An example of longitudinal LFS weights

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

UK Longitudinal Studies Centre Weighting the BHPS Nick Buck Institute for Social and Economic Research University of Essex.

Advertisements

Outline of talk The ONS surveys Why should we weight?

Longitudinal LFS Catherine Barham and Paul Smith ONS.

Labour Force Historical Review Sandra Keys, University of Waterloo DLI OntarioTraining University of Guelph, Guelph, ON April 12, 2006.

Survey Methodology Nonresponse EPID 626 Lecture 6.

An Assessment of the Impact of Two Distinct Survey Design Modifications on Health Insurance Coverage Estimates in a National Health Care Survey Steven.

ISTAT - Italian National Institute of Statistics Labour Force Survey Division Unit “Methods for LFS data treatment” 5 th Workshop on LFS methodology Paris,

1 Sampling Telephone Numbers and Adults, and Interview Length, and Weighting in the California Health Survey Cell Phone Pilot Study J. Michael Brick, Westat.

The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Sample design & response Shaun Scholes NatCen.

Solving the Problem of Attrition in Longitudinal Surveys: Effects of Interviewer Continuity Peter Lynn, Olena Kaminska University of Essex and Harvey Goldstein.

Riku Salonen Regression composite estimation for the Finnish LFS from a practical perspective.

Life Opportunities Survey (LOS) Wave 2 Weighting Andy Fallows and Sangeetha Gallagher.

The obsession with weight in the modelling world And it’s ancillary affects on Analysis.

Quantitative Research Deals with quantities and relationships between attributes (variables). Involves the collection and analysis of highly structured.

NLSCY – Non-response. Non-response There are various reasons why there is non-response to a survey  Some related to the survey process Timing Poor frame.

© John M. Abowd 2005, all rights reserved Analyzing Frames and Samples with Missing Data John M. Abowd March 2005.

Survey Research Chapter 17: How To Design And Evaluate Research In Education James Blackwood AED 615 – Fall Semester 2006.

08/08/2015 Statistics Canada Statistique Canada Paradata Collection Research for Social Surveys at Statistics Canada François Laflamme International Total.

Joint Canada/U.S. Health Survey Catherine Simile, National Center for Health Statistics Patrice Mathieu, Statistics Canada Ed Rama, Statistics Canada NCHS.

Household Surveys ACS – CPS - AHS INFO 7470 / ECON 8500 Warren A. Brown University of Georgia February 22,

PREPARATION, ORGANISATION AND CONDUCTING OF THE POST- ENUMERATION SURVEY IN THE STATE STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Skopje, May 2008.

The Labour Force Survey Process- The Jamaican Experience CARICOM 2 nd High Level Advocacy Forum on Statistics Presented by: Carol Coy The Statistical Institute.

Sample Design Establishments Surveys Stuart Brown Research, Design & Evaluation January 2013 STATISTICAL INSTITUTE OF JAMAICA.

Definitions Observation unit Target population Sample Sampled population Sampling unit Sampling frame.

Andrey Veykher National Research University «Higher School оf Economics» in St-Petersburg, Russia The representative study of households based on the data.

Antonio R. Discenza: Silvia Loriga: Alessandro Martini:

Methodology for producing the revised back series of population estimates for Julie Jefferies Population and Demography Division Office for.

ESEC Conference Using the classification in the case of the LFS Bled, June 2006 Natasa Kozlevcar.

European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Roma, July 8-11, 2008 New Sampling Design of INSEE’s Labour Force Survey Sébastien Hallépée Vincent.

A Strategy for Prioritising Non-response Follow-up to Reduce Costs Without Reducing Output Quality Gareth James Methodology Directorate UK Office for National.

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 NSF Summer Data Policy Institute July 22, 2007.

ISTAT - Italian National Institute of Statistics Labour Force Survey Division Unit “Methods for LFS data treatment” European Conference on Quality in Official.

Brown, Suter, and Churchill Basic Marketing Research (8 th Edition) © 2014 CENGAGE Learning Basic Marketing Research Customer Insights and Managerial Action.

Current Population Survey Sponsor: Bureau of Labor Statistics Collector: Census Bureau Purpose: Monthly Data for Analysis of Labor Market Conditions –CPS.

USAGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATA IN EU-SILC SURVEY Signe Bāliņa University of Latvia.

National design, fieldwork and data harmonization for Labour Force Survey Irena Svetin Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia September 2014.

Using administrative registers in sample surveys European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics 3-6 May 2010 Kaja Sõstra Statistics Estonia.

Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Reducing Non-Response Section A 1.

Dag van de Lokale Rekenkamer “Weighting the consequences” Martijn Souren Consistent LFS weighting Statistics Netherlands LFS workshop, Paris.

