Understanding Society User Support

Hello Alita,

I wanted to follow up on my query regarding having a “unified” weighting variable for analysing interviews from 2002 to 2018. I remember you mentioned that people interviewed from 2002 to 2008 (BHPS) are not the same ones interviewed from 2009 to 2018 (UKHLS). You said that we are essentially looking at two different UK populations since migration has had an impact on its composition. Has there been a resolution on this?

Hello Alita,

I’ll take note of these helpful details. Would it be easier if I can attach the respective weights before merging the waves together in one longitudinal data file? Or can I program this in a syntax on Stata after merging? Waves 2 and 6 have multiple (i.e. more than one) weights, since they overlap?

UKHLS Waves 1-2, use b_indinui_lw
UKHLS Waves 2-6, use f_indinub_lw
UKHLS Waves 6-9, use i_indinui_lw

I still need to drop wave 1 of UKHLS if I’m analysing waves 11-18 of the BHPS along with waves 2-9 of UKHLS longitudinally speaking, correct? Thanks so much. I am sorry if I keep misunderstanding any of these.

My suggestion would be to add the weights to the indresp files in before merging them. But remember to merge the relevant weight to all the waves it needs to be applied to. For example, attach br_indin01_lw to bl_indresp bm_indrep.... br_indresp.

Hello Alita,

My understanding of your weighting assignment is that Waves 2 and 6 have multiple (i.e. more than one) weights, since they overlap (i.e. 1-2, 2-6, 6-9, seen below). Is this a wrong reading from my end?

UKHLS Waves 1-2, use b_indinui_lw
UKHLS Waves 2-6, use f_indinub_lw
UKHLS Waves 6-9, use i_indinui_lw

Isn’t i_indinui_lw the “combined UKHLS+BHPS+IEMB longitudinal adult main interview weight“ covering waves 7-9 of the UKHLS only? Isn’t f_indinub_lw the “longitudinal adult main interview weight” covering waves 3-9 of the UKHLS? I am basing these from the variable search results on the Understanding Society website.

I still need to drop wave 1 of UKHLS if I’m analysing waves 11-18 of the BHPS along with waves 2-9 of UKHLS longitudinally speaking. Wouldn’t it be easier to use i_indinus_lw for UKHLS Waves 2-9 as this is the “longitudinal adult main interview weight” covered in the indresp files for waves 2-9 of the UKHLS? Please let me know if I am on the right track.

As you have noted previously: if I used the longitudinal weights bw_indin01_lw then the weighted estimates will be representative of the 2001 UK population while if I used the longitudinal weights w_indinub_lw then the weighted estimates will be representative of the 2010 UK population. This tells me that it won’t make sense to compare these distinct UK populations over time from 2002 to 2018. Does this mean that it is impossible to follow those from the 2001 UK population during the period between 2010 and 2018 since there is an entirely different set of individuals who comprise the 2010 UK population?

Thanks for you time and consideration!

Abigail,

Just to add, if you are concerned about the differences in the populations, then you can use full samples but restrict to those who lived in this country in 1991 (or were born to people who lived here in 1991) or 2001.

And just to clarify Alita's last comment you can't use BHPS with BHPS weight alongside UKHLS with UKHLS weight - this will be wrong. You either should use all the data available with 'ub' or 'ui' weight or restrict your analysis to BHPS data and use BHPS weights.

Hope this helps,
Olena

Hello Alita,

When I am restricting the analysis to Waves 11-18 of the BHPS, using indin01_lw as weighting variable results in zero weighted frequencies for life satisfaction. What am I misunderstanding here from what was recommended above? I have no problem with waves 2-9 of the UKHLS. Could it be that the respective xx_indin01_lw for waves 11-18 have been overwritten as missing when the indresp database files were merged? I was checking the data editor and found missing values for waves before wave 2 of the UKHLS. Kindly let me know what must I do to rectify this situation. Thanks so much.

Kind Regards,
Abigail

Hello Alita,

If br_lrwtuk1 is the weight variable for BHPS W11-18 for longitudinal analysis, then I have to generate a new weight variable that “unifies” this with indin01_lw in the meantime, don’t I? As of now, using indin01_lw alone results in attrition of these 8 BHPS waves and the data starts from 2010 to 2018, covering UKHLS W2-9.

