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 #886 (Closed): Zero weights and statistical powerhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8862017-12-04T17:45:15ZEric Emersoneric.emerson@lancaster.ac.uk
<p>Hi</p>
<p>I'm interested in data contained the harassment modules (in Waves 1, 3, 5 and 7), but am concerned about the significant reduction in statistical power arising from the increasing proportion of respondents who are assigned values of 0 in w_ind5mus_xw. I understand from a previous thread (<a class="issue tracker-3 status-3 priority-5 priority-high2" title="Support: weights for pooled cross-sections over waves (a)-(f) (Resolved)" href="https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/877">#877</a>) that ..... 'The provision of weights requires the ability to estimate probabilities of continuing to respond over multiple waves. This is true of cross-sectional weights as well as longitudinal ones, as they are derived from the longitudinal ones (how this was done is described in section 3.8.3.10 of the User Guide). In consequence, a person in a household where there is no person who has been enumerated at every wave up to wave w will get a weight of zero. Such people should not be given a weight, as the weights for all other sample members are calculated in a way that compensates for these "missing" people.'</p>
<p>However, the 'compensation' appears to also result in a significant loss of statistical power. Taking as base the unweighted number of respondents who provide a valid answer to the 'attacked' items, the weighted population size has reduced from 92% of actual respondents in W1 (7418/8072) to just 27% in W7 (2711/9973). The resulting reduction in power is of concern and given the rationale outlined above, will continue to increase over time as the % of households in which someone has been enumerated at every wave will continue to diminish. It also seems rather wasteful of people's time that the responses of the majority of participants is, through the weighting process, assigned to a statistical waste bin!</p>
<p>Be very grateful if you could suggest any ways round this problem.</p>
<p>Many thanks</p>
<p>Eric</p> Support #884 (Closed): Missing call records for the wave 2 and wave 3 nurse visitshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8842017-11-23T00:04:39ZFiona Pashazadeh
<p>Dear Understanding Society Team,</p>
<p>I am hoping to investigate the usefulness of call records from the nurse visits in predicting non-response however I have found that a large number of households are missing the call record data in the files b_callrec_ns and c_callrec_ns. This seems to be the case even where households have been assigned a nurse ID when matching to b_hhsamp_ns and c_hhsamp_ns. Could you let me know why this call record data is missing for the sampled households?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Fiona.</p> Support #883 (Closed): a_indrep.sav Rel Quality Datahttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8832017-11-22T15:18:14ZSharon Blake
<p>I am writing in respect of your data set a_indrep.sav as available via UK Data Service. I noticed that in this wave you asked respondents questions from the Spanier dyadic adjustment scale - variables labelled as follows:</p>
<p>a_screlparei<br />a_screlparcd<br />a_screlparwt<br />a_screlpards<br />a_screlparrg<br />a_screlparar<br />a_screlparir<br />a_screlparks<br />a_scparoutint<br />a_screlhappy</p>
<p>I am currently working on a research project which too uses this scale and I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of any publications that have analysed the results of the answers to these questions in your data set? Were they specifically added to the survey for a particular project? <br />Many thanks,<br />Sharon</p> Support #882 (Closed): scprely, scrrely and scfrely https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8822017-11-21T13:34:15ZChris Randallchris.randall@ons.gov.uk
<p>Could i just check that these variables are not included in the survey after wave 5? Can't find them on the questionnaires.</p> Support #880 (Closed): Genetic data linked to NPDhttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8802017-11-15T16:13:46ZMichelle Lucianomichelle.luciano@ed.ac.uk
<p>Is genetic data available for individuals with linked National Pupil Database Wave 1 data, if so, what is the sample size? Thanks,<br />michelle</p> Support #879 (Closed): macob_all and pacob_all in xwavedat_protect are not available https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8792017-11-12T14:54:20ZNico Ochmannnico.ochmann@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
<p>Dear Alita,</p>
<p>I hope you are doing well. I have noticed that macob_all and pacob_all are not available in xwavedat_protect, but just macob and pacob. I am wondering why this is the case. I did notice that they are present for each individual wave in the special licence version. <br />Will you guys make these variables available in wave 7 for the protected dataset? <br />If not, what would be an elegant way to construct these two variables from the individual waves.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for your help once again.</p>
<p>Nico</p> Support #876 (Closed): Cross wave (xwave) variable for parents occupations NSSEC 5 cats?https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8762017-11-10T10:26:40Znicola brimblecombe
<p>Hi</p>
<p>Is there a cross wave (xwave) derived variable available for father's and mother's occupation when respondent was aged 14: NSSEC 5 categories? This variable is available for all US waves but for the xwave data only the condensed SOC categories (SOC90, 00 and 10) seem available. Alternatively is there syntax, or a list/instructions, available to derive the NNSEC5 categories from the condensed SOC list?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Nicola</p> Support #875 (Closed): Veterans employmenthttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8752017-11-02T16:09:16ZDavid Owen
<p>I hope to use US to identify the labour market experience of former members of the UK armed forces, with a particular interest in identifying the experience of those who went into self-employment. I note that the variables in US include occupation, and the armed forces can be identified by 4 digit SOC 2010 code (and approximated by 3 digit SOC). Does the survey also include a variable which identifies current or former service in the armed forces? Can reservists be identified?</p> Support #873 (Closed): Westminster constituency identifiershttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8732017-10-31T18:18:31ZQuinton Mayne
