Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382018-12-04T14:53:38ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Understanding Society User Support - Support #1112 (Resolved): Device variables at the individual...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11122018-12-04T14:53:38ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Raised by Olga Maslovskaya:<br />I just looked at the Wave 8 data and cannot find “device used” variable. I was wondering if it was collected but not in a public release or if it was not collected at all?</p>
<p>JB Note: There is a device used variable in hhsamp, for the device first used to complete the household grid. But should there also be one at the individual level (one was delivered in h_adminp_orig?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #950 (Resolved): IP8 interviewer numbershttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/9502018-04-05T08:28:07ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am raising this on behalf of Dana Garbarski who contacted me directly - <a class="email" href="mailto:dgarbarski@luc.edu">dgarbarski@luc.edu</a></p>
<p>It's a follow up on issue 745 - <a class="external" href="https://iserswww.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/745">https://iserswww.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/745</a> - and relates to the interviewer numbers at IP8. The issue 745 was closed with the note that "This will be addressed for the release of IP9 data." However, it looks like this was not done.</p>
<p>Dana's email:<br />I just got around to downloading the data for wave 9, and it looks like the issue with the interviewer numbers is not resolved—the interviewer id is in the xivdata does not match the interviewer id when I try to merge with household data in wave 8 (h_hhsamp_ip), although it will work with households in waves 7 and 9). So it looks like the interviewer ids in wave 8 household data have been misnamed with this release. Let me know if I’m missing something or if there is another release planned when you have a chance.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #902 (Resolved): Life history questions in USOC (and...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/9022018-01-22T13:44:49ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>My name is Darina Peycheva and I’m a member of the research team working on the 1958 National Child Development Study (NCDS), and particularly on the development of a life history questionnaire for the tenth sweep of the study (NCDS10).</p>
<p>This is also the reason I am approaching you. As part of the development of this study element, we are collecting relevant information for the different studies' life history questionnaires (or questions), the different techniques to collect retrospective data, as well as the methodologies used for assessing the validity of life history data.</p>
<p>I would be very grateful if you could help me with some information about the retrospective life history data collected in the Understanding Society (maybe guide me towards particular waves that I could check the available documentation). Perhaps when participants joined the USOC they provided some life history data? I also thought that you could have asked some retrospective questions in the BHPS Wave 11 Ageing and Retirement Module, but have not yet looked at it myself? Any information in this regard would be very helpful.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #745 (Closed): Interviewer number queryhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/7452017-03-14T09:27:55ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I received this (below) - I can look into it, but wanted to post it here in case it's come up before (I did a quick search and couldn't find anything).</p>
<p>Hello Jonathan,<br />Sorry to have to open this thread again, and please let me know if I should send this set of queries elsewhere, but we’ve hit a bit of a roadblock in our analysis.</p>
<p>In order to include data on interviewer characteristics in our analysis of interviewers’ ratings of respondents’ health, we had to merge the interviewer, household, and respondent level data. Merging was done in 3 parts. The interviewer data (xivdata.dta) was first merged with wave 8 household data based on intnum (h_hhsamp_ip.dta). Household data was then distributed to the individual level wave 8 data (h_indresp_ip.dta). Wave 7 individual level data (g_indresp_ip.dta) was merged with wave 8. Resulting in Wave 7, wave 8 and the interviewer level data at the individual level. <br />In these data, there are 2,378 respondents interviewed across various modes:<br />. tab h_indmode</p>
<pre><code>mode this |<br /> individual |<br /> was given |<br /> final ind |<br />outcome in | Freq. Percent Cum.<br />-------------+-----------------------------------<br /> proxy | 111 4.67 4.67<br /> capi | 1,439 60.51 65.18<br /> cati | 29 1.22 66.40<br /> cawi | 799 33.60 100.00<br />-------------+-----------------------------------<br /> Total | 2,378 100.00</code></pre>
