Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382024-03-26T16:09:20ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Understanding Society User Support - Support #2077 (Feedback): Using income variables https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/20772024-03-26T16:09:20ZMhairi Webster
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I am looking to access the data to use the derived income variables (w_fimnnet_dv). Could you let me know under what access it is under on the UK Data Service as those variables don't appear to be available in the dataset I am using (Understanding Society: Waves 1-8, 2009-2017 and Harmonised <br />BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. 11th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, <a class="external" href="http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN6614-12">http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN6614-12</a>).</p>
<p>Many thanks, <br />Mhairi Webster</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #2076 (Feedback): Issues with xx_hadcvvac variables ...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/20762024-03-13T21:01:15ZLaura L
<p>Good evening,</p>
<p>I am currently analysing data from the <em>xx_indresp_w</em> datasets of the COVID-19 data collection, specifically from wave 9 (ci), wave 8 (ch) and wave 7 (cg). From the documentation, the questions <em>xx_hadcvvac</em> (about having received the COVID-19 vaccine in each survey wave) should be asked to respondents that have not already answered that they received 1 or 2 doses of vaccines in previous months (answer codes 1 and 2). However, by cross-tabulating the answers to the <em>xx_hadcvvac</em> questions for wave 7 and 9 for respondents present in wave 9 and 7 (left-joining the datasets by respondent ID <em>pidp</em>, i.e. matching all respondents in wave 9 with those that were also in wave 7):</p>
<p>table(ci_hadcvvac = wave_9$ci_hadcvvac, cg_hadcvvac = wave_9$cg_hadcvvac)</p>
<p>with <em>wave_9</em> the left-joined dataset, I obtain the following table:</p>
<pre><code>cg_hadcvvac<br />ci_hadcvvac -9 -8 -2 1 2 3 4<br /> -8 0 10 0 133 9 492 4835<br /> -2 2 0 2 0 0 0 4<br /> 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 133<br /> 2 0 3 1 <strong>1663 116</strong> 36 2538<br /> 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 5<br /> 4 0 0 0 2 0 3 322</code></pre>
<p>As you can see from the numbers in bold (took as examples), there are some respondents vaccinated in wave 7 that appear to be asked the question again in wave 9. Am I missing some information?</p>
<p>Thank you very much in advance for the support.</p>
<p>Best regards, <br />Laura</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #2075 (Feedback): Using UKHLS to look at trends acro...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/20752024-03-13T15:36:15ZJames Laurence
<p>Hi there,</p>
<p>I am interested in looking at calendar month trends in whether someone wants to move home or not (which is available in every wave): lkmove. Ideally, I would like to look at trends using all waves (1-13). However, if it is easier to look at trends from some other start point, e.g.. 2016 or 2017, then I am flexible. I am also flexible as to whether the BHPS sample is included or not. This will be cross-sectional analysis, so I hope to treat each calendar month as a cross-section (I won’t be doing any longitudinal analysis).</p>
<p>I have been reading the helpful notes on ‘Running analysis on a calendar year or month’ (<a class="external" href="https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage/user-guides/main-survey-user-guide/how-to-use-weights-analysis-guidance-for-weights-psu-strata/">https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/documentation/mainstage/user-guides/main-survey-user-guide/how-to-use-weights-analysis-guidance-for-weights-psu-strata/</a>). However, I just had some questions and was hoping to see if where I’d got to so far looked right.</p>
<p>I have been using the w_month and wave variables to generate a new date variable of year-month. To capture calendar year, I have used the wave and w_month variables in the following manner:</p>
<p>gen year = 2009 if wave==1 & (month>0 & month<13)<br />replace year = 2010 if wave==1 & (month>12 & month<25)<br />replace year = 2010 if wave==2 & (month>0 & month<13)<br />replace year = 2011 if wave==2 & (month>12 & month<25)<br />replace year = 2011 if wave==3 & (month>0 & month<13)<br />…<br />replace year = 2021 if wave==13 & (month>0 & month<13)<br />replace year = 2022 if wave==13 & (month>12 & month<25)</p>