Building Wave Response Rates in a Longitudinal Survey: Essential for Nonsampling Error Reduction or Last In - First Out? Steven B. Cohen Fred Rohde and.

Estimation of preliminary unemployment rates by means of multiple imputation UN/ECE-Work Session on Data Editing Vienna, April 2008 Thomas Burg, Statistics.

May 12-15, Evaluating the Integrated Census Israel Pnina ZADKA Central Bureau of Statistics Israel.

Household Surveys: American Community Survey & American Housing Survey Warren A. Brown February 8, 2007.

Survey Research.

Improving of Household Sample Surveys Data Quality on Base of Statistical Matching Approaches Ganna Tereshchenko Institute for Demography and Social Research,

Workshop LFS, April Estimating the non-response bias using exogenous data on employment Etienne Debauche Corinne Prost.

Rome, May 2014 Structural variables Weighting the Spanish annual subsample.

Statistics Canada Citizenship and Immigration Canada Methodological issues.

Regional Seminar on Developing a Program for the Implementation of the 2008 SNA and Supporting Statistics Gökhan KOÇTÜRK September 2013 Ankara -

Tracking Case Dispositions and Calculating Response Rates in the ACS Prepared for the September 26, 2006 meetings of the Federal-State Cooperative Program.

Module 25: Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Tests for Variances for One Sample This module discusses confidence intervals and hypothesis tests.

1 1 Using administrative registers to evaluate the effects of proxy interviews in the Norwegian Labour Force Survey Øyvin Kleven, Ib Thomsen and Ole Villund.

COMBINING SURVEY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA IN THE ITALIAN EU-SILC EXPERIENCE: POSITIVE AND CRITICAL ASPECTS National Institute of Statistics - Italy Claudio.

Chapter 3 Research Design.

Utility of an overlapping panel design in the MEPS Steven B. Cohen, Ph.D.

Component D: Data Collection in Field Surveys Activity D.1: Management and monitoring of field interviewers Surveys Department EU Twinning Project.

Attrition and Selection of alteri Respondents in the pairfam panel

Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment Research

The effects of rotational design and attrition

LAMAS Working Group December 2014

Nonresponse adjustments and calibration: a comparison between two methods to weight the Labour Force Survey Tania Borg Principal Statistician Labour Market.

Estimation of Employment for Cities, Towns and Rural Districts

LAMAS Working Group 29 June-1 July 2016

Implementing mixed mode questionnaire in FI-SILC

Agenda item 5.2 Methodology

Mode effects in mixed-mode data collection WP2

Item 4.1: Annual labour market flows

For 2019 Joint Statistical Meetings July 29, 2019 | Denver, CO By

Workshop on best practices for EU-SILC revision, −

Stratification, calibration and reducing attrition rate in the Dutch EU-SILC Judit Arends.

Presentation transcript:

An example of longitudinal LFS weights Katja.Rutar@gov.si Division for general methodology and standards

LFS panel sample sizes (number of households) for the years 2012 and 2013 Part Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012/1 2397 1583 1138 997 874 2012/2 2412 1527 1161 972 840 2012/3 2388 1478 1143 995 877 2012/4 2461 1581 1252 1037 2013/1 2474 1611 1226 2013/2 2491 1660 1263 2013/3 2483 1638 2013/4 2473 annual overlap quarterly overlap

Data collection First wave – CAPI Repeated waves – (predominantly) CATI Nonresponding households from previous quarters are not included in the panel sample Response rate: in first wave – 66%; in repeated waves – 83% Average households size for responding households ~ 2,75 members

Number of responding individuals Year 2012 2013 Part Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012/1 4498 3152 2752 2456 2204 2012/2 4360 3227 2686 2316 2163 2012/3 4167 3136 2767 2451 2214 2012/4 4318 3417 2858 2511 2013/1 4308 3308 2916 2013/2 4529 3507 2981 2013/3 4449 3455 2013/4 4330 annual overlap = 2725 quarterly overlap = 8586

Number of responding individuals – 15 years + 2012 2013 Part Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012/1 3887 2715 2385 2123 1909 2012/2 3809 2826 2346 2026 1895 2012/3 3638 2723 2404 2137 1919 2012/4 3794 2991 2505 2209 2013/1 3751 2866 2533 2013/2 3934 3022 2563 2013/3 3937 3037 2013/4 3779 annual overlap = 4128 quarterly overlap = 7450

