1

1

4

7

4

1

10

4

1

8

1

3

1

5

9

1

3

3

2

3

169

3

2

2

21

2

3

1

1

10

4

6

5

2

2

3

2

1

3

7

10

2

2

5

1

1

1

5

1

10

3

1

10

1

3

8

1

1

4

9

1

3

3

1

2

229

4

3

3

21

3

4

1

10

5

1

12

9

4

3

5

5

1

2

8

12

4

2

7

1

1

1

1

4

1

9

4

1

15

4

2

12

1

3

2

7

15

2

4

4

2

5

21

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

30

1

3

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

1

6

2

1

6

2

1

15

4

1

2

1

5

11

3

1

1

4

NOTE The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by croaaing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spsnish-origin psrsons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry ware coded ss Hispanic.

38
Tabla 22. Number of speech therapists, by State, place of residence, rata, Hispanic origin, and sex Unitad States, 1980

[Figures In this tsble may not add to totals because of rounding to neareat hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural Whita Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Famale Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona ,. . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . . .

Colorado ..,...,..

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida ., . . . . . . . . .

Georgia, . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky .,..,..,.

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine. . . . . ...!.. !

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana ...,,..,.

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey.,..,,.

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York. ,. . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma, ..,....

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. , . . . .

Rhoda Island, , . . . ,

South Carolina , , .,

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas, . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah. .,, . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin ,., ..,..

Wyoming ...,.....

413

6

3

5

44

6

7

1

2

13

6

2

2

22

9

6

4

4

8

3

8

15

15

7

3

10

2

3

1

2

18

2

39

7

1

21

8

5

26

2

5

2

7

22

2

2

8

6

4

8

1

45

1

1

5

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

4

1

2

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

368

5

3

5

39

5

6

1

1

11

6

1

1

21

9

5

3

4

7

2

8

14

12

6

3

9

2

3

1

2

16

2

35

7

1

19

5

4

22

2

4

1

6

20

2

1

7

5

3

8

1

17

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

133

2

2

1

22

3

1

1

4

1

1

8

3

2

1

1

4

2

6

4

2

2

1

3

1

14

2

6

2

1

5

1

1

3

12

1

2

2

3

28

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

235

3

1

4

17

2

5

1

7

5

1

1

13

6

3

3

4

3

2

6

8

9

4

3

7

1

2

2

13

1

21

5

1

13

3

3

17

1

4

1

3

8

1

1

5

4

3

5

1

42

4

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

4

1

2

1

4

1

2

1

1

1

339

4

2

4

35

5

6

1

1

10

5

1

18

8

5

3

4

6

2

7

13

11

6

2

8

2

3

1

2

15

1

34

6

1

18

5

4

21

2

4

1

5

18

2

1

7

5

3

8

1

2

. .

19

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

.

4

2

1

1 6

2

1

2

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Cenaua developed data on race and ethnic origin by croesing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persona indicating their race ae white or a Spanish write-in enty were coded as Hispanic.

39
Table 23. Number of health diagnosing practitioners, n.e.c., by State, place of reaidenca, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[Figures in th!s table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut. . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia . . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota. . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

Naw Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

Naw York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

215

3

1

4

1

38

4

2

1

11

4

1

2

10

4

5

4

3

2

2

4

8

5

2

9

1

1

1

1

7

1

14

4

1

6

3

4

10

2

1

2

10

2

1

6

1

5

189

2

3

1

31

4

2

10

4“

1

1

9

3

5

4

3

2

1

3

7

5

2

8

1

1

1

1

6

1

13

3

1

6

3

3

10

2

1

1

9

2

1

6

1

4

27

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

58

1

2

16

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

10

4

1

130

2

1

1

15

2

1

8

3

1

7

2

4

3

3

1

1

2

5

4

2

6

1

1

1

5

1

8

2

1

5

2

3

9

2

1

1

4

1

1

5

1

3

17

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

180

2

3

1

27

4

2

9

4

1

9

3

5

4

3

2

1

3

7

5

2

7

1

1

1

1

6

1

12

2

1

6

3

3

10

2

1

1

8

2

1

6

1

4

24

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2 1 5

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Buraau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spaniah-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as Hispanic.

40
Table 24. Number of health technologists and technicians, n.e.c., by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex Unitad States,

1980

[Figures In this table may not sdd to totals becsuse of rounding to naarest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Other Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

Dmtnct of

Columbia . . . . . . .

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . ...!...

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts. ., .

Michigan, ..,....

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dskota . . . . .

Ohio .,.. . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . .

