Understanding Society User Support

Esme,

Thank you for your question. To answer it you would need to clarify the population that you want to represent, and units of analysis.
You describe: My sample restrictions are individuals with atleast one income observation aged 25+, born between 1975-1995 with atleast one observed parental household income aged 0-16, restricted to only one observation per household (youngest eligible sibling) from the original and booster BHPS samples .

Instead, please think of the subpopulation that exists outside our study - in the greater UK population. Which people do you want to represent?
In simple words, we can't represent people who have at least one observation of a kind in UKHLS, because such people do not exist outside UKHLS. So, there aren't weights for such representation. Once your population is identified, I could help you with the choice of weights.
In short, if your analysis is cross-sectional, it is unlikely you need tailored weights. But if you are using some information from multiple waves (parents income reported earlier, for example, with the current youth information), your analysis is then longitudinal.

With more information I should be able to advice you,
Olena

Dear Olena,

Thanks for your swift response.

The population that I want to represent are people born 1975-1995.

My research is not cross-sectional, as I am using information from multiple waves. That is, parents income reported earlier, and also their own income reported across multiple waves. However I can’t use the longitudinal weights because it would reduce my sample to around 250 people, and I don’t need to exclude people if they haven’t answered in every preceding wave.

Many thanks,

Esme.

Esme,

Thank you for this clarification. You will need longitudinal weights. It may be best for you to create you own tailored weights. Please follow our online course on how to do it: https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/help/training/online/creating-tailored-weights .

Hope this helps,
Olena

Hi Olena,

Thanks. I have followed the online course, however the course could not provide me with the answers on how to tailor the weights for my situation, which is what led me to my original question.

I came to my above solution from the online course and issues #658 and #985 , which suggest that for my base-weight I take the cross-sectional weight for people born 1975-1995 from the first wave they turn 25.

My questions related to that base=weight and whether I've applied the weights correctly.

Many thanks,

Esme.

Esme,

Cross-sectional weight is a wrong one as a base weight, as we don't follow TSMs by design. You should use a longitudinal (can be enumeration) weight as your base weight. Using a weight when a person turns 25 is a good idea. You then represent 25 year olds and what happened to them thereafter.

Hope this helps,
Olena

Hi Olena,

Thanks. I have done so using enumeration weights for my sample from the year they turn 25. However, now 330 of my sample have a weight of 0, severely reducing my sample size.

Is there any other way to do this so that there are less people with a weight of 0, to maximise my sample size but still make sense? E.g. using enumeration weight from an earlier age?

Thanks for your help,

Esme.

Esme,

First, check if 330 people are OSMs. If they are TSMs they should not have any weight. And yes, if you want, you could use an earlier base weight, for example an issue weight to wave 2.

Hope this helps,
Olena

Hi Olena,

Only 24 of the 330 people are TSMs. I've tried using issue weights from wave 2, but unfortunately, it leads to a similar amount of people excluded either through a weight of 0, or not having an issue weight from wave 2. If there's no other way, I suppose I'll just have to use this smaller sample size?

Thanks,

Esme.

Esme,

Yes, I think you've done your best.

Olena