Centre for Longitudinal Studies



Appendix 10

Result of manual scrutiny of all ‘true’ NCDS multiple births (i.e.
where birth outcomes separated by no more than 3 days).

The following 117 cases had ‘true’ multiple outcomes. All were examined manually.
16 were problematic (see table below), of which 13 were altered (column ‘Ch?’=C).

All other cases were correctly entered.

043007J

043013C

044001A

044025R

050070F

055009E

055012T

083090Y

087011W

092098S

092261A

092337J

093176R

096026M

100010M

100024Y

100050Z

100076U

100080K

110251S

120135W

142009Q

183016T

184021R

186128W

186157D

186169M

187020E

188030P

200072T

215003F

235007C

235035J

286031N

287085T

287143E

289072U

289091Y

289133N

289141M

300094M

310029F

325002T

330027Q

340007Q

350145K

421030K

422030Q

422088Y

425010Z

433026M

434031K

481013Y

500015C

500069C

500208Q

500219V

500224N

500420N

500422S

500534D

503009Z

509206K

509254W

510161W

511116W

512069V

517054J

527001S

550118W

550232U

561007Y

565085S

620019H

630060L

640031K

650053B

680011D

681047H

730084J

750050C

781048S

782112D

784010F

821014S

821511H

822027H

850021C

850027R

883035A

950079U

950081E

950213V

950224A

950290Q

980004E

982067S

985071Y

986100J

986205Y

986275W

987069Y

X32040C

X37008K

X38008Q

X70072H

X70073K

X77019R

X80124F

X82025Q

X82193N

Y00174D

Y00293N

Y01578L

Y20162K

Y21034E

Y30137S

Nserial   Ch?Comments
043013C C Double miscarriage, with one other livebirth in wrong order

044001A C Double miscarriage, with single miscarriage & three other livebirths in wrong order

183016T C Twins bunched with single birth, wrong order. Delete pre-March 91 twins.

188030P C Miscarriage, then twins seven months later, wrong order: assume same pregnancy

500219V C Double miscarriage, but placed in separate pregnancies. Move to same pregnancy

500015C C Twins born on separate days entered in wrong order chronologically.

509254W C Twins born on separate days entered in wrong order chronologically.

620019H Two miscarriages in same year, sep. pregnancies: day and month not stated. Leave as is.

730084J C Twins entered correctly, but one other outcome entered out of chronol.order.

850027R Miscarriage, then twins five months later: assume same pregnancy, so leave as is.

950290Q C Miscarriage+double miscarriage 6 months later, then twins 1 month after that(?!), wrong order.

980004E C Miscarriage, then twins seven months later. Assume same pregnancy, but change order

986100J C Double miscarriage, wrongly bunched with miscarriage 4 years earlier

X38008Q C Twins entered as though in two separate pregnancies

Y00174D C Double miscarriage, entered as though two separate pregnancies

Y00293N Miscarriage, then twins six months later: assume same pregnancy, so leave as is.



More intriguing information

1. Transfer from primary school to secondary school
2. Regulation of the Electricity Industry in Bolivia: Its Impact on Access to the Poor, Prices and Quality
3. Do Decision Makers' Debt-risk Attitudes Affect the Agency Costs of Debt?
4. The Integration Order of Vector Autoregressive Processes
5. Does adult education at upper secondary level influence annual wage earnings?
6. The Economics of Uncovered Interest Parity Condition for Emerging Markets: A Survey
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Needing to be ‘in the know’: strategies of subordination used by 10-11 year old school boys
10. The name is absent
11. A Hybrid Neural Network and Virtual Reality System for Spatial Language Processing
12. Stable Distributions
13. The name is absent
14. Concerns for Equity and the Optimal Co-Payments for Publicly Provided Health Care
15. A Theoretical Growth Model for Ireland
16. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
17. An alternative way to model merit good arguments
18. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
19. The name is absent
20. Why Managers Hold Shares of Their Firms: An Empirical Analysis