Understanding Society User Support: Issueshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/support/favicon.ico?15995719382019-08-20T14:35:34ZUnderstanding Society User Support
Redmine Support #1230 (Closed): Equality Act 2010 definition of disabilityhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/12302019-08-20T14:35:34ZOnyinye Ezeyi
<p>Hi there,</p>
<p>I would like to conduct some analysis on disabled sample members in USoc as defined by the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010). EA2010 defines an individual to be disabled if they "have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities." (source: <a class="external" href="https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010">https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010</a>)</p>
<p>I have identified the variable g_health in wave 7 as covering the 'long-term' element of the EA2010 definition. However, I would like some guidance on how I go about identifying the 'day to day' element of the EA2010 definition. Would it be sufficient to class individuals as EA2010 disabled if they provide at least one response to the variable g_disdif i.e. state that their health is limited by the activities listed in g_disdif? Or I assume that individuals that state 'yes' in the g_health variable are EA2010 disabled?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance,<br />Onyinye</p> Support #914 (Closed): end dates of individual interview for IP W9https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/9142018-02-08T11:22:50ZOlga Maslovskayaom206@soton.ac.uk
<p>I have noticed that in i_indresp_ip there are the following variables available:</p>
<p>Individual interview start time (hours)<br />Individual interview start time (minutes)<br />Individual interview start time (seconds)<br />Interview start date (year)<br />Interview start date (month)<br />Interview start date (day)<br />Time at end of individual interview (hours)<br />Time at end of individual interview (minutes)<br />Time at end of individual interview (seconds)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, interview end date is not available. I can see from data that at least on 64 occasions “interview” ended not on the same day which is expected with online mode of data collection. Unfortunately, I do not know how many days lapsed between the beginning and the end. Is there a chance to get interview end date (year, month, day) variables?</p>
<p>Many thanks!</p> Support #421 (Closed): mining of genetic + other data: collaboration?https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4212015-09-24T13:27:13ZKatrijn Van Deunk.vandeun@uvt.nl
<p>In general my question is whether collaboration on the Understanding Society data is possible.</p>
<p>In particular: I am an expert in statistical learning methods (data mining) and preparing a grant proposal on the mining of high dimensional (many,many more variables than observations) multi-source data. For example, finding gene-environment interactions in combined genetic and survey data.</p>
<p>I have experience in working with genetic (transcriptomics) data and using Bioconductor. Yet, to make most out of the project, it would be necessary to collaborate with people who know the data well and who are able to interpret results in terms of gene-environment interactions. It would also be very useful to know on what to focus, eg obesity.</p>
<p>So, is there a way to collobarate on this specific topic of mining large and integrated data?</p>
<p>Thank you for your time spent on this issue.</p> Support #403 (Closed): Questionnaire epilepsyhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/4032015-08-17T08:34:14ZElisabeth Burdukovalburdukova@mapigroup.com
<p>Dear Sir or Madam,</p>
<p>I am writing to you to request some information about the Understanding society study. My colleagues and I are developing a Global Data Landscape on Epilepsy for a pharmaceutical company. In our search we came across your publications. We would very much appreciate it if you could provide your insights on the type of records contained in the study. Please find attached a short questionnaire. You could easily answer to most of the question with yes/no.</p>