West Virginia , ., . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

1,525

23

1

23

14

165

19

24

4

8

70

35

6

6

68

44

21

14

24

27

8

42

55

59

32

14

38

5

9

5

8

43

8

110

43

3

64

20

16

69

7

22

3

41

89

8

4

31

24

13

34

2

559

8

9

6

71

7

9

1

3

22

13

2

2

23

15

6

5

10

10

3

18

22

21

10

5

13

1

2

2

3

15

4

42

18

1

21

7

6

23

3

7

1

16

31

5

2

11

8

5

10

1

967

15

1

13

8

94

13

15

3

5

48

22

3

4

46

29

15

9

14

17

5

23

33

39

21

9

25

4

6

2

4

28

4

68

25

2

42

13

10

46

5

15

2

25

58

4

2

20

16

8

24

1

256

3

7

1

45

4

4

3

8

2

1

11

6

2

2

2

6

6

11

11

6

1

5

1

1

4

2

25

5

9

3

2

9

2

1

8

19

3

4

4

5

411

6

11

2

55

8

7

1

5

17

4

2

20

10

6

4

4

10

1

7

16

17

7

2

9

3

1

1

7

2

35

7

17

5

4

18

3

2

12

37

2

6

7

1

10

302

5

3

5

25

3

5

1

14

11

1

1

12

9

3

3

8

4

2

13

11

10

5

4

8

1

1

1

3

11

2

17

13

1

12

4

4

13

1

6

1

9

12

2

2

7

5

5

4

1

556

9

1

2

5

39

5

9

2

31

17

2

3

26

19

9

6

10

7

5

16

17

21

14

7

16

3

4

1

3

20

3

33

18

2

25

8

6

28

2

13

2

13

22

2

2

13

9

7

15

1

443

7

7

5

49

6

8

1

17

11

1

2

17

13

5

4

9

7

2

12

20

18

10

4

11

1

2

2

3

11

2

31

13

1

19

6

6

19

3

6

1

14

21

4

2

10

7

5

9

1

763

10

1

11

7

67

11

12

2

1

36

15

1

4

34

26

14

9

11

12

5

15

31

31

21

7

20

3

6

2

4

19

2

50

21

2

35

11

9

39

4

11

2

19

39

4

2

16

14

8

22

1

62

1

1

7

1

2

3

2

4

1

1

2

4

1

2

1

2

2

7

4

2

3

1

2

3

1

139

4

1

9

1

2

1

4

7

6

8

3

2

5

7

2

7

3

5

6

13

4

6

1

6

3

5

11

3

2

24

1

6

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

27

8

1

2

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

29

1

9

2

1

1

1

1

2

6

38

1

10

1

4

1

1

1

2

1

4

1

8

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of the Census developed data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish origin. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded ss Hispanic.

n.e.c. = not elsewhere classifmd.

41
Table 25. Number of health aides, except nursing, by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex United States, 1980

[Figures in this table may not add to totals because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Total

Urban Rural White Black Othar Hispanic

Both

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . . .

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas . . . . . . . . .

California . . . . . . . .

Colorado . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia, .,......

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky. . . . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . . .

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts, . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . . .

Missouri . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . .

New Mexico. . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . .

North Carolina . . . .

North Dakota . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . .

2,920 454

40 6

31

26 4

22 3

309 52

30 5

44 7

71

11 3

119 17

55 7

81

71

126 20

71 8

40 5

31 3

43 6

31 4

17 2

70 14

91 15

179 18

68 9

18 3

68 11

61

17 2

61

11 2

106 14

13 3

302 66

54 10

11 1

156 21

37 4

23 3

167 24

16 3

22 4

11 2

54 11

145 23

10 3

51

57 11

52 7

19 3

84 9

31

2,467

34

2

21

19

257

25

37

6

8

102

48

7

6

106

62

36

28

37

27

15

55

76

161

59

16

57

5

14

5

8

92

10

236

44

10

135

33

20

143

14

18

9

43

122

8

4

46

45

16

75

2

230

2

3

1

35

4

4

3

6

2

1

11

4

2

2

2

2

1

5

9

9

5

4

1

5

1

41

3

11

2

1

10

1

1

6

15

1

4

3

5

982

12

1

14

4

152

13

16

1

8

32

10

2

1

39

21

11

8

9

12

1

20

34

70

18

2

20

1

5

2

1

25

3

116

10

1

55

13

5

47

6

3

2

19

75

3

18

16

1

29

224

4

1

2

2

17

1

3

1

11

5

1

1

9

4

3

2

4

2

2

9

6

9

4

2

6

1

2

9

2

25

7

1

10

2

2

14

2

4

1

5

8

2

1

7

3

3

4

1

1,485

22

1

8

15

106

13

21

5

70

38

4

5

68

42

25

20

28

15

14

36

42

92

41

14

37

5

9

3

7

67

7

121

34

9

80

20

16

97

8

16

8

24

48

5

4

28

29

15

46

2

299

4

3

2

30

4

5

1

10

5

1

13

6

4

3

5

2

2

8

12

12

8

2

8

1

2

1

2

8

1

33

7

1

14

3

3

19

3

3

1

7

13

2

1

7

6

3

8

1

1,854

20

1

16

15

176

18

29

3

1

66

31

2

5

81

53

34

25

33

14

14

32

68

128

57

9

47

5

13

4

8

67

5

157

31

10

109

28

20

119

13

10

9

31

67

7

4

29

40

15

69

2

99

2

1

6

1

1

3

4

2

5

2

1

2

6

2

5

1

2

4

21

3

6

1

5

1

4

5

3

1

1

424

13

4

22

2

6

2

6

26

16

19

9

1

1

3

12

22

5

29

6

9

1

1

18

57

12

24

3

21

8

11

30

16

1

1

5

19

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

51

1

1

18

1

1

4

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

37

1

8

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

11

5

138

3

42

4

2

10

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

6

4

20

2

2

23

1

1

NOTE: The U.S. Bureau of tha Census daveloped data on race and ethnic origin by crossing 1 census variable on race with another on Spanish ongln. In the race and

ethnic transformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating thair race as white or a Spanish write-in entry were coded as H!spanic.

42
Table 26. Number of therapists, n.e.c., by State, place of residence, race, Hispanic origin, and sex: United States, 1980

[Figures In this table may not add to totala because of rounding to nearest hundred]

Place of residence Race and Hispanic origin

Tots/

Urban Rural White Black Other

Both

Hispanic

State sexes Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alabama. .,......,

Alaska, . . . . . . . . . .

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas ...,.....

California. . . . . . . . .

Colorado ...,.....

Connecticut. , . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . .

District of

Columbia ..,...,.

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .

Hawaii, . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . .

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa, . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . .

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana ..,,...,.

Maine, , . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . .

Michigan . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota . . . . . . . .

Mwslssippi . . . . . . .

Missouri, . . . . . . . . .

Montana . . . . . . . . .

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . .

New Mexico . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . .

North Carolina. . . . .

North Dakota. . . . . .

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma . . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania. . . . . .

Rhode Island. . . . . .

South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota . . . . .

Tennessee. . . . . . . .

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utah, . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vermont . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . ..h

Washington. . . . . . .

West Virginia . . . . .

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .

Wyoming . . . . . . . . .

