Data quality assessment of the household budget …Data quality assessment of the household budget...

Data quality assessment of the household budget survey Year 2008 July 2010

1

2

I.- Introduction On evaluating the quality of the results of statistics, the goal is to achieve two fundamental objectives:

− To detect the errors that have been produced during the different stages of their compilation. − To provide users with detailed information regarding the quality of the data that they deal with.

The detection of the errors produced should not be reduced to a mere numerical presentation of them. The primordial objective should be their analysis, in order to decipher the possible causes leading to them. This is important, even essential, in all statistics, so as to improve the quality thereof. Continuous surveys such as the Household Budget Survey (HBS) also include the attraction of the immediate collection of their results, avoiding in parallel the deterioration of the quality of all of the routine work that this type of survey entails. To reduce the errors unrelated to sampling allows us to improve the quality of the estimates, for the purpose of obtaining acceptable levels of error, and maintaining them over time, which allows for a more adequate study of the resulting time series.

On valuing the results of an assessment program, it is necessary to bear in mind the conditioning factors under which the surveys are conducted, which prevent, in many cases, evading the errors later detected in the assessment, with the compilers of the statistics still being conscious of the possibility of their presence. However, the supply of the information on the limitations of the data is an unavoidable duty, since an inappropriate use of the figures can cause the failure of socio-economic and demographic plans and projects, and falsify conclusions on measures developed by politicians, economists and the remaining users of the statistics.

The current volume publishes the data relating to the quality of the HBS in the year 2008.

II. Quality of the data

The errors that affect the entire survey can be grouped into two large classes:

− Errors due to sampling, caused by obtaining data via samples. − Non-sampling errors, which are common in all statistical research, whether the data is obtained by sampling or by census.

Chronologically, the first objective of those statisticians interested in the subject, both from a theoretical point of view and from the perspective of application, has been the calculation of the sampling error of the estimators. The importance of the sampling error calculation methods resides in the following fact: knowledge thereof enables, on the one hand, limitation within the confines of a confidence interval, the real value of an estimated parameter, and on the other, quantification of design efficiency as per the aforementioned parameter;

3

moreover, its analysis enables the statistician to choose the most efficient design from a series of alternatives, taking into account the resources available.

The natural indicator of the accuracy of an unbiased estimator is its standard deviation, since with a given design, an unbiased estimator is more accurate, the more possible estimates are concentrated around the actual value. Accuracy increases with sample size, although design features also influence this: stratification, hierarchy of sampling units, selection method, etc., and the nature of the variables studied. The size of the sample is limited by the resources; the design is limited by the availability of basic structural information; and the nature of the variables is an element which cannot be acted upon.

The errors other than sampling errors may occur in any of the phases of the statistical process: before collecting the data, during the information collection and in the operations subsequent to collection, it being possible to group data as actual fieldwork errors and otherwise. We may include among the former, among others, errors in collecting information, whether due to deficiencies on the part of agents or on the part of unsuitable informants, incorrect statements or non-response. Included in the latter are framework deficiencies, inadequacies in definitions and questionnaires, encoding or recording errors, etc.

The study and application of statistical methods for assessing errors other than sampling errors, and the subsequent measuring of their influence on the end results, is more recent than that relating to sampling errors. One of the procedures followed in order to assess data quality, and which is applied in the HBS, consists of repeating the interview, shortly after having carried out the original interview, with part of the surveyed units. Through the comparison of the data collected in both interviews for the same units, it is possible to estimate the quality of the results, and provide the users with some numerical indices regarding said quality. This procedure is based on the model by Hansen, Hurwitz and Bershad, applied by the United States Census Office.

In this report, only errors other than sampling errors are analysed; errors due to sampling are published with the survey data.

III. General considerations regarding the survey

To conduct the survey in 2008, an annual sample of 2,470 census sections has been selected (the 2,392 already selected in the year 2006, together with 78 additional sections in Comunidad Foral de Navarra, due to a partnership agreement with the Statistics Institute of Navarra, doubling the sample in that Autonomous Community), distributed throughout the national territory, visiting in each one of them ten randomly-selected dwellings. In each section, there is a listing of ten reserve dwellings that shall be used, as necessary, to make any required substitutions.

