Support #2244
open
jbnssec5_dv
100%
Description
Hi there,
I am working on waves 1, 3, and 5 of Understanding Society. I want to use the wave 1 "jbnssec5_dv" variable as an indicator of socioeconomic status, however, I have identified some potential issues with this variable that I cannot currently understand. The response options for this variable are: management & professional, intermediate, small employers & own account, lower supervisory & own account, lower supervisory & technical and semi-routine & routine. However, this variable has a high proportion of non-applicables at wave 1. I assumed these non-applicables were likely due to respondents indicating that they were not in paid employment, which did account for a good proportion of the non-applicables. However, to check that this was the main reason for NA responses, I also checked if any respondents indicated they were not in paid employment but had viable responses to jbnssec5_dv (i.e., management & professional, intermediate, small employers & own account, lower supervisory & own account, lower supervisory & technical and semi-routine & routine), which I identified (in my subsample of respondents) that over 8,000 respondents indicate no paid employment but then state they're employment is either: management & professional, intermediate, small employers & own account, lower supervisory & own account, lower supervisory & technical and semi-routine & routine. Should respondents who are not employed have viable responses to this variable or should they be coded as NA?
Many Thanks
Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team 10 months ago
- Category set to Questionnaire content
- Status changed from New to Feedback
- % Done changed from 0 to 80
- Private changed from Yes to No
Dear Evie,
Perhaps this is about how employment is defined. jbnssec is based on jbsoc, so the universe of the latter also applies: if (JBHAS = 1 OR JBOFF = 1) – i.e. the person has a job. When you run this:
gen a_jbuniv = (a_jbhas == 1 | a_jboff == 1)
tab a_jbnssec5_dv a_jbuniv
you’ll see that the universe is applied correctly.
Best wishes,
Piotr Marzec
UKHLS User Support
Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team 12 days ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Resolved
- % Done changed from 80 to 100
Updated by Theocharis Kromydas 10 days ago
Hi both. I am facing the same problem. I don't really understand why this universe is applied in this way as jboff is a variable that identifies those who had no work last week but they have already a paid job, so I don't see the reason these people are not assigned with a NSSEC value. Then when someone cross-tabulate jboff and jbhas with jbstat then results do not make sense as noone knows then in what state respondents are. This is very confusing. In my case, I am trying to add the unemployed/inactive as a separate category within the jbnssec_dv variable and I cannot find any valid way of doing that without having clashes with other variables that indicate a different state. Long story short, I am very worries about the reliability of the NSSEC variable.
Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team 5 days ago
- Status changed from Resolved to Feedback
Hello Theocharis,
The valid universe for classification in jbnssec5_dv consists of those who are working. For this variable in particular, the working population is identified as individuals who did paid work last week (jbhas) and those who did not work last week but have a paid job (jboff). Therefore, individuals who did not work in the previous week, mainly because they were on leave, are still included (around 83%, referring to the relevant question). You can see the reason for being off work in the variable “jboffy – reason off work last week”.
Regarding jbstat and jbhas, both variables measure employment status and are asked of all individuals. However, jbhas belongs to the Current Employment questionnaire module, whereas jbstat belongs to the Demographic questionnaire module, which covers a broader range of domains such as geographic mobility, location, marital status, and others. Therefore, jbhas does not trigger jbstat, nor does jbstat trigger jbhas.
The key difference is that jbstat captures the respondent’s self-reported main activity status. For example, someone may report “4 – retired” as their main status, but could still have worked in the week before the interview; in that case, they would report jbhas = 1.
I hope this information is helpful
Best wishes,
Roberto Cavazos
Understanding Society User Support Team
Updated by Theocharis Kromydas 5 days ago
Hi Roberto
Thanks for your reply. I am still a bit confused though as I don't really understand how then people who have identified themselves as not in paid employment or being self-employed (like Retired, F-T students etc) still have valid values of NS-SEC. Is this because they identify themselves as performed some sort of work the last week even though they also reported themselves as not being in paid employment or being self-employed in the jbstat variable? And if this is the case, then which of the two responses are more valid when someone looks on participants employments status in relations to their NS-SEC value? Is there any accurate way for me to construct a NS-SEC variable where I can get only NS-SEC values using the values in the jbstat variable for the self-employed, in paid employment, on maternity leave, in Govt training scheme, on apprenticeship, on furlough, on shared parental leave, on adoption leave and then use the rest as a distinct "non-employed" category? Thanks
Updated by Understanding Society User Support Team 3 days ago
Hello Theocharis,
You are correct that some respondents who report their main activity in jbstat as “Retired”, “Full-time student”, etc., may still have a valid NS-SEC classification (jbnssec*_dv). This occurs because:
• jbstat captures self-reported main activity status.
• jbnssec*_dv is derived from current job information, based on occupation and employment characteristics.
• The valid universe for jbnssec*_dv includes those who:
o Did paid work last week (jbhas = 1), or
o Did not work last week but have a job to return to (jboff = 1).
In practice, some individuals may identify their main activity as “Retired” (or similar), yet still report having done some paid work in the reference week (or having a job). In those cases, they fall within the valid universe for NS-SEC classification. This is not an inconsistency in the derivation of NS-SEC, but rather reflects the fact that main activity status (jbstat) and labour market behaviour in the reference week (jbhas/jboff) measure related but distinct concepts. NS-SEC is occupation-based and therefore applies to those with a current job, irrespective of how they describe their primary status.
There is no single “more valid” variable, it depends on your analytical objective. jbnssec*_dv relates to occupational class, jbstat relates to self-defined labour market status, and current employment behaviour in the reference week is defined by jbhas and jboff. Constructing an NS-SEC variable with a “non-employed” category, you would first need to define what you consider to constitute employment status. Among respondents who meet that definition, you would retain their jbnssec*_dv value. For all remaining observations, you would assign a separate “non-employed” category. However, the appropriate approach ultimately depends on your specific research objective.
I hope this information is helpful
Best wishes,
Roberto Cavazos
Understanding Society User Support Team