431

5

1

6

2

43

7

8

1

2

15

12

2

4

24

9

3

6

4

6

1

10

16

17

11

2

7

1

2

1

1

12

2

58

9

2

19

2

4

25

1

5

1

8

21

4

1

9

7

2

9

1

138

2

2

14

2

2

1

5

4

1

6

2

1

2

1

2

1

3

5

6

4

1

2

1

3

1

20

3

5

1

2

9

2

3

7

1

3

2

1

2

293

2

1

3

1

29

5

6

1

11

8

1

3

17

7

3

5

2

4

1

7

10

11

7

1

5

1

1

1

1

9

1

38

6

1

14

2

2

16

1

3

1

5

14

2

1

7

5

1

7

1

61

1

1

9

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

1

10

1

2

1

1

3

2

4

1

1

1

1

123

1

3

18

3

2

1

3

2

1

8

3

1

2

1

2

2

4

4

2

2

1

2

20

1

6

1

1

6

3

7

1

3

2

2

77

1

1

5

1

2

3

3

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

2

1

2

10

2

3

1

6

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

170

1

1

1

11

2

4

7

6

3

10

4

2

3

2

2

1

5

6

7

5

1

4

1

1

1

7

1

18

4

1

8

1

2

10

3

2

7

1

1

4

3

1

5

1

107

2

2

10

2

2

4

3

1

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

5

3

1

1

1

2

14

3

4

1

2

7

2

2

5

1

2

2

2

250

2

1

3

1

24

4

6

1

9

6

3

15

6

3

4

2

3

1

5

10

10

7

1

5

1

1

1

1

8

2:

5

1

12

2

2

14

1

3

1

4

10

2

1

6

4

1

7

1

21

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

30

1

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

1

2

2

1

2

1

4

1

1

6

1

1

1

1

6

2

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

2

1

NOTES: The U. S. Bureau oftha Cenauadeveloped data onraceand sthnicotigin bycrosaingl census variable onracewith another on Spaniah origin. lnthe race and

ethmctransformation, only Spanish-origin persons indicating their race eawhite ora Spanish write-m entry were coded as Hispanic.

n.e.c. =not elsewhere classified.

43
Appendixes

Contents

I. Methodology and definitions employed in 1980 decennial census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Census data collection and processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Census 5 percent microdata sample file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Definitions and explanations ofselected census terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

II. American Institutes for Research comparisons ofcensus andnoncensus data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Professional inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Employmentsurveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , , 49

Subnational data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Documentation and analysis ofdata sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

111.Qualifications ofthe data.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Occupation classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Education screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Respondent and codingerrors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

State distributions anddemographic characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

44
Appendix I

Methodology and definitions

employed in the 1980

decennial census

Census data collection and processing

Since 1950, the census has collected its decennial population data via written questionnaire. In 1980, for the first time, a

mail out and mail back procedure was used to collect questionnaire data in 95 percent of the country. Households not returningquestionnaires were followed up in person or, if followup

was not successful, had occupancy status, number of persons,

and characteristics of persons allocated by an imputation procedure discussed later in this appendix.

A sample of one out of every five households was provided

a long-form questionnaire that contained questions on their occupations. (Occupational data were not collected for persons in

the Armed Forces.)

Nearly all items on the 1980 census questionnaire were

preceded and able to be optically scanned. Occupation and

industry data were major exceptions, requiring the application

of complex coding rules, These coding rules resulted in health

care personnel being coded into 29 census occupation categories and 8 census industry categories. The 29 occupation

categories included the 24 in this report, plus the following.

Medicine and health manager, medical scientists, medical science teachers, health specialty teachers, and dental laboratory

and medical appliance technicians. The eight industry categ~

ries were offices of physicians; offices of dentists; offices of

chiropractors; offices of optometrists; ofilces of health practitioners, not elsewhere classified (n.e.c.); hospitals; nursing and

personal care facilities; and health services, n.e.c.

The classification scheme used by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census for occupation underwent substantial revisions between

the 1970 and 1980 Decennial Censuses to bring it in line with

the newly created Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)

Manual published by the Department of Commerce, Oflice of

Federal Statistical Policy and Standards. SOC was developed

in 1977 and revised in 1980 (in anticipation of the 1980 Decennial Census) to better meet the needs of census data users.

For the health professions, the primary changes brought

about by the 1980 revisions in census coding of occupation

concern the classification of individual occupational groups into

more aggregated groupings. Also, certain health professions,

specifically therapists, have been analyzed in greater detail since

the 1970 census, in keeping with the growth of these fields

during the 1970’s, New categories were established for “inhalation (respiratory) therapists,” “occupational therapists,”

“physical therapists,” and “speech therapists.” The 1970 coding

categories for health occupations that were no longer used in

1980, on the other hand, included “chiropractors,” “health

trainees,” and “lay midwives.”

A general classification decision of the 1980 census was to

maintain separate coding categories for therapist-level persomel

in each of the larger therapeutic occupations, and for technologists and technicians (combined) in each of the larger technical occupations. This left two residual categories for “therapists,

n.e.c.” and “health technologists and technicians, n.e.c.,” as

well as one for all personnel below the technician level, “health

aides, except nursing.”

Questionnaires were reviewed for omissions and certain

inconsistencies in the field and in the central processing ofilce

in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Some data, nevertheless, were still

missing or out of range after the questionnaires were optically

scanned these data were then supplied by imputation. Thus, if

one or more population items were either missing or not consistent with other entries, this population information was imputed through an allocation technique. The process of allocation

uses various characteristics of household members as a reference or guide to determine a value for the missing characteristic(s). As in previous censuses, the general procedure for

changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry to a person

that was consistent with entries for other persons with similar

characteristics. The frequency of missing data, and thus the

imputation rate, varied as a function of the respondent’s socioeconomic status. Because occupations were allocated based on

similarity of general socioeconomic characteristics, the socioeconomic variation in response and imputation rate was reflected

in different observed imputation rates for diiferent occupations.

In general, imputation of occupation and industry were

carried out by a “hot-deck” allocation method. A hot-deck is

an ordered file of data from edited census households that starts

with a predetermined set of values and is updated as new values

are observed. A hot-deck is used because of the correlation

which has been shown to exist between a unit and its nearest

neighbors. Thus the 1980 census data on the economic questions such as industry, occupation, class of worker, work experience, and income were processed using an allocation system

that assigned values to missing entries in these questions, as

necessary, from a single respondent with similar socioeconomic

characteristics.

All data items allocated by the hot-deck method carry allc

cation flags that identi@ their statuses. This is important for the

analysis of person-level data because there are certain circumstances where all allocated data may introduce undesirable bias.