<p>We would be very grateful if you would find time to answer to some of our questions. Thank you very much for your help!<br />I am not able to attach a word file to this request, but please contact me via email (<a class="email" href="mailto:lburdukova@mapigroup.com">lburdukova@mapigroup.com</a>) in case you are willing to reply.</p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p>Elisabeth Burdukova</p> Support #332 (Closed): In ECHP, FC and WFTC are included in pi211mg and deducted to get pi211m?https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/3322015-01-05T10:59:15ZDiego ColladoDiego.Collado@uantwerp.be
<p>I wish to kindly ask whether in ECHP (based on BHPS) in the UK the family credit (FC) and the working family tax credit (WFTC) are included in the variable pi211mg (CURRENT WAGE AND SALARY EARNINGS - GROSS (MONTHLY)) and deducted (besides other deductions) to get the variable pi211m (net). I tend to think that this is not the case because these credits are delivered as benefits (and not as tax deductions as, for example, in Sweden). However, I thought that the WFTC might be deducted as mentioned since this benefit is related to work.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I have not found a document with the transformation of BHPS variables into ECHP ones. With this document I could perhaps have a better grasp of what I am asking.</p>
<p>I am analysing the evolution of gross and net wages in ECHP; therefore, as WFTC replaced the FC in October 1999, it is important for me to know what I ask.</p>
<p>Kind regards</p> Support #327 (Closed): Fed-forward employment status at W3https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/3272014-11-21T15:56:02ZAmanda Hughesa.hughes.11@ucl.ac.uk
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>I'm slightly concerned about the'fed-forward' employment status variables from wave 2 to wave 3, because they don't seem to match up with current activity from the wave before.</p>
<p>In wave 3, the variable c_ff_jbstat doesn't match up with the current employment status reported at wave 2, at least not for the BHPS sample (to which my analysis is restricted).</p>
<p>I'm aware that there are two separate accounts of employment status at W2, which already to some extent conflict with each other: 1) b_jbstat, in answer to 'which of these best describes your current employment situation?', and 2) what you get from the annual events history module, i.e. the fed-forward activity from the wave before if that is still current (b_ff_jbstat if b_empchk==1 | b_notempchk==1), or one of the subsequent activity spells up to the 10th if that activity spell was reported as still current as of the wave 2 interview (i.e., if b_currjob==1 | b_currstat==2).</p>
<p>HOWEVER, c_ff_jbstat doesn't match up with either of these for thousands of people. Even is a simple case, restricting to the BHPS sample people who at wave 2 said they were still doing the wave 2 fed-forward activity from the last wave of the BHPS, b_ff_jbstat!=c_ff_jbstat for almost two thousand people.</p>
<p>I then looked at the equivalent problem for wave 2 - i.e. whether the fed-forward employment status at wave 2 for the BHPS sample actually matches up with current employment status as reported at wave 18 of the BHPS. Again, it doesn't for 3,924 of the 14419 people present at both waves.</p>
<p>In both cases (BHPS 18/UKHLS W2, and UKHLS W2/UKHLS W3) many of the discrepant cases are where there is data for one variable but not the other - but how could this happen if it was genuinely fed-forward? Also in both cases, there are discrepant cases which are both valid values but incompatible, for example 'employed' and 'retired'.</p>
<p>Given all of this, could you explain how at both UKHLS W2 and UKHLS W3 the 'fed-forward' activity was actually derived?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />Amanda</p> Support #319 (Closed): Merging individual and household data in SPSShttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/3192014-10-30T15:18:14ZEmine Deviren
<p>I am trying to look at disability onset and offset rates (so if people become or lose their impairments/disability over time) by different demographics, one of these being income/poverty.</p>
<p>For each of the waves I have been able to create a household poverty figure. However I need to know if anyone who is disabled is in these households and measure this over time. This involved merging the individual and household data longitudinally.</p>
<p>I have seen the user manual for guidance on how to do this in STATA, but need to find out how to do this SPSS.</p>