The sample sections (and therefore, also the dwellings selected therein) are grouped into two rotation shifts, with half of the sections thereof corresponding to each one of them. Each year, the dwellings corresponding to a rotation shift are renewed (those from shift 1 one year, and those from shift 2 the following year), in such a way that the dwellings selected collaborate during two

4

consecutive years, after which they are replaced by other dwellings from the same section. In the year 2006, as it coincides with the beginning of the survey, all dwellings are in the first actual interview, irregardless of the rotation shift to which they belong.

In order to enable the implementation of the survey, in the year 2007, dwellings from rotation shift 1 were replaced, despite having only collaborated in the survey for one year. In 2008, the dwellings from rotation shift 2 have been replaced, and in 2009 those from rotation shift shall be replaced again, and so on and so forth.

When a reserve dwelling replaces an original dwelling, it acquires the same rotation shift as the original dwelling, and therefore, will be replaced by another when necessary (renewal of the sample) in accordance to it, even if it has not completed the two years of collaboration. In each dwelling, the household(s) residing therein is/are interviewed. The annual collaboration of each household takes place over the course of a two-week period, in which all types of expenditure are requested by direct notation (household Book of Accounts) throughout those fourteen days, as well as the individual expenditure of each member in the first week of the two-week period (individual Books of Accounts). The remaining information (Household file, paying of bills and other monthly, quarterly and annual expenditure) is requested by interview over the course of the two-week period.

IV. Non-response in the selected dwellings

Within the dwellings selected for the sample, for part of them it is not possible to obtain information, either because they do not form part of the group being studied, due to not being used as a permanent family residence, or due to different reasons (refusal, absence, etc.) it is not possible to obtain data from the households resident therein. These situations, which the interviewer may encounter on carrying out her/his work, receive the name of incidences, and are described below.

IV.1 Incidences concerning dwellings

The selected dwellings are classified, according to the situation they are in at the time of the interview, as:

− Surveyable dwellings: those dwellings that are used for all or most of the year as a regular residence. − Unsurveyable dwellings, can be:

Empty: those dwellings that are unoccupied for all or most of the year, due to being empty, in ruins or seasonal.

Unlocatable: those dwellings that cannot be located on the land with the address that appears in the work order.

5

Intended for other purposes: those premises intended in their entirety for purposes other than those of a family residence (for example, commercial premises, storage, offices, etc).

Dwellings selected previously: those dwellings that, having been selected previously (less than five years ago) in the sample of the Household Budget Survey or any other population survey, and having collaborated therein, are selected again.

Unavailable dwellings: those dwellings that cannot be accessed to conduct the interview, generally due to adverse climatological circumstances (snowstorms, floods, etc.) or due to the absence of adequate roads to access them.

IV.2. Incidences concerning households

In the dwellings that are surveyable, all of the households residing therein (there may be one, which is the most common, or more than one) are studied.

In the households that reside in the surveyable dwellings, the following situations may occur:

− Surveyed: when the household collaborates in the survey. The collaboration may be total or partial, depending on the amount of information that the household provides. − Refusal: when the household refuses to collaborate in the survey. − Absence: when the interviewer does not find any member of the household in the subsequent visits made to the dwelling. − Inability to respond: when all members of the household are incapacitated to collaborate in the survey, due to illness, disability, lack of knowledge of the language, etc.

Refusals and absences may take place at any time throughout the collaboration period of the household; inabilities to respond, however, logically are detected at the time of the first contact with the household.

The set of all refusals, absences and inabilities to respond constitute what is known as the non-response of the survey.

IV.3. Treatment of the incidences

A. Incidences concerning dwellings

If the dwelling is surveyable, the household is studied.

Empty and unlocatable dwellings and those intended for other purposes are replaced by reserve dwellings, and unavailable dwellings receive the same treatment as absent households.