While the allocation procedure was designed to yield appropriate

45
statistics for the overall distribution or for specific subpopulations (the strata used in the allocation process), allocated characteristics will not necessarily preserve a valid relationship with

other observed variables for the same individual. Thus, if the

rate of allocations for a group is large and a bias in the allocated

values is evident, it maybe necessary to exclude allocated data

from the analysis.

Special edit checks and reviews were carried out on the

coded data. Out-of-range codes were reassigned to the most

probable valid codes. In addition, some minimal age, education, and income criteria screening was performed on occupations, where feasible, and some cases were accordingly reclassified. The age, education, and income screens that were applied

to the health professions were the following:

Persons classified as physicians who were under 50 years

old, had less than 4 years of college, and earned less than

$15,000per year were reclassified as physician assistants.

Persons classified as dentists who were under 50 years

old, had less than 3 years of college, and earned less than

$15,000 per year were reclassified as dental laboratory

technicians.

Persons classified as veterinarians who were under 50 years

old, had less than 3 years of college, and earned less than

$15,000 were reclassified as caretakers of animals (except

farm animals).

Persons classified as registered nurses who were under 50

years old, had less than 11 years of education, and earned

less than $10,000 per year were reclassified as licensed

practical nurses.

Persons classified as pharmacists who were under 50 years

old, had less than 12 years of education, and earned less

than $10,000 per year were reclassified as health aides,

except nursing.

Census 5 percent microdata sample file

The analysis of the 1980 decennial health occupation data

performed by American Institutes for Research used the 5-

percent Public Use Microdata Sample A file. This is a selfweighted file containing person-level records including longform (sample) data for 5 percent of the U.S. population. This

sample was constructed using a stratified systematic selection

procedure with probability proportional to a measure of size.

In the sample selection procedure the sample units were first

stratified into 102 strata within which there was an appreciable

degree of homogeneity in the characteristics among the census

sample households.

The sample selection procedures for constructing the microdata samples were applied on a State-by-State basis. For any

particular State, the procedure to accomplish the sample selection consisted of creating a number of cells in the computer

which corresponded to each of the defined strata. A random

value was assigned to each cell, the full-sample file was passed,

and the appropriate weight for each sampling unit (person) was

cumulated into the cell corresponding to the appropriate strata

for each unit (person). For the 5-percent microdata sample,

when a unit (person) caused the cumulation to exceed 20, that

unit (person) was designated for the sample, and the value of

the cell was reset.

Sampling error resulting from the cumulative sampling of,

first, long-form respondents and then, 5 percent microdata sample cases is one of the factors affecting the accuracy of the

health occupation data. While the sampling error of the fullsample (19 percent) occupation counts is somewhat less, this is

offset by other inaccuracies that result from using the aggregated, unscreened occupation data, which are the only occupation data available to the public from the full-sample counts.

The standard error for totals calculated from the 5-percent

microdata file can be approximated by the formula

SE(Y) ‘+9Y(1 -;)

where Y = the estimated characteristics total

N = size of area as defined by the total count of persons, housing units, or families in the area

In addition, the standard error so calculated should be multiplied by an adjustment factor specillc to the characteristic being

totaled. For occupation and industry, the adjustment factor is

1.2, and this same adjustment factor applies for the other characteristics of interest for this report, including sex, race, and

Hispanic origin.

While reinterview studies and other content validation efforts have been undertaken for all recent censuses, these efforts

were relatively limited in 1980, and they did not address the

reliability of occupational data, However, national counts for

the experienced labor force of health professionals generated

by the Public Use Microdata Sample A file were in close agreement with the full sample counts contained on the Equal Employment Opportunity Special File.

Definitions and explanations of selected

census terms

The definitions and explanations given in this section are

extracted from the following census report: Detailed occupation and years of school completed by age, for the civilian

laborforce by sex, race, and Spanish origin, 1980.1

Reference week

The data on labor force status relate to the calendar week

preceding the week in which the respondents completed their

questionnaires or were interviewed by enumerators. The reference week is not the same for all respondents because not all

persons were enumerated during the same week. Because Census Day was April 1, 1980, the reference week for many respondents was the last week of March 1980.

Labor force status

Civilian laborforce—The civilian labor force consists of

persons classified as employed or unemployed according to the

NOTE: A list of referencesfollowsthe text.

46
following criteria:

● Emplo.ved—Employed persons include all civilians 16 years

and over who were either (a) “at work,” those who did any

work at all during the reference week as paid employees or

in their own business, profession, or farm, or who worked

15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a family farm or in

a family business; or (b) “with a job but not at work,”

those who did not work during the reference week but had

jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent due to illness, bad weather, industrial dispute, vacation, or other personal reasons. Excluded horn the employed

are persons whose only activity consisted of work around

the house or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and

similar organizations.

. Unemp20~’ed-Persons are classified as unemployed if they

are civilians 16 years and over and (a) were neither “at

work” nor “with a job but not at work” during the reference

week, (b) were looking for work during the last 4 weeks,

and (c) were available to accept a job. Also included as

unemployed are persons who did not work at all during the

reference week and were waiting to be called back to a job

from which they had been laid off.

● Unemployed, no civilian work experience since 1975–

Persons are classified as unemployed with no civilian work

experience since 1975 if they reported themselves as unemployed at the time of the 1980 census and (a) their last

job since 1975 was in the Armed Forces; (b) they last

worked in 1974 or earlieq or (c) they reported that they

had never worked.

Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Special File

contains data for the entire civilian labor force, occupation data

are shown only for the “recent-experienced” civilian labor force

(defined as persons employed in 1980 or unemployed having

civilian work experience between 1975–80).

Occupation

The data on occupation were obtained for the employed,

the experienced unemployed, and persons 16 years of age and

over with work experience but not currently in the labor force.

For the last two categories, the occupation is the most recent

job that a person held during the previous 5 years, For an employed person the information is about the job held during the

reference week. Those who were employed at two or more jobs

reported the job at which they worked the greatest number of

hours during the reference week.

Class$cation s.vstem—The occupation statistics utilize

the detailed classification system developed for the 1980 Census of Population. This classification consists of 503 specific

occupation categories arranged into 6 summary and 13 major

occupation groups. It is based on the 1980 SOC Manual published by the U.S. Department of Cornrnerce, Ofllce of Federal

Statistical Policy and Standards.