If I move back as far as 1991, does this mean that the respective xx_indin91_lw for BHPS waves before 2001 are also not yet harmonised with the indin91_lw variable? Can you please confirm that lrwght is the weight variable for longitudinal analysis for BHPS W2-18? If yes, does it make sense to “unify” this with indin91_lw variable for now?

Abigail,

The data for indin01_lw starts with 2001, and the data for indin91_lw starts in 1991. While the variable names are not harmonized between UKHLS and BHPS yet (they will be in the upcoming release) the values are harmonized - so the weights have identical concept - at the moment they are just under different names.

Hope this helps,
Olena

Hello Olena,

Many thanks for your response. I tried generating a single variable to combine these two weighting variables. When I did, I used that to run the xtreg command with weighting but I keep getting this error: “weight must be constant within pidp”. I used “xtset pidp” before this regression, by the way. Please let me know what I should be doing, instead, so that the aforementioned error is avoided. What am I missing here?

Hello Alita,

I am using xtreg for W11-18 of BHPS along with W2-9 of UKHLS, so I am looking at the “harmonisation” of lrwtuk1 for the former and indin01_lw for the latter set of waves. I combined this under one variable but I keep getting the error above. Do I need to drop all weights variables first then merge these two weights with the longitudinal data files from BHPS W11-18 to UKHLS W2-9? I do understand that we are following the same people from 2001 to 2018. It is just frustrating that this xtreg error keeps emerging. Is there a better way around this challenge? Thanks so much for your consideration.

Option 1: Append individual level files (indresp) from W11 of BHPS until W18, and W2 UKHLS until W9 into a long format file. Then (many to one) merge i_indin01_lw from i_indresp onto this long file.

Option 2: Append individual level files (indresp) from W11 of BHPS until W18 into a long format file. Then (many to one ) merge br_lrwtuk1 from br_indresp onto this long file. Repeat the same with UKHLS W2-W9 UKHLS indresp files & i_indin01_lw from i_indresp. Analyse the two parts separately.

Preference is for Option 1.

Hello Alita,

For option 1, does this mean I can disregard the weight variable lrwtuk1 for BHPS W11-18 and simply focus on indin01_lw? As you mentioned before, lrwtuk1 corresponds with the aforementioned BHPS waves. Wouldn’t I be getting zero weights for these BHPS waves when using indin01_lw alone when merging from the latest indresp data file? My understanding is that I am analysing the same people from 2001 onwards. I mentioned in a previous update that I am getting zero weights for 2001 to 2008 when I look at indin01_lw. Is my understanding mistaken?

Hello Alita,

Thanks so much for the syntax file that you sent. I may be misunderstanding what you said here:

“ The names of the weight variables for BHPS have not yet been harmonised with the UKHLS naming conventions (it will be done at this release or the next). Once the names are harmonised the variable name I said will work. Basically for BHPS W11-18 the weight variable for longitudinal analysis is br_lrwtuk1 (this will be renamed to br_indin01_lw later).”

My understanding is that using indin01_lw indicates that we are following the 2001 UK population until wave 9 of the UKHLS. How should I consider lrwtuk1 in relation to indin01_lw then? Is lrwtuk1 representative of another UK population? I apologise that I am still confused why using indin01_lw results in zero weights for the period covering W11-18 of BHPS. I am deeply sorry for misunderstanding this one bit.

No same population. This is how longitudinal weights in this survey are computed: Iniital wave cross sectional weight is multiplied by non-response weight between two consecutive waves. So, br_lrwtuk1= bk cross-sectional weight X non-response weight to correct for non-response between Wave 11 & 12 X non-response weight to correct for non-response between Wave 12 & 13.....non-response weight to correct for non-response between Wave 17 & 18

So, if you were to use the 2001 BHPS sample and
- follow them until Wave 18, use br_lrwtuk1
- follow them until UKHLS W9 then use i_indin01_lw
- follow them until BHPS Wave 12, use bl_lrwtuk1
- follow them until UKHLS W2, use b_indin01_lw
.....