<p>I have tried using each waves household identifier to merge the data and then the individual identifier to merge across waves. But when merging the individual data (the disability variable - showing whether respondent is disabled or not) and household data the poverty measure aligns with the first respondent in each household. Which is fine if looking at individual waves, however, when merging the waves, as the same household respondent doesn't always answer the questionnaire, the poverty variables do not align (e.g. below) - so I cannot conduct any analysis on this.</p>
<p>e.g. - column 1 household identifier, column 2 household respondent no, column 3 disabled and in poverty wave1, column 4 disabled and in poverty wave2: <br />1,1,yes,blank<br />1,2,blank,yes</p>
<p>Is there a simple solution to this - and is it possible to do in SPSS?</p>
<p>Thanks</p> Support #243 (Closed): BHPS query - Waves 12 + 17https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/2432014-02-13T18:11:32ZJonathan Burtonjburton@essex.ac.uk
<p>Query from Curtis - Channel 4 want to use this data quite urgently.</p>
<p>A slightly random question - I've been looking at BHPS data on young people's opinions on the likelihood of future events ([W]FUTR[X]), and it doesn't look quite right to me.</p>
<p>For example, between 'LFUTRE' & 'QFUTRE' - 'Likelihood: Long term unemployed' there is an apparently very large shift in the percentage of participants coding '0%', related to a similarly large shift in those coding 'Doesn't apply'.</p>
<p>Wave 12 - "Doesn't apply" - 1%<br />Wave 17 - "Doesn't apply" - 39%</p>
<p>Wave 12 - "0%" - 40%<br />Wave 17 - "0%" - 8%</p>
<p>I noticed in the questionnaire the code for 'Doesn't apply' seems to be '0' - I was wondering whether this might have caused some confusion? Or am I seeing problems where there are none?</p> Support #200 (Closed): relationship data in altego filehttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/2002013-09-16T09:39:19ZDerek King
<p>I could be misunderstanding the data and coding, but it would appear to me as if some of the relationship data is not consistent. For example, household number 68028563 contains six individuals at Wave 1. It would appear that person 2 is the husband/spouse of person 1 and that persons 3 through 6 are the natural parent of person 1. Is it to be assumed that that two of these are parents-in-law (i.e. code 13 instead of 9)? Further, within this household, persons 3 through 6 identify persons 1 and 2 as natural son/daughter, and the (other) persons 3 through 6 as natural brother/sister. That is, person 3 identifies persons 4, 5 and 6 as natural brother/sister. Would it be possible to get some feedback on this?</p> Support #158 (Closed): Derived income variables in the BHPShttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/1582013-06-12T17:07:43ZSara Watson
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>We've noticed some discrepancies in the construction of derived income variables. Any thoughts would be most appreciated.</p>
<p>1. According to the User's Manual, household income fihhyr sums income from fiyr. However, we find a sizable difference between the two measures.</p>
<p>gen newinc=fiyr if fiyr>=0 // Exclude missings, proxies, etc<br />bysort hid: egen check_fihhyr = sum(newinc) // Summing household income from fiyr<br />gen diff_fihhyr=check_fihhyr-fihhyr if fihhyr>=0</p>
<p>*This is most easily seen when we focus on single-member households:<br />bysort hid : egen count_hid=count(hid)<br />gen diff_fihhyr_singletons=newinc-fihhyr if count_hid==1 & fihhyr>=0</p>
<p>The difference between the two measures is most often zero, but for 10 percent of obs is negative. These differences can be quite large, so that the mean is over 3000 pounds.</p>
<p>Do you have any advice? Is there anything we are missing--for instance, is there an additional income source that fihhyr includes? Does it use imputation from across waves?</p>
<p>2. According to the User's Manual, fiyrb sums income from ficodes 1,5,6,16-22,31-41 (dividing joint income by two when appropriate). </p>
<pre><code>a) It seems that other benefits outside this list of ficodes have been included in fiyrb. The ones we have noticed are the job seeker's allowance and the child tax credit. Is this correct, and are there other benefits summed in fiyrb?</code></pre>
<pre><code>b) There are several obs, most of which arise in wave 6, for which fiyrb does not count certain benefits. For instance, to implement the following code we have previously used ficode to total each type of benefit income (dividing joint income by 2 when flagged).</code></pre>