Industry and class of worker

This report shows data on major industry and class of worker

subcategories for selected health occupation groups, The information on industry and class of worker refers to the same job as

the respondent’s occupation. The industry statistics are based

on the 1980 census detailed classitlcation system developed

from the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification system. Definitions of the class of worker categories shown in this report

are as follows:

● Salaried employees—Persons who work for a private employer or for any Federal, State, or local governmental

unit for wages, salary, commission, tips, pay-in-kind, or at

price rates; this category also includes persons who work

as employees of their own incorporated business or trade.

● Self-employed—Those who work for profit or fees in their

own unincorporated business, profession, or trade; who

operate a farm; or who work without pay in a family business or farm.

Race

Definition-The concept of race as used by the U.S. Bureau

of the Census reflects self-identification by respondents; it does

not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock.

The data, therefore, represent self-classification by people according to the race with which they identify.

For a person who could not provide a single response to

the race question, the race of the person’s mother was used;

however, if a single response could not be provided for the

person’s mother, the first race reported by the person was used.

This is a modification of the 1970 census procedure in which

the race of the person’s father was used.

The “White” category includes persons who indicated their

race as white, as well as persons who did not classify themselves in one of the specific race categories listed on the questionnaire, but entered a response such as Canadian, German,

Italian, Lebanese, or Polish. In the 1980 census, persons who

did not classify themselves in one of the specific race categories but marked “Other” and wrote in entries such as Cuban,

Puerto Rican, Mexican, or Dominican were included in the

“Other” race category; in the 1970 census, most of these persons were included in the “White” category. ‘

The “Black” category includes persons who indicated themselves to be of the black or Negro race, as well as persons who

did not classify themselves in one of the specific race categories

listed on the questionnaire, but reported entries such as Jamaican, Black Puerto Rican, West Indian, Haitian, or Nigerian.

The “American Indian and Alaskan Native” category

includes persons who did not report themselves in one of the

specific race categories but entered the name of an Indian tribe

or reported such entries as Canadian Indian, French American

Indian, or Spanish American Indian.

The “Asian and Pacific Islander” category includes persons who indicated their race as Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,

Asian Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, Samoan, or

Guamanian, as well as persons who provided write-in entries

of such Asian and Pacific Islander groups as Cambodian, Laotian, Pakistani, and Fiji Islander under the “Other” race category. Also, persons who did not classify themselves in one of

the specific race categories but wrote in an entry indicating one

of the nine specific categories listed above were classified accordingly. For example, entries of Nipponese and Japanese

47
American were classified as Japanese, entries of Taiwanese

and Cantonese as Chinese, and so forth.

The “Race, n.e.c.” category includes all persons not in the

categories of white persons, black persons, American Indians,

Alaskan Natives, and Asian and Pacific Islanders mentioned

previously. Persons reporting in the “Other” race category and

providing write-in entries such as Eurasian, cosmopolitan, interracial, or a Hispanic origin group (for example, Mexican, Cuban,

or Puerto Rican) were included in “Race, n.e.c. ” During the

coding operations each of the subgroups constituting “Race,

n.e.c.” as well as the write-in entries of Asian and Pacific Islander groups under the “Other” race category were identified separately.

If the race entry was missing on the questionnaire for a

member of a household, an answer was assigned in the computer according to the reported entries of race of other household members using specific rules of precedence of household

relationship. If race was not entered for anyone in the household (excluding paid employees), the race of a householder in a

previously processed household was assigned.

Hispanic origin

Definition-Persons of Hispanic origin or descent are those

who classified themselves in one of the specific Hispanic origin

categories listed in question 7 on the questionnaire (Mexican,

Puerto Rican, or Cuban) as well as those who indicated that

they were of other Hispanic origin. Persons reporting “Other

Spanish or Hispanic” origin are those whose origins are from

Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, or they are Spanish-origin persons identifying themselves

generally as Spanish, Spanish American, Hispanic, Latino, and

so forth. Origin or descent can be viewed as the ancestry, nationality group, lineage, or country in which the person or person’s

parents or ancestors were born before their arrival in the United

States. Persons of Spanish origin maybe of any race.

Persons of more than one type of Spanish origin and persons of both a Spanish and some other origin(s) who were in

doubt as to how to report a specific origin were classified according to the origin of the person’s mother. If a single origin was

not provided for the person’s mother, then the first origin reported by the person was recorded. If any household member

failed to respond to the Hispanic origin question, a response

was assigned by computer in the sample edit operation according to available related information such as ancestry and place

of birth reported for the household member. If such information

was not reported, origin was assigned from entries of other

household members using specific rides of precedence of household relationship. If no origin was reported for any household

member (excluding a paid employee),then an originwas assigned

from another household with a householder of the same race.

Limitations of the Hispanic origin data—A preliminary

evaluation study of the reporting in the 1980 census item on

Hispanic origin indicated that there was misreporting in the

Mexican origin category by white and black persons in certain

areas. The study results showed evidence that the misreporting

occurred in the South (excluding Texas), the Northeast (excluding the New York City area), and a few States in the NorthCentral Region. Also, results based on available data suggest

that the impact of potential misreporting of Mexican origin in

the 1980 census is severe in those portions of the abovementioned regions where the Hispanic origin population is generally sparse. However, 1980 census data on the Mexican origin

population, or total Hispanic origin population, at the national

level, are not seriously affected by the reporting problem. For a

more detailed discussion of the evaluation of the Hispanic origin

item, see the 1980 Census of Population Supplementary Report,

“Persons of Spanish origin by State, 1980,” PC 80-S 1-7,7

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

48
Appendix II

American Institutesfor

Researchcomparisons of

census and noncensus counts

The material in this appendix has been extracted from the

final report of the American Institutes for Research (AIR)4

study funded by the Bureau of Health Professions.

Refined health occupation counts derived from the census

were compared by AIR staff, wherever possible, with counts

derived from noncensus sources. Comparisons were carried

out both for national totals and for within-occupation distributions by State and personal, educational, and economic characteristics, as available. The extent of the comparisons that

were feasible varied considerably depending on the availability

of noncensus data sources and on the extent to which occupations had been categorized in comparable ways by the census

and by other sources. Three major categories of noncensus

data sources were used Health professional association inventories, employment surveys, and subnational data sources.

