Survey Design Choices: Implications for Measuring Gender Outcomes
•
1 like•1,253 views
Presentation by Andrew Dillon at Tool Pool Seminar (2010)
![Motivation ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Survey Design Choices: Implications for Measuring Gender Outcomes
Similar to Survey Design Choices: Implications for Measuring Gender Outcomes (20)
More from IFPRI Gender
More from IFPRI Gender (20)
Survey Design Choices: Implications for Measuring Gender Outcomes
- 1. Survey Design Choices: Implications for Measuring Gender Outcomes Andrew Dillon IFPRI April 2010 Tool Pool Presentation Based on work with Elena Bardasi (WB), Lori Beaman (Northwestern), Kathleen Beegle (WB), Pieter Serneels (UEA)
- 4. Motivation
- 5. Motivation Comparison of labor statistics calculated from household roster "main activity" question and module on hours spent in specific activities Malawi IHS2 2004/5 Men Women Main activity reported in HH roster Activities section Main activity reported in HH roster Activities section Farmer a 47.9 59.3 57.8 64.1 Employee b 15.0 15.8 3.4 3.8 Employee (including casual worker) c 15.0 30.2 3.4 12.8 Inactive d 25.8 16.8 33.2 25.0 Note: Reference period for both modules in the last 7 days.
- 11. RESULTS FROM LABOR EXPERIMENTS
- 12. Results: LFP and hours worked A. B. C. Short Detailed Diff Proxy Self-rep Diff Short Proxy Other Diff Labor force participation (%) Men 82.4 83.0 -0.6 74.3 87.3 -13.0*** 74.1 84.6 -10.5*** Women 69.9 77.0 -7.2*** 68.4 76.5 -8.1*** 64.6 75.6 -11.0*** Weekly hours last week Men 30.0 27.7 2.3** 24.5 31.3 -6.9*** 25.1 29.7 -4.6*** Women 22.3 23.0 -0.8 20.3 24.2 -4.2*** 19.4 23.4 -4.0** Daily earnings (Tshillings) Men 541 662 -121 637 580 57 471 628 -157 Women 198 384 -187** 271 306 -35 80 342 -262** Notes: *** indicates statistical significant mean differences at 1%, ** at 5%, * at 10%. Samples for weekly hours and daily earnings are conditional on any wage work in the last 7 days (they exclude zeros).
- 13. Differences in Sectoral Distribution by Gender Men Women A. Short or Detailed Short Detailed Diff Short Detailed Diff Main activity^ Agriculture 58.6 59.0 -0.4 60.1 65.7 -5.6** Other sectors 23.8 24.0 -0.2 9.6 11.4 -1.8 Domestic Duties 7.9 2.2 5.7*** 18.8 2.4 16.4*** No work 9.7 14.8 -5.1*** 11.3 20.5 -9.2*** N 723 688 750 784 B. Proxy or Self-report Proxy Self-rep Diff Proxy Self-rep Diff Main activity^ Agriculture 53.8 61.6 -7.8*** 59.8 64.8 -5.1** Other sectors 20.5 25.7 -5.2** 8.5 11.6 -3.1* Domestic Duties 7.8 3.6 4.1*** 13.5 8.7 4.8*** No work 17.9 9.0 8.9*** 18.1 14.8 3.2** N 502 909 564 970 C. Short proxy or not Short, Proxy Other Diff Short, Proxy Other Diff Main activity^ Agriculture 55.4 59.6 -4.2 56.8 64.4 -7.5*** Other sectors 18.7 25.0 -6.3** 7.4 11.2 -3.8** Domestic Duties 11.6 3.7 7.8*** 23.5 7.4 16.0*** No work 14.3 11.7 2.6 11.9 16.9 -5.0** N 251 1,160 285 1,249 Notes: Other sectors are specifically listed on the questionnaire and include mining/quarrying, manufacturing/ processing, gas/water/electricity, construction, transport, trading, personal services, education/health, public administration, and other *** indicates statistical significant mean differences at 1%, ** at 5%, * at 10%. ^ Within group, the percentages sum to 100.
- 14. Labor statistics by proxy-subject characteristics – difference in sex Mean (1) Proxy-subject gender interactions M-F (2) F-F (3) Diff. F-M (4) M-M (5) Diff. Labor force participation (%) 71.2 73.1 60.7 12.4*** 77.7 65.2 12.5*** Weekly hours last week 22.1 22.0 16.7 5.4*** 26.5 18.9 7.6*** Daily earnings (Tshillings) 444 307 213 94 740 360 382 N 1,066 350 214 367 135 Notes: *** indicates statistical significant at 1%, ** at 5%, and * at 10%. Labor statistics are disaggregated by proxy-subject gender interactions (M-F indicates a male proxy who reports on a female subject, and so on). The ttest conducted is between M-F and F-F in Columns (2) and (3), and F-M and M-M in Columns (4) and (5). The smaller sample size in this table is due to restricting the sample to only proxy responses.
