Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382016-01-08T17:11:24ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Understanding Society User Support - Support #481 (Closed): Should household identifier match (fo...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4812016-01-08T17:11:24ZPhil Jonesphil.jones@sheffield.ac.uk
<p>Do household identifiers (b_hidp, and c_hidp) match across waves (for respondents who do not move home)?</p>
<p>I've created one consolidated data frame with all individuals who completed wave b and wave c. Thus all remaining individuals in my data frame have a b_hidp and a c_hidp. However, in <strong>all</strong> cases, these IDs do not match.</p>
<p>I've tested and re-run my code, and am satisfied that individual waves have merged correctly on pidp so each individual respondent has not been joined to another erroneously. This leaves me unsure if I've made a mistake, or if the household identifiers are not supposed to match up.</p>
<p>Clearly, people who move home will not have the same identifier, but <strong>no</strong> cases match. Below is a snippet of the error from the test comparing b_hidp and c_hidp:</p>
<pre>
Error: Test failed: 'Household IDs for recurrent respondents match'
* Not expected: us$b_hidp not equal to us$c_hidp
44178/44178 mismatches (average diff: 5903312).
First 10:
pos x y diff
1 68013602 68013604 -2
2 68020402 68020404 -2
3 68027202 68040804 -13602
4 68034002 68047604 -13602
5 68047602 68068004 -20402
6 68054402 68074804 -20402
7 68068002 68088404 -20402
8 68115602 68149604 -34002
9 68136002 68170004 -34002
10 68156402 68190404 -34002.
</pre>
<p>And a section of the dataframe I've constructed with the relevant variables:</p>
<pre>
id b_hidp c_hidp
(int) (int) (int)
1 68004087 68013602 68013604
2 68006127 68020402 68020404
3 68006807 68027202 68040804
4 68007487 68034002 68047604
5 68008847 68047602 68068004
6 68009527 68054402 68074804
</pre>
<p>Is this what you would expect given how the household identifier is constructed?</p>
<p>Thank you.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #437 (Closed): sample design and community establish...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4372015-10-28T10:36:42ZPhil Jonesphil.jones@sheffield.ac.uk
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I'm trying to establish if residents in communal accommodation are sampled in US. I've read the user guide and technical notes which refer to samples being taken of 'residential' addresses using the PAF. Do such residential addresses include residents in communal establishments like nursing homes, student halls of residence, etc.?</p>
<p>I notice that communal establishments/institutions are considered ineligible from the technical notes. In this case what constitutes a communal establishment? Does this mean residents in nursing homes etc are ineligible, or does such an establishment refer to non-residential establishments, e.g. guest houses, hotels, etc.?</p>
<p>Sorry if my question appears confused. I'm simply trying to find out exactly what is included in a 'residential' address so I can match US to appropriate census records which includes residents of nursing homes, student halls, prisons etc. I suspect it refers only to private households but just want to confirm.</p>
<p>Many thanks</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #402 (Closed): Health conditions https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4022015-08-14T13:23:23ZPhil Jonesphil.jones@sheffield.ac.ukUnderstanding Society User Support - Support #353 (Closed): fed-forward (_ff_): what does this me...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/3532015-03-23T13:15:16ZPhil Jonesphil.jones@sheffield.ac.uk
<p>In wave 4 the fed-forward employment status (d_ff_jbstat) does not match the employment status provided in the previous wave (c_jbstat) in all cases.</p>
<p>I opened both c_indresp.tab and d_indresp.tab. I removed all variables except pidp (wave 4), pidp (wave 3), d_ff_jbstat, and c_jbstat. I merged these (on pidp) and tested to see if d_ff_jbstat and c_jbstat were equivalent.</p>
<p>In 456 cases they are not the same, although I assumed they would be.</p>
<p>R code below:</p>
<pre>
require("dplyr")
cind <- read.table("data/understandingSociety/UKDA-6614-tab/tab/c_indresp.tab",
header = T,
stringsAsFactors = F)
dind <- read.table("data/understandingSociety/UKDA-6614-tab/tab/d_indresp.tab",
header = T,
stringsAsFactors = F)
cindJbstat <- select(cind, pidp, c_jbstat)
dindJbstat <- select(dind, pidp, d_ff_jbstat)
dindJbstat <- inner_join(dindJbstat, cindJbstat)
# # joins on pidp
table(dindJbstat$d_ff_jbstat == dindJbstat$c_jbstat)
# FALSE TRUE
# 456 39002
</pre>
<p>Have I misunderstood exactly what 'fed-forward' means, is this an error in the dataset, or is it the case that c_jbstat may have been incorrectly recorded in wave 3 and subsequently corrected in wave 4 by the interviewer, or something else entirely?</p>
<p>I've looked through the documentation to see if I can find an answer but haven't been able to, nor have I been able to find a similar open or closed issue.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>