<p>local fiyrblist pensioner widowpension widowmom severe_disab invalid_pens ind_injury attendance mobility_allow invalidcare wardisability /*<br />*/ ub_is incomesupport ub ni_sickness childben loneparentben_a wf_taxcredit maternity housingben counciltax_ben other_stateben <br />gen tag2=.<br />foreach var of local firyblist {<br /> replace tag2=1 if fiyrb<`var'-1 & !missing(`var') & fiyrb>=0<br />}</p>
<p>This is a stark test, as it only counts cases when the total fiyrb is less than any given component, but even here we flag 169 obs. Is there anything we are missing here---for instance, is there an additional rule that determines whether fiyrb will include a certain income source?</p>
<p>3. Are we correct in our perception that fiyr sums fiyrl and fiyrnl where both are non-missing?</p>
<p>Here we can reproduce fiyr almost exactly with the following:<br />gen check_fiyr=fiyrl+fiyrnl if fiyrl>=0 & fiyrnl>=0 <br />gen tag=1 if (fiyr-1>check_fiyr | fiyr+1<check_fiyr) & !missing(fiyr) & !missing(check_fiyr) // Allows for rounding error</p>
<p>The sole exception (tag==1) is an individual in wave 3 whose nonlabor income is for some reason not<br />included in fiyr.</p>
<p>Thanks so much for your help with these questions!</p>
<p>All the best,<br />Sara Watson<br />--------------------------------------<br />Dr. Sara Watson<br />Assistant Professor<br />Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University<br />2140 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall<br />Columbus, OH 43210-1373</p>
<p><a class="email" href="mailto:watson.584@osu.edu">watson.584@osu.edu</a>; <a class="email" href="mailto:watson.584@polisci.osu.edu">watson.584@polisci.osu.edu</a></p> Support #148 (Closed): testhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/1482013-05-15T13:18:35ZRedmine Adminjpeterb@essex.ac.ukSupport #119 (Closed): Large values on alcohol consumption variableshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/1192013-01-31T15:52:32ZKareena McAloneykareena.mcaloney@york.ac.uk
<p>I have a query about the self-report values for alcohol consumption on heaviest drinking day in the self-report adult wave 2 data. Presumably the questions across four types of alcohol drinks are intended to provide an estimate of the number of each types of drinks (and in combination the total alcohol consumption) on a single occasion identifies as the highest intake inthe last 7 days. When I look at these variables, they have a very large range - for example pint consumption ranges from 0 pints to 780 pints. <br />Is there any possibility of this being an error in input across all 4 types; or is there something potentially incorrect in my reading of the item; or are these values as reported in the survey, and if so is there any directions from the project team as to how to interpret or work with this data.<br />Many thanks<br />Kareena</p> Support #96 (Closed): SN 3954 British Household Panel Survey Combined Work-Life Historyhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/962012-11-22T17:43:12ZChris Foster
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I would like to know how the Date variable is actually calculated in the SN 3954 British Household Panel Survey Combined Work-Life History Data, 1990-2005, particularly in the 'ljempe' episode for STATA. It says the date is given as the month number, but that would mean the most recent data in the whole survey was taken in 2000 (as 1205/12= 100.45) whereas I believed the data was going to reach up until 2005 as the title suggests? I'm probably missing something obvious here but would appreciate some advice,</p>
<p>Thanks<br />Chris</p> Support #85 (Closed): BHPS work history datahttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/852012-10-18T15:56:26ZLindsey Macmillan
<p>I wondered if you could tell me if there was any work underway to update the BHPS work history files that currently run from 1990-2005 (SN 3954 on data archive). I've used this file extensively in my research but would like to update some of it at some stage and would be good to know if it's already happening? Would there be someone to talk to if we did undertake a project to update this file who could help make sure it was consistent with the original work?</p> Support #61 (Closed): HOUSEHOLD INCOMEhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/612012-05-31T10:06:51ZEthan Greenwoodethan.greenwood@newham.gov.uk
<p>Please can you tell me how you calculate household income from the understanding society questionnaire? I would be grateful for the formula used.</p>