<p>For the capi respondents, 37 are missing interviewer identification numbers. For the telephone, 5 are missing interviewer ID. For the CAWI, there are 3 respondents that have an interviewer ID number (would expect no respondents in this mode to have an interviewer ID number).<br />When we go to examine the interviewers’ characteristics in the respondent level file we created (to see, e.g., if the interviewer’s gender is related to how they rate respondents’ health), we have large amounts of missing data. We have valid data for 682 respondents in terms of intsex intyearofbirth intyearstarted intoparea intrace_dv intveteran. We would expect the number to be closer to 1400 given the number of CAPI respondents and available interviewer IDs.<br />So my questions are:<br />1) Should we merge another way in order to get the interviewer characteristics to the respondent level data? Maybe there is a mismatch with intnum somewhere in this set of procedures?<br />2) Maybe the xivdata.dta file we used (which we downloaded in May 2016) did not have information for some of the wave 8 interviewers yet? The xivdata file does not have large amounts of missing data, but maybe the cases are incomplete? For example, I see that when we merge xivdata with the wave 8 housheold data (h_hhsamp_ip.dta), there are 1,738 households, 1,200 households with a valid intnum, and only 531 households with valid values of interviewer characteristics. So there problem starts to appear when linking xivdata to the household data, and does not appear to be linking this merged data to the respondent level data (h_indresp_ip.dta).</p>
<p>Any thoughts you have on how to proceed would be most appreciated!</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #392 (Closed): secondary vs. post-secondary distinct...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/3922015-07-27T08:19:20ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>On behalf of Lori D. Bougher <<a class="email" href="mailto:lbougher@Princeton.EDU">lbougher@Princeton.EDU</a>>:</p>
<p>We are looking at the relationship between political interest and education, and we would like to make the distinction between post-secondary (ISCED level 5) and secondary (ISCED level 3) vocational education.</p>
<p>Am I correct in my belief that this is not wholly possible with Understanding Society because, unlike in the BHPS, Understanding Society pools some secondary and post-secondary vocational options. For example, in the qfvoc variable, NVQ/SVQ levels 3 through 5 are pooled, and NVQ level 3 would represent secondary education, but NVQ levels 4 and 5 are post-secondary (at least according to the ISCED). Similarly, there is no distinction between BTEC national and higher degrees.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #273 (Closed): Time variables at Wave 1https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/2732014-06-22T21:38:05ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>1. I suppose that time in seconds represents time from midnight in seconds, is that right?</p>
<p>2. There is a variable a_consent_tm which presents weird values. In general there is a time line over *tm variables, for example all of them are 60.000’s or 50.000’s, but a_consent_tm presents huge differences like 10.000 or 20.000 seconds. I know that it is a separate module but I don’t know if there is a known reason for this.</p>
<p>3. There is a variable a_finint_tm whose label says “end time for interview (seconds)”. I have found that for several cases there is a huge difference between the rest of the modules’ starting time and the a_finint_tm: Is this an human mistake (e.g. the interviewer forgot to close the interview) or it is due to a known reason (e.g. some had to finish the interview on another date because the interviewee asked from that…)?</p>
<p>4. For proxies, there is a variable which indicates the start time in seconds of the proxy interview, but there isn’t a variable to indicates final time of the interview, so you only can know about the duration if another household member or proxy is interviewed after him/her because another “starting time” is recorded. Is this right, there is no way to know the end point or the duration of proxy interviews?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #243 (Closed): BHPS query - Waves 12 + 17https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/2432014-02-13T18:11:32ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Query from Curtis - Channel 4 want to use this data quite urgently.</p>
<p>A slightly random question - I've been looking at BHPS data on young people's opinions on the likelihood of future events ([W]FUTR[X]), and it doesn't look quite right to me.</p>
<p>For example, between 'LFUTRE' & 'QFUTRE' - 'Likelihood: Long term unemployed' there is an apparently very large shift in the percentage of participants coding '0%', related to a similarly large shift in those coding 'Doesn't apply'.</p>
<p>Wave 12 - "Doesn't apply" - 1%<br />Wave 17 - "Doesn't apply" - 39%</p>
<p>Wave 12 - "0%" - 40%<br />Wave 17 - "0%" - 8%</p>
<p>I noticed in the questionnaire the code for 'Doesn't apply' seems to be '0' - I was wondering whether this might have caused some confusion? Or am I seeing problems where there are none?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #240 (Closed): Derived variable in the BHPShttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/2402014-01-31T12:06:19ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Message from Tina Haux:<br />I am getting in touch as I am doing a project together with Lucinda using the MCS on contact and parenting before and after separation and we are looking derive a variable capturing the length of separation of couples. I seem to remember that Chiara Pronzato did something similar for the BHPS data with John Ermisch and I was wondering whether it would be possible to get more information on how this variable has been derived to see whether it would make sense to do something similar with the MCS data.</p>