- 15. Regression results for labor experiments Short v. Detailed Proxy v. Self-report Short proxy v. others Labor force participation Lower (women) - Lower Working hours - Lower Lower Income Lower - Lower Activity distribution More domestic duties Less ‘no work’ Less agric and other sectors (women) More domestic duties More ‘no work’ Less agric and other sectors More domestic duties Less ‘no work’ (women) Less agric (women) and other sectors Employment status Less paid employee (men) More self-empl (men) More unpaid family worker (women) Less paid employee (men) Less self-employed More unpaid family worker Less paid employee Less self-employed More unpaid family worker
- 16. RESULTS FROM HOUSEHOLD DEFINITION EXPERIMENTS
- 17. Regression results on household composition Table 3a: HH Size Total HH Size: Resident for last 6 mo Age of HH Head Number of Married Men Number of Married Women Def 2: Common Food, Dwelling, Authority 0.780 2.13 * 0.212 0.225 (0.506) (1.20) (0.136) (0.157) Def 3: Common Agriculture, Dwelling, Authority 1.060 ** 2.19 * 0.258 * 0.378 ** (0.507) (1.20) (0.136) (0.158) Def 4: Common Agriculture; Common Food, Dwelling, Authority 0.715 2.93 ** 0.262 * 0.300 * (0.507) (1.20) (0.136) (0.158) N 1021 1021 1021 1021
- 18. Regression results on assets and consumption Farm Assets Livestock (TLU) Assets, Non-Farm Grain Expenditure (FCFA) Kilos of Grains Consumed Definition 2: Common Food, Dwelling, Authority 0.272 * 2.652 *** 0.465 1740 * 8.88 ** (0.157) (0.808) (0.298) (961) (4.44) Definition 3: Common Agriculture, Dwelling, Authority 0.561 *** 1.889 ** 0.655 ** 1580 7.66 * (0.157) (0.809) (0.298) (962) (4.45) Definition 4: Common Agriculture; Common Food, Dwelling, Authority 0.166 0.645 0.254 1540 6.25 (0.157) (0.809) (0.298) (962) (4.45) N 1021 1021 1021 1011 1011
- 19. Summary of regression results from hh experiments Adding consumption requirements Adding common ag or income generating requirements Adding both HH size - Increased household size - HH Comp Increased number of men and women, increased number of people 16-60 Increased number of men and women, increased number of people 16-60 Increased number of men and women, increased number of people 16-60 Assets Greater farm assets and livestock holdings Greater farm, nonfarm assets and livestock holdings - Consumption Greater expenditure, greater quantities measured Greater quantities measured -
Editor's Notes
- Where does this difference come from? may be differences in sampling: strategy followed, way sampling was implemented, selection bias may be timing / time of the year / seasonality Skoufias presents empirical evidence for India showing that may have to do with the survey instrument itself, detail of the questionnaire recall period: US Bureau of labor stats changed its longitudinal panel survey frequency from one year to two years and decided to first do an experiment: they found that it had some effects wording of the questions to find out, Campanelli et al report on a respondent debriefing study carried out by the US Bureau of stats repondents were asked to calssify hypothetical situations in terms of their own understanding of lf concepts like work, job, business, etc. e.g. 38% of repondents included non-work activities under work classification so wording is important sequence of the questions Following this, Martin and Polovka carried out an experiment to see what the effect of questionnaire wording and sequencing on employment stats was And found that it had an effect With those in family business (or farm), causal employment and work compensated by other than pay Had biggest differences Probing questions were evaluated as useful to detect what they said was underreporting Detail of the questionnaire Kalton et al provide an overview of factors that may have an effect and they identify questionnaire detail as one of them may have to do with the respondent: does the respondent answer for him or herself or for someone else (i.e. by proxy) If this kind of biases are important in the US, we expect them to be even more important in dev Countries
- Where does this difference come from? may be differences in sampling: strategy followed, way sampling was implemented, selection bias may be timing / time of the year / seasonality Skoufias presents empirical evidence for India showing that may have to do with the survey instrument itself, detail of the questionnaire recall period: US Bureau of labor stats changed its longitudinal panel survey frequency from one year to two years and decided to first do an experiment: they found that it had some effects wording of the questions to find out, Campanelli et al report on a respondent debriefing study carried out by the US Bureau of stats repondents were asked to calssify hypothetical situations in terms of their own understanding of lf concepts like work, job, business, etc. e.g. 38% of repondents included non-work activities under work classification so wording is important sequence of the questions Following this, Martin and Polovka carried out an experiment to see what the effect of questionnaire wording and sequencing on employment stats was And found that it had an effect With those in family business (or farm), causal employment and work compensated by other than pay Had biggest differences Probing questions were evaluated as useful to detect what they said was underreporting Detail of the questionnaire Kalton et al provide an overview of factors that may have an effect and they identify questionnaire detail as one of them may have to do with the respondent: does the respondent answer for him or herself or for someone else (i.e. by proxy) If this kind of biases are important in the US, we expect them to be even more important in dev Countries
- Where does this difference come from? may be differences in sampling: strategy followed, way sampling was implemented, selection bias may be timing / time of the year / seasonality Skoufias presents empirical evidence for India showing that may have to do with the survey instrument itself, detail of the questionnaire recall period: US Bureau of labor stats changed its longitudinal panel survey frequency from one year to two years and decided to first do an experiment: they found that it had some effects wording of the questions to find out, Campanelli et al report on a respondent debriefing study carried out by the US Bureau of stats repondents were asked to calssify hypothetical situations in terms of their own understanding of lf concepts like work, job, business, etc. e.g. 38% of repondents included non-work activities under work classification so wording is important sequence of the questions Following this, Martin and Polovka carried out an experiment to see what the effect of questionnaire wording and sequencing on employment stats was And found that it had an effect With those in family business (or farm), causal employment and work compensated by other than pay Had biggest differences Probing questions were evaluated as useful to detect what they said was underreporting Detail of the questionnaire Kalton et al provide an overview of factors that may have an effect and they identify questionnaire detail as one of them may have to do with the respondent: does the respondent answer for him or herself or for someone else (i.e. by proxy) If this kind of biases are important in the US, we expect them to be even more important in dev Countries
- Think about idleness measures.
- Think about idleness measures.