Professional inventories

The largest set of data sources used by AIR consisted of

inventories or sample surveys of persons associated with a given

occupation by virtue of their licensing, registration, or certification, by virtue of their association with a professional organization, or by both. In most cases these inventories were compiled by professional associations, sometimes in cooperation

with government agencies that provided supplemental funding

for special data collection efforts. Some are kept current (for

example, the masterflles of physicians, dentists, and veterinarians), and others represented periodic survey efhts (for example, surveys of optometrists, registered nurses, and so forth).

The validity of the data from professional inventories as a

basis for estimates of the total professional workforce varies

considerably among professions. Unless special efforts are made

to correct for these problems, invento~ data can undercount

individuals who do not affiliate with their professional associations or, if State licensure data are used, overcount individuals

who are licensed in more than one State. These issues have

been successfully addressed in the larger masterfiles and periodic surveys, but are particularly likely to be problematic in the

allied health professions, which have had limited resources

available for data collection. In addition, many of these inventories do not provide information on active work status so that

employed professionals cannot be distinguished from those who

are maintaining their credentials while temporarily or permanent]y out of the workforce.

Employment surveys

The second major category of external data sources used

by AIR were surveys that rely on employers of health professionals to count the numbers of full-time and p~-time positions

tilled by members of given health professions. Two major

employer-based data sources stood out as particularly germane

to this project. They are the American Hospital Association

Annual Survey of Hospitals, 1980, and the most recent cycle

of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment

Statistics survey, which covered non-Federal hospital sector

employment in 1980 and private non-hospital-sector health care

settings in 1981. Both sources provide supply estimates for a

wide range of health occupations, ranging from independent

health practitioners through allied health professionals. Counts

of health professionals generated by the military provide a third

major source.

The most serious methodological problem in using these

surveys to generate total national supply estimates is the fact

that they count only salaried employees, not those who are

paid under contract or by fee for service. (This problem is, of

course, most serious when the independent health practitioner

occupations are considered.) Other methodological problems

include the probability of counting individuals who work part

time for more than one employer twice and comparability questions that arise from some nonrestrictive occupational definitions used by these surveys.

Subnational data sources

The third category of data sources used by AIR were subnational data that enumerate license holders, practitioners, or

salaried health professionals for some specilled geographic region, usually a State. While these data maybe weak in terms of

their potential for generating national supply estimates, they do

afford the opportunity to undertake more fine-grained comparisons of census data for specillc geographic areas. Such analyses

are desirable where inadequate national supply estimates exist

.or where editing criteria based on minimum educational attainment can be identified only for professionals in those States

that have restrictive licensing or registration requirements.

Documentation and analysis of data sources

Because the methodological shortcomings of the data

sources tended to vary in certain systematic ways across the

three major categories, data sources from two or more of the

categories were selected as primary sources whenever possible.

Thk strategy enabled AIR to triangulate on the best estimates

of the national supply of health professionals in each of the

occupations examined.

For each profession, the best data sources were identified

and carefully analyzed to determine the nature of the resulting

49
data and the potential sources of error bias in these data. For

each source a Survey Information Form (SIF) was completed

that contained information on the origin, content, and methodology of the survey. When a given source (for example, the

Occupational Employment Statistics or American Hospital Association Survey of Hospitals) was relevant to more than one

profession, a single SIF was prepared for that source incorporating data for all health personnel.

The primary purpose of the SIF’S was to provide a summary of characteristics of the data source so as to facilitate

comparison with other noncensus data sources and with the

census. The SIF’S constituted “error profiles” of the surveys

and record systems they document in that they identi& potential

causes of error or bias. They were primarily working documents

that were used to identifY and document the best source(s) of

1980 data for each profession.

Findings concerning noncensus data sources for each occupation were further summarized in narrative form in documents

titled “source summaries.” These source summaries briefly

reviewed the available noncensus data sources for a given pr~

fessiom identified the best sources for comparison to the 1980

census; indicated the adjustments, if any, that need to be made

to make these sources fully comparable to 1980 census data

(for example, subtracting military personnel); and summarized

the types of data, other than gross national counts, that can be

used in fine-grained comparisons with census data.

The analytic comparison performed by AIR covered the

following topics for each of the occupations:

● Classification of the occupation in the 1980 census.

●

●

●

●

●

●

Screening criteria applied in the analysis, if any.

Impact of the screening on the composition of the occupational category.

Active population estimate (after screening) and comparison with noncensus population estimates.

Demographic, educational, and employment characteristics of the occupation as estimated from the census.

Comparisons of characteristics as reported by census and

noncensus sources.

Summary of fiidings.

In reviewing AIR’s occupation-specific findings, it should

be noted that there is considerable variation among occupations

in the extent to which the census succeeded in classifying health

professionals unambiguously and by criteria accepted by the

profession. In large part, this is because the census relies almost

exclusively on job title (and industry) in classi&ing occupations,

while job titles are less important than certifications and licenses

for discriminating among many health professions, Another

source of variation is the quality and quantity of noncensus

data that were suitable for comparison with the census. For

some occupations, such as registered nurses, extensive comparisons were possible, and the noncensus data were of high quality.

For other professions, particularly in the allied health occupations, available noncensus sources were not in good agreement

or only covered certain sectors (for example, hospital personnel) witMn the occupation.

50
Appendix 11I

Qualifications of the data

The detailed information in the body of this report presented information about the reliability of the census data for

selected health occupations. This information was abstracted

from a study conducted by the American Institutes for Research

under contract to the Bureau of Health Professions. The purpose

of this appendix is to summarize the general findings of the

American Institutes for Research (AIR) analyses regarding the

problems associated with the decennial census health occupation data.

Occupation classification

When using the census health occupation data, it must be

noted that the 1980 census classification of health professionals

relied almost exclusively on job titles and job descriptions (along

with industry) to classify respondents into occupations. However, distinctions among health professions in the working world

frequently are determined by licenses or certifications held, as

well as on finely graded levels of skill and training that are not

uniformly reflected in job titles. The census provided no record

of specific cert~lcates, diplomas or degrees held, nor of licenses.