In the case of the dwellings that were previously selected in another population survey, when this situation is detected prior to beginning the field work, the

6

dwelling shall be replaced by the first available valid reserve dwelling, without it needing to be visited, assigning it the PS incidence (previously selected). In the event that the previous collaboration was not detected prior to beginning the fieldwork, but rather during the visit to the dwelling, there are two possible treatments:

If the human group that resides in the dwelling accepts collaborating in the survey, it is interviewed normally, considering, in this case, the dwelling to be surveyable, and the household to be surveyed.

If the human group does not accept collaborating due to a prior collaboration, the dwelling is replaced by the first available valid reserve dwelling, assigning it the PS incidence. B. Incidences concerning households

− Surveyed: the household is interviewed. − Refusal: depending on the moment when the refusal takes place, the treatment will be different, with three possible situations: the household may be replaced, it may be a partial collaborator, or there may be a loss of the sample. This last case will occur when the refusal takes place at a time when a replacement is no longer feasible, and so long as, until that time, not enough information has been collected to consider it a partial collaborator. − Absence: the dwelling is visited again as many times as possible, and if it is not possible to contact anyone, before reaching a loss of the sample, it is replaced. When it is ascertained that the absence will be definitive, the dwelling is replaced, even if it is the first visit. In cases of absences in replacement households, it might occur that there is a loss of the sample. − Inability to respond: the dwelling is replaced by the first available valid reserve dwelling.

IV.4. Failure to update the framework

As commented previously, a dwelling is defined as unsurveyable in the HBS when, at the time of the interview, it is empty, it is a seasonal dwelling, it is intended for other purposes, or it is unlocatable at the address that appears in the selection listing.

These cases are indicative of the survey framework not being updated or having errors, and these units may be considered erroneous inclusions in the

framework. When they are detected on going to conduct the interview, they are never included in the survey, being replaced by other surveyable dwellings, as mentioned above, and therefore, there is no decrease in the size of the sample, unless it is impossible to carry out the replacement.

Table 1 presents the distribution of the incidences in the theoretical sample (selected original dwellings), offering therein the breakdown of the information

according to the number of the interview (first or second) and the type of municipality (provincial capital or remaining municipalities).

7

For the correct comprehension of the data from table 1, it is convenient to clarify two matters: first of all, due to the households only being those studied in the surveyable dwellings, the table data corresponds in part to dwellings (data corresponding to the unsurveyable dwellings, dwellings previously selected and unavailable dwellings) and in part to households (the data corresponding to surveyed, refusals, absences and inabilities to respond, encompassed in the surveyable section); secondly, the percentages of the incidences in dwellings have been calculated with regard to the total selected, whereas the percentages corresponding to the incidences in households have been calculated as compared with the total surveyable, this being the reason why two 100% appear in each column.

It may be observed that, firstly, the incidences with less weight on a global level of the sample are, by this order, the dwellings previously selected, the unavailable dwellings, those intended for other purposes and those that are unlocatable, whose percentages are below 1 percent of the selected dwellings. The percentage of dwellings with an inability to respond slightly surpasses 1 percent of the surveyable dwellings, by which it also may be said that they have little importance from a quantitative point of view. Due to this, no more commentaries shall be made below regarding these incidences, on considering them of little interest.

8

1. Distribution of incidences in the theoretical sampleDwellings / households according Total First interview Second interview

