Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382019-06-11T15:38:51ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Understanding Society User Support - Support #1197 (Resolved): 'inapplicable' category for jbft_d...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11972019-06-11T15:38:51Zfabiana macorfabianamacor@gmail.com
<p>Hi there</p>
<p>I have a query tangentially related to a previous issue (REF 1063) [[<a class="external" href="https://iserswww.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/1063">https://iserswww.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/1063</a>]], in relation to the jbft_dv.</p>
<p>jbft_dv has the following labels corresponding to 'missing' values (albeit different types of missing):</p>
<p>Label -> code<br />missing -> -9<br />inapplicable -> -8<br />proxy -> -7</p>
<p>The variable note states that "Inapplicable [-8] to proxy respondents due to missing information on overtime, and respondents who do not have a paid job", which I find confusing because there is already a code for proxy respondents [-7]. So, if proxy respondents don't have the information and this is coded as [-7], surely the [-8] code refers only to respondents who do not have a paid job?</p>
<p>Essentially I am trying to see which respondents shift from FT employment (wave 1) to non-employment (wave2), and I would like to double check that 'inapplicable' will capture all those that are not in employment (the variable of interest for wave 2). If this is not possible, how can the 'inapplicable' category be combined?</p>
<p>Many thanks in advance for your assistance</p>
<p>Fabiana</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1196 (Resolved): Adapting syntax from website ("Mat...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11962019-06-06T11:36:26Zfabiana macorfabianamacor@gmail.com
<p>Hi there</p>
<p>I'm using the syntax from Understanding Society website called "Matching individuals within a household" (attachment 1) - <a class="external" href="https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage/syntax">https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage/syntax</a>. I have two questions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>1. I have used UKHLS before and have used the 'indresp' datafile(s) in each case. The syntax file above uses the 'indall' datafile instead; which has less information. My question is: can I replicate the steps for 'indresp'?</p>
<p>2. I then (after linking personal and spouse info) want to pool waves 1-8 together. For this I have previously used syntax from file "Merging individual files across waves into long format" (attachment 2). The question here is: after doing step 1, can I simply follow the steps from this second syntax document?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The two questions relate to the two steps (part 1 and part 2) of the attached do-file (attachment 3), where I've tried carry them out.</p>
<p>I would be extremely grateful for any thoughts on the process: on the above questions and the resulting do-file (attachment 3).</p>
<p>I am marking the query as urgent in case any part of my question is unclear. I hope this is OK and I appreaciate your assistance on the matter.</p>
<p>Kind regards<br />Fabiana</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1174 (Resolved): Creating reliable fertility histor...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11742019-03-27T23:50:27Zfabiana macorfabianamacor@gmail.com
<p>Dear UKHLS team</p>
<p>I have had a look at the existing FAQs but haven't been able to find a response, but please let me know if I'm incorrect.</p>
<p>I am using UKHLS waves 1-8 (which I have merged) and want to do the following:<br />(1) create a variable that flags all individuals that have had their FIRST child in wave 4<br />(2) create a variable that flags all individuals that have remained childless for all waves, 1-8</p>
<p>(1) and (2) make up the two groups I am comparing/interested in.</p>
<p><ins>From what I have read, useful variables are as follows:</ins></p>
<p>--> (i) *_nnatch : number of natural children in the household<br />--> (ii) *_lprnt : whether have ever had any children (new respondents only AND if answer to *_nnatch is zero)<br />--> (iii) *_nnewborn : number of children had since last interview (repeat respondents)<br />--> (iv) xw_anychild_dv : whether have ever had a child<br />(where the asterisk denotes a variable common across all waves, with wave prefix a, b, c etc.; xw denotes it's an xwave variable).</p>
<p><ins>My questions are:</ins></p>
<p>For (1): am I correct in thinking I need to create, first, a variable that can confirm that an individual has remained childless from wave 1 to wave 3 (using nnatch, lprnt and nnewborn) and subsequently had a child at wave 4 (using nnewborn).</p>
<p>For (2): would the xw_anychild_dv variable be sufficient?</p>
<p>As regards the latter point, any information on how this derived variable is calculated would be very helpful (aside from the fact it is calculated from ch1bm and ch1by). The reason I ask is that when I check the consistency of this variable I don't understand the results. So for example, if I ask STATA "tab d_nnatch if anychild_dv==2", the results tell me there are 72 individuals that had more than 0 children in their household at wave 4, despite the xwave variable suggesting they have never had children (anychild_dv==2).</p>
<p>Thank you very much in advance and kind regards</p>
<p>Fabiana</p>