the Hawaii horticulture report forms (14-A0627). All 
forms with any data were keyed from image, 
scanned, and an image was created for each page of 
the report form. 
Editing Data 
Captured data were processed through a computer 
formatting program, which verified that records were 
valid. Rejected records were referred to analysts for 
correction. Accepted records were sent to a complex 
computer batch edit process. Each execution of the 
computer edit in batch mode consisted of records 
from only one State and flowed as the data were 
received from each data collection source. 
The computer edit determined whether a reporting 
operation met the qualifying criteria to be counted as 
an in-scope record. The edit examined each in-scope 
record for reasonableness and completeness and 
determined whether to accept the recorded value for 
each data item or to take corrective action. Such 
corrective actions included removing erroneously 
reported values, replacing an unreasonable value 
with a value consistent with other reported data, or 
providing a value for an overlooked item. To the 
extent possible, the computer edit determined a 
replacement value. Strategies for determining 
replacement values are discussed in the next section. 
Operations failing to meet the qualifying criteria 
were categorized as out-of-scope. Out-of-scope 
records that NASS had reason to believe might be in- 
scope (indications of recent and/or significant 
horticultural activity reported on NASS surveys, for 
example) were referred to analysts for verification. 
The edit systematically checked reported data 
section-by-section with the overall objective of 
achieving an internally consistent and complete 
report. NASS subject-matter experts had previously 
defined the criteria for acceptable data. Problems 
that could not be resolved within the edit were 
referred to an analyst for intervention. Regional and 
field office analysts also participated using an 
interactive version of the edit program to submit 
corrected data and immediately re-edit the record to 
ensure satisfactory resolution. 
In some cases, respondents may have failed to 
provide all of the information requested, only 
indicating the presence of an item but not the 
2012 Census of Agriculture 
USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service 
amount. These items were coded for computer 
imputation. 
After the initial edit, an automated imputation 
program supplied missing data based on state or 
national averages. A post-imputation computer edit 
was performed to ensure imputation actions provided 
acceptable results. Instances where imputed data 
failed edit checks were referred to analysts for 
corrective action. 
Data Analysis 
The complex edit ensured the full internal 
consistency of the record. Successfully completing 
the edit did not provide insight as to whether the 
report was reasonable compared to other reports in 
the county. Analysts were provided an additional set 
of tools to review record-level data across 
operations. These examinations revealed extreme 
outliers, large and small, or unique data distribution 
patterns that were possibly a result of reporting, 
recording, or handling errors. Potential problems 
were researched and, when necessary, corrections 
were made and the record interactively edited again. 
ESTIMATION 
Nonresponse Weighting 
The 2014 Census of Horticultural Specialties is a 
census of every operation on the NASS Horticulture 
Sampling Frame with at least $10,000 of 
horticultural sales indicated. Operations on the frame 
that had indicators of horticultural sales below the 
$10,000 threshold were sampled at an average rate of 
1 out of 8. 
Although much effort was expended to obtain a 
response from each operation selected for the census, 
it was not possible to obtain a complete set of 
responses. Nonresponse can lead to biases in 
published estimates because the information 
concerning the horticultural enterprise production on 
the nonresponding operations could not be factored 
into the estimates. Such estimates of totals will be 
biased low. To reduce this bias, NASS made 
nonresponse adjustments to the initial weights of the 
responding operations. The nonresponse weight 
adjustment increases the weight of responding 
operations to account for the data that would have 
Appendix A A - 3 