to type of incidence No. % No. % No. %

Total

Selected 23,869 100.00 11,915 100.00 11,954 100.00

Previously selected 33 0.14 25 0.21 - -

Unavailable 40 0.17 29 0.24 11 0.09

Unsurveyable 1,571 6.58 1,172 9.84 399 3.34

Empty 1,309 5.48 956 8.02 353 2.95

Intended for other purposes 76 0.32 61 0.51 15 0.13

Unlocatable 186 0.78 155 1.30 31 0.26

Surveyable 22,225 100.00 10,689 100.00 11,536 100.00

Surveyed 15,484 69.67 6,376 59.65 9,108 78.95

Refusals 3,514 15.81 2,220 20.77 1,294 11.22

Absences 2,982 13.42 1,925 18.01 1,057 9.16

Inability to respond 245 1.10 168 1.57 77 0.67

Capitals

Selected 8,237 100.00 4,135 100.00 4,102 100.00

Previously selected 6 0.07 6 0.15 - -

Unavailable 9 0.11 8 0.19 1 0.02

Unsurveyable 384 4.66 263 6.36 121 2.95

Empty 303 3.68 197 4.76 106 2.58


Unlocatable 43 0.52 38 0.92 5 0.12

Surveyable 7,838 100.00 3,858 100.00 3,980 100.00

Surveyed 5,278 67.34 2,194 56.87 3,084 77.49

Refusals 1,241 15.83 820 21.25 421 10.58

Absences 1,242 15.85 792 20.53 450 11.31


Remaining municipalities

Selected 15,632 100.00 7,780 100.00 7,852 100.00

Previously selected 27 0.17 19 0.24 8 0.10

Unavailable 31 0.20 21 0.27 10 0.13

Unsurveyable 1,187 7.59 909 11.68 278 3.54

Empty 1,006 6.44 759 9.76 247 3.15


Unlocatable 143 0.91 117 1.50 26 0.33

Surveyable 14,387 100.00 6,831 100.00 7,556 100.00

Surveyed 10,206 70.94 4,182 61.22 6,024 79.72

Refusals 2,273 15.80 1,400 20.49 873 11.55

Absences 1,740 12.09 1,133 16.59 607 8.03


Regarding the failure to update the framework, from the figures in table 1, we can conclude that this is basically due to the empty dwellings, since their number is comparatively much grater than that corresponding to the group of those intended for other purposes and those that are unlocatable, as may also be observed in graph 1. This graph shows the evolution of the percentage of empty dwellings, month-by-month, in comparison with the percentage of failure to update the framework, due to the dwellings intended for other purposes and the unlocatable dwellings, grouped into the same as other incidences. The percentage of empty dwellings stands at nearly 5.5 percent.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

2

4

6

8

Empty dwellings Other incidences

Months

Graph 1Failure to update the framework

% (Porcentaje)

If, in table 1, we compare the data from capitals and the rest of the municipalities, we can observe that the percentage of unsurveyable dwellings is almost three points higher in the rest of the municipalities than in the capitals, with said difference being fundamentally due to the empty dwellings, as can also be observed in graph 2.

9

Months

2

4

6

8

10

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug Se

p

Oct

Nov Dec

Capitals Remaining municipalities Total

Graph 2Empty dwellings

% (Percentage)

Graph 3 shows the distribution, throughout the year, of the empty dwellings, distinguishing between the first and second interview. The percentage of empty dwellings is more than twice in the first interview that recorded in the second interview, which is reasonable, as it would seem logical for most of these dwellings to be detected in the first visit made to the selected dwellings. The dwellings that are empty in the second interview correspond to those that, during the year between the first and the second interview, have gone from being inhabited to being empty, or to dwellings that are in a second theoretical collaboration, but in a first real collaboration, and therefore are detected as empty at that moment, since they did not collaborate previously.

10

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

1

3

5

7

9

11

First interview Second interview Total

Graph 3Empty dwellings

% (Percentage)

IV.5.-Non-response

Non-response in a household that resides in a surveyable dwelling may be due to the absence of all of its members, to their refusal to provide collaboration, or to the inability of all of them to fill out the questionnaires or respond to the interviews.

Graph 4 shows the evolution of non-response, month-by-month, and in which we can observe that, of the three components of non-response, it is the refusals that carry the greatest weight, followed by absences, with the dwellings with an inability to respond being practically null, due to their scarce quantitative importance. It is observed, likewise, that in the third quarter, this period coinciding with the summer holidays, the percentage of absences increases considerably, and particularly during the month of August, where the maximum of absences is reached, exceeding that of refusals.