Consequently, there is necessarily some margin of error matching census classifications of health occupations to other classifications based on credentials. This problem is minimal for

independent practitioners (for example, physicians and dentists)

where there is a close correspondence between titles and licenses,

but is greatest among the allied health occupations. Because of

the historical development of these emerging professions, and

probably also due to the essential nature of health care service

delivery, there is considerable overlap between the job functions

of different classes of providers and auxiliaries. While these

occupations have largely established registration or certification

procedures that entail the successful completion of designated

educational prerequisites, members of the various registered or

certified professions frequently overlap in the job market with

one another and with job holders who have no special formal

preparation,

Another classification problem concerns the distinction

which the 1980 census (as well as prior censuses) made between the functional roles of teachers, managers, scientists,

and clinicians, This distinction resulted in an unknown number

of health professionals who were faculty being classified as

“medical science teachers” instead of, for example, “physicians” or “registered nurses.” Those who were involved in teaching, research, and administration were aggregated by the census

into functional categories, such as “managers, medicine and

health,” “medical science teachers,” and “health specialties

teachers.” As a result, it is not possible to separate the individual health professions in these categories from each other.

The AIR analyses further reveal that the proportion of

teachers, researchers, and administrators within a given profession that were classified as nonclinical personnel varied among

professions. This variation was largely the result of how respondents described themselves on their census questionnaires;

that is, whether they placed emphasis on their professional titles

or on their fictional roles. This problem is most severe among

the independent practitioners and registered nurses, whiIe only

a few of the allied health professions are affected. This is because many faculty in allied health training programs are members of the other more highly trained health occupations.

Education screening

Because educational prerequisites, as well as specific examinations, licenses, and certifications, are major factors in

differentiating levels of health professionals, such information

is critical to properly classify persons by occupation. The 1980

census collected relatively little information on education and

made only limited use of the education data it dld collect when

coding occupation.

The only 1980 census items that are directly relevant to

the respondent’s professional qualifications are the questions

on the highest grade attended and completed. No questions

were asked on the content of the education, so that one could

distinguish an M.D. from a Ph.D., or a B.A.-level health professional from any other college graduate. A further complication is the fact that the years of education reported mayor may

not be related to the individual’s training as a health professional. In addition, no data were collected by the census on

vocational education received outside of a college setting. Yet,

a record of noncollegiate as well as collegiate professional training is essential for identifying persons meeting minimum professional standards in a number of health occupations, such as

nursing and the allied health occupations.

A related education screening issue concerns whether the

1980 census succeeded in restricting respondents classified into

the primary independent practitioner categories to people who

actually were in these professions. As a result of the minimum

education screening criteria applied to these professions by AIR,

the following proportions of cases were rejected from each of

51
the independent practitioner coding categories:

Percent failing

screening

Occupation criteria

Physician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0

Dentists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2

Optometrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4

Pharmacists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2

Podiatrists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6

Veterinarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7

Analyses of these cases indicated that they included persons of lower education. These persons also had lower incomes

andwere often female or minority. Therefore, the AIR analyses

conclude that the most plausible explanation is that support

personnel were coded into these independent practitioner categories.

Within the allied health field, the combination of technologist and technician titles into single coding categories could

create some analytical problems because these titles generally

represent at least two different levels of personnel with credentials. Therefore, there is usually interest in separate estimates

for them. A related concern is that these categories may inadvertently contain personnel at the aide or assistant level as

well. The AIR comparisons of census estimates and other noncensus sources, however, while suggesting that some of the

census allied health occupation categories may be inflated for

this reason, do not indicate a general pattern of overinclusion.

Because only a few of the allied health occupations have firm

educational requirements that can be used as screening criteria, a

criterion of 4 or more years of college was applied by AIR to

four of these occupations with the following results:

Percent failing

screening

Occupation criteria

Occupational therapists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8

Physical therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7

Speech therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3

Dietitian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.3

Thus, as was also the case with the independent practitioner professions, the application of a minimum education criterion, where this was possible, resulted in a substantial reduction

and restructuring of the occupational category. This occurred

despite the fact that census occupation-allocated cases had been

excluded prior to the AIR screening analysis. According to the

AIR analyses, estimates based on these unadjusted occupational counts will misrepresent the health professions by including cases with insuftlcient education credentials. This will raise

the proportion that are female and minority, have lower than

medb income, and, of course, a lower level of education.

Whether a similar tendency to upward bias occurred in the

estimates for those occupations that could not be screened for

minimum education criteria cannot be determined, as neither

educational criteria nor noncensus comparisons were available

to reliably distinguish the extent of upward bias in most occupational categories.

Respondent and coding errors

As a census questiomaire was completed per household,

any family member could be the potential respondent for all the

others in the household. Thus, the reporting of occupation was

not necessarily provided by the jobholder. In addition, the complex format of the questionnaire, in which questions pertinent to

a given family member are spread across several pages and

interspersed with questions on other family members and household characteristics, may have led to respondent errors in which

the industry and occupation of one family member were incorrectly joined with the education and demographic characteristics of another.

In addition, because the census coders were not able to

return to respondents to clarifJ ambiguous responses, some

coding errors were inevitable. Further, coders could not possibly

familiarize themselves with the nuances of all the hundreds of

different occupations they coded, nuances that might make a

difference in coding responses that were less than complete.

Thus, for instance, if a respondent failed to provide ajob title. but

indicated that he or she sold and fitted eyeglasses in a retail eye

wear outlet, a coder might not be able to reliably distinguish

betieen an optometrist, an optician. or an optical shop assistant.

State distributions and demographic

characteristics

When using the State tables contained in this report, which

were run from the Special Equal Employment Opportunity files,

the following points must be noted. With the exception of nursing personnel, these health occupations are, by and large. small

occupations. For example, physicians and licensed practical

nurses range ffom 400,000–500,000 persons; clinical lab personnel number about 250,000; dental assistants about 165,000:

pharmacists 125,000; and dentists 118,000. The rest of the

occupations are even smaller, with podiatrists and physician

assistants numbering less than 10,000.