<p>To measure calendar month, I have recoded the w_month variable, combining the two monthly measures into one. So, in the w_month variable, it tells us whether someone was sampled in January in the year 1 sample or January in the year 2 sample. I’ve now combined these into a single category of whether someone was sampled in January. For example, ‘jan yr1’ and jan yr2’ are now just ‘jan’; ‘feb yr1’ and ‘feb yr2’ are now just ‘feb, etc.</p>
<p>With these new calendar year and calendar month variables, I have now created a new measure of calendar year-month, which looks like this (I hope this is correct so far):</p>
<pre><code>2009 Jan = 1<br /> 2009 Feb = 2<br /> 2009 Mar = 3<br /> 2009 Apr = 4<br /> 2009 May = 5<br /> 2009 June = 6<br /> 2009 July = 7<br />…<br /> 2022 June = 162<br /> 2022 July = 163<br /> 2022 Aug = 164<br /> 2022 Sep = 165<br /> 2022 Oct = 166<br /> 2022 Nov = 167<br /> 2022 Nov = 168</code></pre>
<p>I understand that whatever weight I choose to use I need to correct it due to Northern Ireland only being sampled in issue month 1-12 (and not 13-24). Therefore, I will apply the following adjustment to the weight (gen adj=1, replace adj=0.5 if w_country==4, gen weight=w_xxxyyus_lw*adj 8) as outlined in the online notes.</p>
<p>However, where I’ve become a little lost is what weights to initially use. In the notes, it states due to exceptions in sample selection ‘we recommend use of the us_lw weight in analysis’. Given my intention to look at calendar months up to wave 13, does this mean I should use the m_indpxus_lw weight? Is this the case, even if I just want to look at the data cross-sectionally (treat every calendar month as a cross-sectional picture of lkmove)? Because it seems that if I use m_indpxus_lw then it substantially reduces the sample size (due to these longitudinal weights requiring someone to have participated in every wave). Is it possible to use the cross-sectional weights for my aims, while excluding the BHPS and IEMB, as is suggested that one needs to do for this kind of calendar month analysis in the online notes? Or, do I need to use longitudinal weights for my intended analysis?</p>
<p>I was also just trying to get my head around the issue of scaling discussed in the online notes: ‘The weights provided are not designed directly for pooling data across waves as they are scaled to a mean value of 1.0 within each wave, and therefore produce different weighted sample sizes in each wave’, under the section ‘Pooling data from different waves for cross-sectional analysis.’ Firstly, I just wanted to confirm this applies to my case of doing monthly trends?</p>
<p>And secondly, if so, from what I can see, the syntax kindly provided is intended to produce an accurate weight to look at the variable jbstat for the calendar year 2011, using months 13-24 of wave 2 and 1-12 of wave 3. At the end, we get the weight variable weight2011, to use for weighting calendar year 2011. In my situation, I would like to do a longer running trend of values of lkmove by months. Would I need to create these weights for each calendar year I look at? So, for 2014, I would need to create a new cross-sectional weight using e_indpxub_xw and f_indpxub_xw (waves 5 and 6). For 2015, I would need to create a new cross-sectional weight using f_indpxub_xw and g_indpxub_xw (waves 6 and 7). For 2016, I would need to create a new cross-sectional weight using g_indpxub_xw and h_indpxub_xw (waves 7 and 8). And to follow this all the way to my last calendar year. Then, to look at monthly trends, treating the data as pooled cross-sectional, I would have my data in long-format and have a new weight variable made up of all these new calendar year weights I’ve created?</p>
<p>I was also wondering if it would be possible to include monthly lkmove data from the calendar year 2022 (using wave 13 of the UKHLS mainstage). As I understand things, previous calendar years (e.g., 2018) are composed of samples from two waves (waves 9 and 10 of the mainstage). However, for the calendar year of 2022, it is only composed of the sample from wave 13. Is it still possible to look at calendar month trends in lkmove for 2022? If so, would I need to make other sample restrictions to the other calendar years, for example, drop the IEMB sample from the trends? And would I need to make other adjustments to the weights? Or, is it not possible yet to look at monthly trends until wave 14 comes out)? I think from the online notes this is mentioned: ‘The analysis sample is only representative when all 24 monthly samples are combined in equal measure.’ Does this point refer to my question?</p>