11


Months

0

5

10

15

20

25

Absences Inability to respond Refusals

Graph 4Non-response

%

Returning to table 1, It can be observed that, globally, non-response represents 30 percent of the surveyable dwellings, with the percentage being almost four points higher in the capitals than in the rest of the municipalities, this difference being mainly due to the absences. In line with this data, we observe that the percentage of surveyable dwellings is nearly four points higher in the remaining municipalities than in the capitals.

Graph 5 represents, month-by-month, the breakdown of the refusals in the provincial capitals and in the remaining municipalities. Although appreciable differences are observed between the percentages of refusals obtained in both type of municipality in certain months, globally, these percentages are equal, as can be confirmed in table 1.

12


Months

12

14

16

18

20

22

CapitalsRemaining municipalitiesT t l

Graph 5Refusals

% (Percentage)

Another breakdown of the refusals is shown in graph 6, in this case between the first and the second interview. It can be observed that the percentage of refusals is more than nine points higher in the first interview than in the second interview, which may be explained by the fact that it seems natural to refuse to collaborate on the first contact with the interview, more than in the second interview, after having collaborated a first time.

13


Months

8

13

18

23


Graph 6Refusals

% (Percentage)

Regarding the absences, table 1 shows that their percentage is almost four points higher in the capitals that in the rest of the municipalities, the same way that it is nine points higher in the first interview than in the second. The breakdown of the absences in capitals and in the rest of the municipalities, on the one hand, and in the first and the second interview, on the other hand, is represented in graphs 7 and 8, respectively.

14


Months

8

14

20

26

32

CapitalsRemaining municipalitiesT t l

Graph 7Absences

% (Percentage)


Months

4

11

18

25

32


Graph 8Absences

% (Percentage)

15

16

IV.6. Incidences in the sample by Autonomous Community

Table 2 presents the percentage distribution of the incidences in the theoretical sample, by Autonomous Community.

Regarding the failure to update the framework, worth noting are Madrid and País Vasco as the Autonomous Communities with the lowest percentages of unsurveyable dwellings (3.5 percent for the former and 3.8 percent for the latter), that is, with the least failure to update the framework.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Castilla-La Mancha is the Autonomous Community with the greatest failure to update the framework, with 9.7 percent of unsurveyable dwellings.

If we now analyse non-response, breaking it down into its three components, refusals, absences and inabilities to respond, we will observe that País Vasco, with 27.4 percent, is the Autonomous Community with the highest percentage of refusals. Among the Communities with the fewest refusals, worth noting is Cantabria, with 5.4 percent.

With regard to absences, of not is Madrid, with 21 percent, as the Community with the highest percentage thereof. At the other extreme is Cantabria, likewise the Community with the lowest percentage of absences, standing near 10 percent.

Regarding the inabilities to respond, outstanding was Navarra, with 2.5 percent, as the Community with the highest percentage, whereas Castilla y León, with 0.4 percent, was the Community with the lowest percentage.

Considering lastly the total non-response, it may be observed that, on a national level, it represents 30.3 percent of the total surveyable dwellings, that is, five points lower than the value reached in 2007. By Autonomous Community, País Vasco and Madrid are the Communities with the highest percentages, above 40 percent, whlie Cantabria records the lowest percentage, with 16 percent.

2. Percent distribution of th incidences in the theoretical

sample, by Autonomous Community (Next)Autonomous Community Incidences in the dwellings

Total Unsurveyable Previously selected Unavailable SurveyableTOTAL 100.00 6.58 0.14 0.17 93.11Andalucía 100.00 8.33 0.36 0.12 91.20Aragón 100.00 7.32 0.10 0.10 92.48Asturias (Principado de) 100.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 95.60Balears (Illes) 100.00 7.74 0.11 0.44 91.71Canarias 100.00 8.87 0.17 0.51 90.44Cantabria 100.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 92.31Castilla y León 100.00 7.75 0.33 0.39 91.54Castilla-La Mancha 100.00 9.66 0.31 0.16 89.87Cataluña 100.00 4.94 0.00 0.04 95.02Comunidad Valenciana 100.00 7.19 0.00 0.17 92.64Extremadura 100.00 8.24 0.19 0.10 91.48Galicia 100.00 6.42 0.28 0.07 93.23Madrid (Comunidad de) 100.00 3.53 0.00 0.17 96.30Murcia (Región de) 100.00 4.33 0.00 0.20 95.47Navarra (Comunidad Foral de) 100.00 6.52 0.20 0.07 93.22País Vasco 100.00 3.82 0.05 0.32 95.81Rioja (La) 100.00 6.79 0.13 0.00 93.09Ceuta and Melilla 100.00 8.08 0.00 0.00 91.92

