one they are highly likely to respond to income in the second sweep (91.2%). There
are only 82 cases in sweep two that are not applicable. Finally if the partner
respondent did not respond to the income questions at sweep one, 35.2% also
refused at sweep two, a higher proportion than for the main respondent (17.9%).
Tables 2 and 3 tell us that there are substantial within household correlations in
response behaviour: item non-response by the main respondent predicts item non-
response by the partner. There are also important within individual correlations
across sweeps: a don’t know or refusal at sweep two is more likely if there was a
don’t know or refusal at sweep one. On the other hand, both Tables 2 and 3 show
considerable movement across response categories: a don’t know or refusal by the
main respondent is more likely to be accompanied by a response rather than a non-
response from the partner and those who are item non-respondents at sweep one
are more likely than not to be respondents at sweep two.
Table 3: Within Individual Income Response across MCS Sweeps
|
MAIN |
______________Sweep Two______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Sweep One don’t |
17.9% |
26.7% |
55.4% |
100% |
|
know/refusal |
10.4% |
1.5% |
2.8% |
2.6% |
|
64 |
87 |
206 |
357 | |
|
not applicable |
2.9% |
74.4% |
22.8% |
100% |
|
32.0% |
82.5% |
22.0% |
49.3% | |
|
198 |
5920 |
1615 |
7733 | |
|
income |
5.3% |
14.8% |
79.9% |
100% |
|
response |
57.6% |
16.0% |
75.2% |
48.1% |
|
347 |
953 |
5204 |
6504 | |
|
total |
4.4% |
44.5% |
51.1% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
609 |
6960 |
7025 |
14594 | |
|
PARTNER |
______________Sweep Two______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Sweep One don’t |
35.2% |
0.4% |
64.4% |
100% |
|
know/refusal |
13.9% |
4.3% |
3.5% |
4.7% |
|
174 |
4 |
323 |
501 | |
|
not applicable |
22.9% |
2.4% |
74.7% |
100% |
|
27.1% |
73.4% |
12.0% |
14.1% | |
|
421 |
59 |
1298 |
1778 | |
|
income |
8.7% |
0.1% |
91.2% |
100% |
|
response |
59.0% |
22.4% |
84.5% |
81.2% |
|
707 |
19 |
6707 |
7433 | |
|
total |
11.9 |
0.5% |
87.6% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
1302 |
82 |
8328 |
9712 | |
NOTES:
1. weighted percentages, unweighted observations
2. each cell contains: row %, column % and observations
3. only including providing an interview at both sweeps one and two, therefore excluding unit non responders
at sweeps one and two
4. restricted to those who are the same main and partner respondents at both sweeps
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. QUEST II. A Multi-Country Business Cycle and Growth Model
3. Unilateral Actions the Case of International Environmental Problems
4. Subduing High Inflation in Romania. How to Better Monetary and Exchange Rate Mechanisms?
5. Public-private sector pay differentials in a devolved Scotland
6. Studying How E-Markets Evaluation Can Enhance Trust in Virtual Business Communities
7. Sex differences in the structure and stability of children’s playground social networks and their overlap with friendship relations
8. The name is absent
9. SOME ISSUES CONCERNING SPECIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMAND MODELS
10. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi