Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382015-10-13T15:52:12ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Understanding Society User Support - Support #432 (Closed): Distributions of NS-SEC variables in ...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4322015-10-13T15:52:12ZSharon Cruises.cruise@qub.ac.uk
<p>I first accessed the Wave 1 dataset around 2012 at which time there was a ‘refusal’ category for the derived variable ‘a_jbnssec5_dv'.</p>
<p>I am now returning to Wave 1 data for a new analysis, and have loaded the most recent version of the Wave 1 data. However, I have noticed that there is now no 'refusal' category for this variable, and also that the distributions of the categories of the NS-SEC variables in the more recent dataset appear slightly different when compared with earlier versions of the dataset.</p>
<p>Any clarification would be welcome.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #431 (Closed): Coding of 'missing' in earlier and la...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4312015-10-13T15:46:16ZSharon Cruises.cruise@qub.ac.uk
<p>I first accessed the Wave 1 dataset around 2012 at which time there was a ‘missing’ category for the derived variable ‘a_scghq2_dv’, but no 'inapplicable'.</p>
<p>I am now returning to Wave 1 data for a new analysis, and have loaded the most recent version of the Wave 1 data. However, I have noticed that variable 'a_scghq2_dv' now has both a ‘missing’ and an ‘inapplicable’ category, and that the N for the 'missing' is much lower than previously</p>
<p>Can I assume that in the original dataset the ‘missing’ and ‘inapplicable’ were combined into an overall ‘missing’ category, but that in the most recent version of the dataset the ‘missing’ and the ‘inapplicable’ categories have been differentiated?</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>