(End)Autonomous Community Incidences in the households of the surveyable dwellings

Non-responseTotal Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respond Total

TOTAL 100.00 69.67 15.81 13.42 1.10 30.33

Andalucía 100.00 71.27 16.36 11.60 0.78 28.73

Aragón 100.00 70.28 16.27 12.91 0.54 29.72

Asturias (Principado de) 100.00 72.64 12.69 13.18 1.49 27.36

Balears (Illes) 100.00 73.13 10.23 14.74 1.90 26.87

Canarias 100.00 69.62 14.25 14.91 1.23 30.38

Cantabria 100.00 83.89 5.42 9.86 0.83 16.11

Castilla y León 100.00 76.32 12.73 10.60 0.36 23.68

Castilla-La Mancha 100.00 66.70 16.70 15.91 0.70 33.30

Cataluña 100.00 64.86 19.15 14.54 1.45 35.14

Comunidad Valenciana 100.00 70.48 15.39 12.36 1.76 29.52

Extremadura 100.00 73.09 14.76 11.52 0.63 26.91

Galicia 100.00 76.20 12.50 10.63 0.67 23.80

Madrid (Comunidad de) 100.00 59.66 18.78 20.97 0.59 40.34

Murcia (Región de) 100.00 77.19 8.88 13.00 0.93 22.81

Navarra (Comunidad Foral de) 100.00 70.68 16.38 10.50 2.45 29.32

País Vasco 100.00 58.34 27.37 13.19 1.11 41.66

Rioja (La) 100.00 70.70 12.52 15.54 1.24 29.30

Ceuta and Melilla 100.00 67.78 12.13 18.83 1.26 32.22

17

18

V.- Assessment survey The quality assessment survey of the HBS has a dual objective:

− To monitor the work of the interviewers who are involved in the HBS − To assess the quality of the results

To this end, we have followed a mathematical model compiled by the Census Office of the United States, due to Hansen, Hurwitz and Bershad, based on the repeat interview. The operating procedure, very simple, consists of repeating the interviews in a sample of the dwellings selected for the original survey. Subsequently, the data obtained on both occasions is compared, for the purpose of studying the inconsistencies, and quantifying the errors, through the application of different quality indices. The model of Hansen, Hurwitz and Bershad assumes that, in the second interview, or repeat interview, we obtain the true values of the characteristics being studied. Although in practice it is difficult to prove whether or not this objective has been achieved, the data from the repeat interview, obtained with more means and better-prepared interviewers, is assumed to be of a superior quality than the data from the original interview, and will enable basing on it all of the calculations of errors and biases.

The comparison of the results obtained from the original interview (O.I.) with those obtained in the repeat interview (R.I.) enables assessing two large types of error that are not sampling errors, which affect the quality of the results:

a) Coverage errors, produced by the erroneous omission or inclusion of units in the original survey. b) Content errors, which affect the characteristics studied of the surveyable persons.

The fieldwork is carried out by specialised interviewers who conduct the repeat interview at most fifteen days after the original interview, with the data from both interviews referring to the same period of time.

V.1. Sample selection

As mentioned at the beginning, one of the objectives of the assessment survey is to control the work of the interviewers, and for this purpose, it has been foreseen to inspect, throughout the year, at least one section assigned to each one of them.

For the purpose of facilitating the sample selected of R.I., the sections of the survey sample (O.I.) have been organised in blocks, understanding a block to be the quota of annual work that each interviewer has assigned, consisting of thirteen sections, which must be carried out at a pace of one section every four weeks.