<p>I am also interested in potentially looking at quarterly trends (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, etc.), instead of monthly trends (using the x_quarter variable). To do so, can I take the same approach as above? So, create a new time variable which is years divided into quarters (e.g., 2013 Jan-Mar, 2013 Apr-Jun, 2013 July-Sep, 2013 Oct-Dec, 2014 Jan-Mar, 2014 Apr-June…2022 Jul-Sep, 2022 Oct-Dec). Do I need to do anything different with the weights?</p>
<p>I hope this all makes sense.</p>
<p>Thanks so much in advance.</p>
<p>James</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #2073 (Feedback): Data filehttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/20732024-03-08T16:20:51ZLuisa Edwards
<p>What is the date period for the Wave 13 indresp file, and was this post Covid.<br />I.e would it be possible to compare a monthly COVID data set to the whole of Wave 13, looking at post Covid environment?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1454 (Resolved): Understanding Society area level d...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/14542020-12-02T11:46:37ZLaura Bryce
<p>I am just wondering if Understanding Society contains a measure of area level deprivation</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1295 (Resolved): Stability across Big 5 personality...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/12952019-12-16T18:28:10ZC Jostenjostenc@hotmail.de
<p>Hi! I'd be interested to know if someone has tested the stability of personality across the two waves in which the Big5 were recorded. The correlations across those two waves appear to be very low, which I am puzzled about. Has anyone tested the validity of this?<br />Thanks and best,<br />C.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1281 (Resolved): Big Five Personality in 2005 of BH...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/12812019-11-26T17:20:22ZC Jostenjostenc@hotmail.de
<p>Hi!</p>
<p>I have two questions regarding the Big5 personality traits in the BHPS and Understanding Society:</p>
<p>1. I am currently using all waves from BHPS and Understanding Society to understand the impact of personality (the Big Five) on labour market outcomes by occupation. I am aware that the Big Five were asked in wave 14 of BHPS and wave 3 of Understanding Society. I am now unsure on how to merge those two variables. Given that personality is often assumed to be constant across years I would like to extend this measurement to more than just the year of the wave they were asked. However, I am unsure as to how to treat those values for BHPS versus Understanding Society and how they differ across waves by individual. Is there a best practice?</p>
<p>2. Derived personality variables from wave 3 of UKHLS: I have tried to replicate those with the non-derived individual responses (following the description on the Understanding Society) but I do not get the same but similar results. It would be important to know how those are coded for me to do the same for the 2005 responses. I have followed the instruction on your website: "Component score calculated as the average item response if no more than one of the three input responses is missing". And then rounded those values. But my derived variable is different from yours.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1269 (Resolved): Living with an exhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/12692019-11-01T17:13:46ZHarvey Dayharvey.day@bbc.co.uk
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>A recent report using data from the Understanding Survey found that 2.5 million Brits are in "hidden households" they cannot afford to move out of, including house shares, adults living with their parents, or people living with an ex-partner.</p>
<p><a class="external" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787913">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787913</a></p>
<p>I'm writing a story about people living with an ex-partner. Is it possible to find out how many of these 2.5 million are living with an ex-partner?</p>
<p>My deadline is Monday so it would be fantastic if you were able to shed any light on this.</p>
<p>Thank you so much!</p>
<p>Harvey Day<br />BBC Three Editorial<br />07881 373 402</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1173 (Resolved): Clustering https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11732019-03-27T11:21:11ZOLAYIWOLA OLADIRANo.o.oladiran@pgr.reading.ac.uk
