Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382017-05-06T13:32:23ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Support #775 (Feedback): Nurse interviewer ID number 9999https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/7752017-05-06T13:32:23ZFiona Pashazadeh
<p>Dear Understanding Society Team,</p>
<p>In the nurse visit file for wave 2 individuals, b_indsamp_ns, there are 3827 records with nurse interviewer ID 9999 (b_nsintnum). It looks as though this ID was applied to those who refused the nurse visit at the CATI stage or were out of scope/ineligible at CATI, but the numbers do not quite match up (e.g. some households and individuals recorded as CATI refusals have nurse IDs that correspond to nurses in the xivdata_ns file).</p>
<p>Please could you confirm the criteria for applying nurse interviewer ID 9999?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Fiona.</p> Support #630 (Closed): weight with fixed-effectshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/6302016-09-20T15:29:38ZCarolina Zuccotticarolina.zuccotti@eui.eu
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I want to study the relationship between subjective well-being and labour market situation.<br />I want to use fixed effects for this purpose.</p>
<p>I have set-up the data and I am working with the 5 waves. If I want to use the longitudinal weights proposed in the User Manual - I should use e_indscus_lw given that I am working with the adult self-response - then that means I will be working with a balanced panel right? I.e. people who participated in the 5 waves. As stated in the User Manual, I have assigned the weight in e_ to individuals in the first four waves.</p>
<p>What I wanted to know, given that xtset/xtreg do not work with svy, is whether this syntax is correct (although I am missing the complex design):</p>
<p>xtreg sclfsato i.status2 [pweight=my_lw], fe</p>
<p>Where my_lw is the e_ weight assigned to individuals who have cases in all waves (and 0 is assigned to individuals who have participated in less waves) - as stated in the User Manual.</p>
<p>Another question: If I wanted to include in the analysis individuals who have participated in less waves (at least 2), weighting gets more complicated right? I was just wondering if you thought of giving a course on advanced weighting in the UKHLS (just an idea!).</p>
<p>Many thanks in advance,</p>
<p>Carolina</p> Support #512 (Closed): Accessing the linked NPD datasethttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/5122016-02-24T12:53:18ZRachel Beardsmore
<p>Good afternoon,<br />I work at the Office for National Statistics on Children's well-being. The Understanding Society data is central to the work that I do. I am keen to use the Understanding Society: Wave 1, 2009-2011: Linked National Pupil Database dataset. I enquired with the UK Data Service, but was told that because it is secure access, it is only available to ESRC-approved FE/HE researchers.</p>
<p>Would it be possible for me (subject to required training etc), as a researcher at ONS, to be granted access to the linked dataset please?</p>
<p>Many thanks<br />Rachel</p> Support #484 (Closed): Matching data to new administrative datasetshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4842016-01-12T09:47:17ZJack Worthj.worth@nfer.ac.uk
<p>I am exploring the prospect of using Understanding Society data for a research project on teachers, as there are around 1,000 or so in the data according to industry/occupation codes. Your data linkage webpage helpfully sets out the existing data linkage with administrative data, but it prompts several questions I have:</p>
<p>• How feasible is it, or would it be, to link participants to their records in new datasets? Specifically, matching individuals identified in US as teachers to their records in the School Workforce Census (an annually-collected English administrative dataset holding information on serving teachers 2010-present). The dataset is owned by DfE, who have already helped link National Pupil Database data to US, so may be receptive to such a match (though I have not asked this of anyone at DfE yet).<br />• Would separate linkage permission specific to a new match be required from participants?<br />• If so, what would the likely timescale be? Would it be retrospective (i.e. stretch back to Wave 1)? Is it likely that those who oversee US would be willing to make such a match?</p>