Non-response distribution of the longitudinal sample – 3rd to 4th quarter 2013 2012Q3 / 2012Q4 Households % 2nd wave 3rd wave 5th wave Sample 3769 1641 1252 876 Ineligible 3 0,1% 0,0% Response 3135 83,2% 77,2% 85,0% 91,8% Nonresponse 631 16,8% 22,7% 14,9% 8,2% - Refusals 425 67,4% 65,6% 71,7% 65,3% - Noncontacts 84 13,3% 14,8% 11,2% 11,1% - Other 122 19,3% 19,6% 17,1% 23,6%

Attrition by selected relevant characteristics of the household (completion rate)

Weighting steps Cross-sectional design weights (on strata and wave level) Cross-sectional non-response weghts (on strata and wave level) Longitudinal non-response wave (on strata level, to response statuses at the final quarter) Grossing up to population total (wave level) Calibration to demographic data (all data together, to first quarter situation) Calibration to main employment statuses (all data together, to first quarter situation) + Calibration to demographic data (all data together, to first quarter situation) + Calibration to main employment statuses (all data together, to first quarter situation)

Longitudinal population Q – Q (July 1st 2013 vs. Oct 1st 2013) 3th quarter 2013 3th and 4th quarter 2013 4th quarter 2013 Male Female 0 - 14 years 153.993 145.295 153.678 144.998 154.432 145.840 15 - 64 years 721.773 682.194 718.959 680.540 720.853 681.283 65 years + 143.892 211.967 142.177 209.948 145.170 213.085 Total 1.019.658 1.039.456 1.014.814 1.035.486 1.020.455 1.040.208 2.059.114 2.050.300 2.060.663

Longitudinal population Y – Y (Oct 1st 2012 vs. Oct 1st 2013) 4th quarter 2012 4h quarter 2012 and 2013 4th quarter 2013 Male Female 0 - 14 years 152.786 144.173 151.971 143.441 154.432 145.840 15 - 64 years 724.926 685.520 715.330 679.943 720.853 681.283 65 years + 140.765 209.953 133.570 200.967 145.170 213.085 Total 1.018.477 1.039.646 1.000.871 1.024.351 1.020.455 1.040.208 2.058.123 2.025.222 2.060.663

Basic descriptive statistics for the Q – Q longitudinal weight, compared to standard quarterly weight, 3rd quarter 2013 n mean stddev min q1 q3 max population W_LONG13q3 8.534 241,28 165,47 14,28 139,87 290,16 1.675,99 2.059.114 W_CROS13q3 15.486 132,97 90,25 10,79 76,44 159,86 1.100,41

Changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 3rd and 4th quarter 2013 – using longitudinal weight 2013Q3 / 2013Q4 Unemloyed Employed Inactive Population under 15 in 1000 % Unemployed 48 50 22 23 26 27 13 1 865 94 45 5 21 3 6 677 91 4 294 99

Changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 3rd and 4th quarter 2013 – using longitudinal weight 932 vs. 910 Employed 922 45 22 13 45 Uneemployed 96 Inactive 741 26 21 82 vs. 97 752 vs. 753

Relative standard errors for estimates of changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 3rd and 4th quarter 2013 – using longitudilan weight 2013Q3 / 2013Q4 Unemployed Employed Inactive Population under 15 CV % 6 12 10 15 1 9 13 8 23 2

Changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 3rd and 4th quarter 2013 – unweighted estimates 2013Q3 / 2013Q4 Unemloyed Employed Inactive Population under 15 % Unemployed 51 21 28 1 93 5 3 7 91 2 98

Y - Y

Basic descriptive statistics for the Y – Y longitudinal weight, compared to standard quarterly weight, 4rd quarter 2012 n mean stddev min q1 q3 max population W_LONG12q4 4.492 457,76 323,66 41,07 251,14 561,56 3.798,98 2.056.262 W_CROS12q4 14.407 142,73 98,09 15,65 81,96 170,59 1.225,36

Changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 4th quarter 2012 and 2013 – using longitudinal weight 2012Q4 / 2013Q4 Unemloyed Employed Inactive Population under 15 in 1000 % Unemployed 38 39 35 36 24 25 3 841 91 56 6 27 4 68 9 645 87 2 1 19 7 274 93

Relative standard errors for estimates of changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 4th quarter 2012 and 2013 – using longitudilan weight 2012Q4 / 2013Q4 Unemployed Employed Inactive Population under 15 CV % 9 13 11 15 2 14 88 16

Changes in main employment statuses for the cohort, interviewed in 4th quarter 2012 and 2013 – unweighted estimates 2012Q4 / 2013Q4 Unemloyed Employed Inactive Population under 15 % Unemployed 42 33 25 3 91 6 9 88 7 93

Conclusions & Open questions There are many possibilities to calculate longitudinal weights. At each separate stage of weighting process some assumptions have to be taken. Should we give priority to consistency of employment statuses, nonresponse adjustment, demographic distribution, at which point of time?