The name is absent

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

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

<<   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >>

More intriguing information