<p>I am looking for information that will allow me to identify the individual parliamentary constituencies that respondents lived in during the period 1991-1996. The default parliamentary constituency file currently available contains data for the constituencies that took effect with the 1997 General Election. As a result, it "imposes" the post-1997 situation on the 1991-1996 period. If possible, I would like to be able to identify the old constituencies that were in place prior to 1997.<br />Many thanks for your help.</p> Support #871 (Closed): Confirmation Wave 1 -9 https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8712017-10-26T10:46:32ZVictoria Thompson
<p>I just want to confirm - that to date there are only waves 1-6. The information on the website which shows waves 1-9 is part of the long term content plan.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Victoria</p> Support #870 (Closed): Change in boundaries of Local Authority Districshttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8702017-10-26T09:52:07ZJascha Tutt
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I am working on a project linking survey respondents to Local Authority Districts (LAD). I have access to the Special License data from Understanding Society (UKHLS). To my understanding households are allocated to a certain LAD by their postcode. Postcodes can change annually (see ONS and description of LAD data). Furthermore, it seems that LAD boundaries are also subject to change over time (2009, 2014,2015, and 2016).</p>
<p>I have two questions relating to the allocation of a household to a specific LAD.<br />First, is it possible that a household is allocated to LAD X in 2010, say, but than, due to a change in postcode, is allocated to LAD Y in 2011 even though the household did not move? <br />Second, to which LAD boundary does the UKHLS LAD data refer? For instance, does the 2014 UKHLS LAD data refer to the 2009 or 2014 LAD boundary. How does UKHLS handle changes in LAD boundaries?</p>
<p>Thank you in advance!<br />Best,<br />Jascha</p> Support #869 (Closed): Unexpectedly strong gender homophily in Understanding Society compared wit...https://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8692017-10-25T14:46:38ZTill Hoffmann
<a name="Summary"></a>
<h1 >Summary<a href="#Summary" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h1>
<p>I am interested in homophily effects that can be derived from the social network questions in waves B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R of the BHPS and waves C and F of Understanding Society. Homophily with respect to occupational status is relatively constant across all waves, and age homophily only changes slightly. However, homophily with respect to gender increases sharply from the last wave of the BHPS (R) to the first wave of Understanding Society (C). Do you happen to have any ideas whether a data error (or misuse on my part) might cause such an effect?</p>
<a name="Details-and-code-for-reproducing-the-observations"></a>
<h1 >Details and code for reproducing the observations<a href="#Details-and-code-for-reproducing-the-observations" class="wiki-anchor">¶</a></h1>
<p>For each wave of the survey I compute the contingency table of the sex of the ego (respondent) and alter (nominated friend) and apply the Fisher exact test (<a class="external" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_exact_test">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_exact_test</a>) to compute the odds ratio of association and test for statistical significance.</p>
<p>To account for effects of the survey design I use the weight <pre>#xrwght</pre> for the BHPS and <pre>#_indscub_xw</pre> for Understanding Society (the results are similar when omitting the survey weights). The results below include survey weights but the contingency tables have been rounded to the nearest integer. The code to reproduce the results can be found here: <a class="external" href="https://gist.github.com/tillahoffmann/e48dbc3546c418561263d181b2bda694">https://gist.github.com/tillahoffmann/e48dbc3546c418561263d181b2bda694</a></p>
<p>Thank you very much for your help!</p>
<pre>
BHPS wave: b
Contingency table
[[ 8862 3011]
[ 2202 11176]]
Odds ratio: 14.947, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: d
Contingency table
[[ 8435 2817]
[ 2053 11044]]
Odds ratio: 16.116, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: f
Contingency table
[[ 8500 3253]
[ 2195 11149]]
Odds ratio: 13.277, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: h
Contingency table
[[ 8328 3034]
[ 1980 10994]]
Odds ratio: 15.249, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: j
Contingency table
[[ 7936 2935]
[ 1941 10541]]
Odds ratio: 14.697, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: l
Contingency table
[[ 7625 2791]
[ 1888 10157]]
Odds ratio: 14.696, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: n
Contingency table
[[7320 2663]
[1827 9780]]
Odds ratio: 14.713, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: p
Contingency table
[[7099 2597]
[1714 9436]]
Odds ratio: 15.052, p-value: 0.000000
BHPS wave: r
Contingency table
[[ 7682 2910]
[ 1964 10312]]
Odds ratio: 13.865, p-value: 0.000000
Understanding Society wave: c
Contingency table
[[36818 9400]
[ 6777 44476]]
Odds ratio: 25.710, p-value: 0.000000
Understanding Society wave: f
Contingency table
[[30372 7348]
[ 5004 36279]]
Odds ratio: 29.972, p-value: 0.000000
</pre> Support #868 (Closed): wealthassetsanddebthttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8682017-10-20T09:47:48ZAnonymous
<p>Dear staff,</p>
<p>Do you have any information on when the next time data on assets and debt will be collected (the "wealthassetsanddebt" section)?</p>
<p>I would be grateful if you could provide any information on the timing of future collection of these variables.</p> Support #867 (Closed): Wave 6 f_hhnetinc1 set to zero rather than missing for iemb samplehttps://iserredex.essex.ac.uk/support/issues/8672017-10-18T10:08:35ZDavid Leesedavid.leese@jrf.org.uk
<p>I'm looking at constructing income quintiles based on the f_hhnetinc1 variable.</p>
<p>Looking at the data, 90% of records from the UKHLS IEMB 2014/15 sample are set to zero. The rest are missing. After looking at the f_netinc1 variable in the individual file 100% of the values are misisng for that sample.</p>
<p>Therefore, can you confirm that all f_hhnetinc1 values should be missing rather than zero where f_hhorig is equal to UKHLS IEMB 2014/15 (8).</p>
<p>Many thanks, and apologies if this has already been raised, I couldn't find anything when searching.</p>
<p>David</p>