<p>I am trying to run some analysis using individual and household characteristics and having to deal with clustering issues. Presently, I am clustering at Pidp level on the premise that errors are unlikely to be uncorrelated within individuals. Do you think clustering at Pidp makes sense? I am also trying to cluster at household level (hidp), but household IDs change every year and it will be difficult to keep track of all these changes for a large number of observations. Do you recommend clustering at hidp level instead (despite that these change every year)?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1129 (Resolved): fimnlabgrshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11292019-01-15T18:10:21ZLydia Palumbolvpalu@utu.fi
<p>Dear UKHLS User Support,</p>
<p>it is quite surprising for me to notice that the missing values (as proxy) of the harmonized variable (b)w_fimnlabgrs_dv are present only in BHPS and not in UKHLS. Is there a place where I can find answer to this question?</p>
<p>Thank you and best regards,<br />Lydia</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1121 (Resolved): Variable "plbornc" vs "plbornc_allhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/11212018-12-19T15:04:27ZOLAYIWOLA OLADIRANo.o.oladiran@pgr.reading.ac.uk
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I expect that the number of observations for values (countries) 5-27 should be the same for both the "plbornc" and "plbornc_all" variables. for instance, Republic of Ireland has 722 observations in the "plbornc" and has 457 in "plbornc_all". May I please know why this is the case?</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1098 (Resolved): Consultinghttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/10982018-11-22T13:15:38ZLeonardo Nunezlnunez@desarrollosocial.gob.cl
Dear Sirs:<br />My name is Leonardo Núñez and I work at the Social Observatory of the Chilean Department of Social Development. We are in charge of carrying out the National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey (CASEN) and we have been evaluating the transfer from PAPI format to CAPI. According to this I want to ask some introductory questions:
<ul>
<li>Can you send the form BHPS survey?</li>
<li>In this survey (BHPS) what software do you use for data collection, Blaise software? or other market or own software?<br />I look forward to hearing from you<br />Thank you in advance<br />━━━━━━━━<br />Leonardo Núñez López<br />División Observatorio Social<br />Subsecretaría de Evaluación Social<br />Ministerio de Desarrollo Social <br />Gobierno de Chile</li>
</ul> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1088 (Resolved): More information on variable "plbo...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/10882018-11-07T12:05:31ZOLAYIWOLA OLADIRANo.o.oladiran@pgr.reading.ac.uk
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Please is there a further breakdown of the countries of origin of immigrants (plbornc)? I am conducting a study on the EU accession 8 countries and it appears that only Poland is part of the countries explicitly labeled (10). I believe the other Eastern European countries are embedded in "others" 97. Is there any chance that you have a further breakdown of these so I can identify other Eastern European countries?</p>
<p>Also, what is the date of the release of Wave 9?</p>
<p>Thank you in anticipation of your response.</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #1021 (Resolved): Household weighting for longitudin...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/10212018-08-19T10:05:44ZAnte Bab2242@cam.ac.uk
<p>Dear Understanding Society Team,</p>
<p>I'm running an analysis at the household level with averaged individual-level attributes by household (dependent variable is a household attribute). I would like to clarify the following:</p>
<p>1) Can household weights be used irrespective of the individual-level attributes?<br />2) For a longitudinal analysis at the household level, has for each wave a different cross-sectional household weight to be used (n_hhdenub_xw) since there is not longitudinal weight for household-level analyses?</p>
<p>Thank you for your help.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />Ante</p> Understanding Society User Support - Support #910 (Resolved): How to download NPD linked UKHLShttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/9102018-02-05T17:13:32Znirosha elsem varghese
<p>Hello,<br />I am not able to download the National Pupil Database from the Uk Data website.Is there any additional formalities to download this data.</p>