In the body of this report State distributions from the Equal

Employment Opportunity and Public Use Microdata Sample A

(PUMSA) files are compared for various independent practitioners with data from noncensus sources. While the level of

agreement was within the 95-percent confidence interval of the

census estimates for virtually every State, it must be remembered that most States only accounted for 1 or 2 percent of

practitioners. Thus. the standard errors of the census estimates

are rather large for all except the occupations with the largest

numbers of personnel. For example, for optometrists, who number just under 22,000, the standard error of a proportion of 1.0

percent is 0.35 percent. This means that the 95-percent confidence interval ranges from about 0.3 to 1.7 percent. For most of

the State distributions, the sampling errors in the 5-percent

census PUMSA file render the 95-percent confidence intervals

too wide for the data to be of much practical value.

The existence of the person-level PUMSA files also make

possible special analyses focusing on the demographic charac52
teristics within specific health occupations. However, with a 5-

pcrcent sample, an error is substantially compounded when one

attempts to focus analyses on subgroups that account for only l–

2 percent of the total population. ‘Practitioner populations for

most States and for most ethnic minority groups are of this

proportional magnitude, and for several of the professions one

sex or the other is also proportionally very small.

In addition to the sampling error, the census reports having

random error in excess of 1 percent for many items. Furthermore, the biases that are suspected to have occurred as the

result of uncorrectable occupational misclassifications disproportionately affect some of the subpopulations of greatest interest. For example, if Hispanic persons appear to account for

1.6 percent of an occupation, but actually account for only 1.0

percent, with the other 0.6 percent attributable to misclassified

respondents (or miscoded white respondents), then the sample

of Hispanic persons within that occupation would have over

one-third spurious cases. Obviously this could lead to some

strikingly incorrect conclusions.

On the other hand, a few variables, like geographic location,

are not likely to be affected by misclassification bias. These data

are probably also less subject to random error because census

questionnaires were processed in geographic blocks. Consequently, sampling error is likely to be the only impediment to

geographic subanalyses, and the magnitude of this error is a

simple function of the size of the occupation.

*u.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-491-335:30007

53
Vital and Health Statistics

series descriptions

SERIES 1.

sERIEs 2.

SERIES 3.

SERIES 4.

SEFtl ES 5.

SERIES 10.

SE131ES11

SERIES 12.

sERIES 13.

Programs and Collection Procedures–Reports describing SERIES 14

the general programs of the National Center for Health

Statistics and Its offices and dwmons and the data COI.

lt?ctlon methods used. They also Include deflnltlons and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Evaluation and Methods Research–Studies of new SERIES 15

statlst!cal methodology Including experimental tests of

new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection

mtithods, new analytical techniques, oblectwe evaluations

of relmbillty of collected data, and contributions to

statwtlcal theory. Studies also Include comparison of SERIES 20

U.S. methcrdoiogy with those of other countries.

Analytical and Epidemiological Studies–Reports presenting analytical or Interpretwe studies based on vital

and health statwtics, carrying the analysis further than

the expository types of reports In the other ser!es.

Documents and Committee Reports–F Inal reports of SE RI ES21

major committees concerned with vital and health sta.

tlstlcs and documents such as recommended model vital

rcy!stratlon laws and revtsed birth and death certificates

Comparative International Vital and Health Statistics

Reports–Analytical and descriptwe reports comparing

U.S. wtal and health statistics with those of other countries

Data From the National Health Interwew Survey –Stat Is. SERIES 22

tics on illness, accidental !n]ur!es, d!sabillty, use of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other

hrxdth-related topics, all based on data collected In the

ccmtlnuing national household lntervlew survey. SERIES 23

Data From the National Health Examination Survey and

the National Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyData from direct examlnatton, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the civlllan nonlnstltu tlonallzed

population provide the basis for (1) estimates of the

medically defined prevalence of spec]flc diseases In the

Umted States and the dlstrlbutlons of the population

with respect to physical, phys!olog]cal, and psycho.

logical characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships

among the various measurements wnhout reference to

an exdiclt finite universe of persons.

Data on Health Resources: Manpower and FacilitwsStat] st]cs on the numbers, geographic dlstrtbutlon, and

character }stlcs of health resources lrrcludmg physicians,

dent!sts, nurses, other health occupations, hosp!tals,

nursing homes, and outpatient facllnles

Data From Spec]al Survey s-Statlstlcs on health and

health-related topics collected In special surveys that

are not a part of the continuing data systems of the

National Center for Health Statlst)cs

Data on Mortaltty– Var!ous statistics on mortal]ty other

than as Included In regular annual or monthly reports

Special analyses by cause of death. age, and other demographic variables, geographic and time series analyses;

and statlst!cs on characteristics of deaths not available

from the vital records based on sample surveys of those

records

Data on Natal!ty, Marrvage, and Divorce– Var]ous statistics on natallty, marriage, and dworce other than as

Included in regular annual or monthly reports, Spec!al

analyses by demographic variables, geographic and time

series analyses, stud!es of fertlltty, and statistics on

character mlcs of births not available from the vital

records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data From the National Mortallty and Natality Surveys–

Discontinued In 1975 Reports from these sample surveys

based on v!tal records are Included In Series 20 and 21,

respectively

Data From the Netional Survey of Family GrowthStatlstlcs on fertlllty, family formation and dlssolut]on,

family plann!ng, and related maternal and Infant health

top!cs derwed from a perlodlc survey of a nationwide

probabtllty sample of ever.married women 15-44 years

of age,

Data From the Institutionalizad Population Surveys–DlsFor answers to questions about this report or for a Ilst of titles of

continued In 1975. Reports from these surveys are lnreports published In these ser!es, contact

eluded in Series 13. Sclentlf!c and Techn]cal Information Branch

Data on Health Resources Utilization–Stat lstlcs on the

utilization of health manpower and facilities providing

long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family

plwtning services.

National Center for Health Statistics

Publlc Health Service

Hyattsville, Md 20782

301.436-8500
U.S DE PARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Publlc Health Servtce

National Center for Health Statlstlcs

3700 East-West H!ghway

Hyattswlle, Ma~land 20782

I

THIRD CLASS MAIL

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

PHS/NCHS

PERMIT No. G–281

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 86–1 826, Series 14, No, 31