For reasons regarding cost/section visited, neither Ceuta nor Melilla is studied in R.I.. Solely for the purposes of the selected of the sample of R.I., the sections of

19

the sample from O.I. (except Ceuta and Melilla) have been structured in 181 blocks, with the objective of studying in R.I. one section from each one of them, throughout the year.

The survey is distributed, each year, into 26 two-week periods, 13 of which are called odds (01, 03, ..., 23, 25) and the other 13 of which are called evens (02, 04, ……………, 24, 26).

Of the 181 blocks to be inspected, 92 of them are performed in the even two-week periods, and the remaining 89 in the odd two-week periods.

With each one of these two sets of blocks, we have formed 13 itineraries or zones, that is, there are 13 zones for the even two-week periods, and another 13 zones for the odd two-week periods, in such a way that in total, there are 26 zones to be investigated in the 26 two-week periods of the year, and therefore, the selection of the sample is done for the entire year. Each zone is comprised of approximately seven blocks.

By random selection, without replacement, one of the zones is made to correspond to each two-week period, making the selection independently for the even and the odd two-week periods, for the previously mentioned reason. Each two-week period, the corresponding section from each block is investigated.

In each one of the sections selected for the assessment survey, the interviewers will fill out a quality assessment questionnaire, designed to that effect, for all of the original dwellings that were surveyed in the original interview, as well as for the reserve dwellings that have replaced original dwellings with incidences. For the original dwellings that were not surveyed in the original interview, we will only check the incidence noted in said interview in the work order. According to this selection scheme, the average number of dwellings selected oscillates around 7.5% of the sample of the HCBS.

All of the results regarding the assessment survey will be provided on an annual level.

V.2. Analysis of the incidences

Table 3 includes the distributions of the dwellings and households visited, both in the assessment survey (henceforth, the R.I.) and in the original interview (henceforth, the O.I.), according to the type of incidence. It should be considered that, of the dwellings selected in R.I. to be interviewed, not all can be visited in practice, since, due to different reasons in the organisation of the fieldwork, there are almost always sections, and therefore the dwellings selected therein, that end up not investigated.

On comparing the data from both distributions, we can observe that the non-response (calculated with regard to the number of surveyable dwellings) is very similar in both cases, as it is barely one percentage point higher in O.I. than in R.I., which breaks with the traditional trend of previous years, in which it was always higher in R.I..

This small difference is due to the percentage represented by those households with an inability to respond, higher in O.I., as the higher percentage of absences

in R.I. is compensated by the higher percentage of refusals in O.I.. Regarding absences, it is appropriate to emphasize that the R.I. agents conduct their interviews with greater time limitations, given that as they do not reside in the province, they spend less time in the section, which makes the number of interviews increase.

The difference in the percentage of unsurveyable dwellings is small, somewhat less than one piont, though this percentage is also greater in O.I..

3. Distribution of the dwellings / households visited

in R.I. and O.I., according to the type of incidenceDwellings / households visitedR.I. O.I.(*)

Total Percentage Total PercentageType of incidence 1,183 100.00 23,836 100.00

- Unsurveyable 70 5.92 1,571 6.59

- Unavailable 0 0.00 40 0.17

- Surveyable 1,113 100.00 22,225 100.00

. Surveyed 787 70.71 15,484 69.67

. Non-response 326 29.29 6,741 30.33

Refusals 106 9.52 3,514 15.81

Absences 219 19.68 2,982 13.42

Inability to respond 1 0.09 245 1.10

(*) En E.O., we have excluded the previously selected dwellings, giventhat in R.I., this type of incidence is not considered

Table 4 includes the coincidences and discrepancies in terms of the coverage of dwellings, between O.I. and R.I., in absolute and percent values. From the analysis thereof, we can arrive at the very high coincidence between the two, which is reflected in the gross difference (indicator of the percentage of error), whose value stands at 0.42 percent.

20

21

.42

.00

.42

.42

4. Errors of coverage of dwellingsDwellings Total Percentage

VISITED IN R.I. 1,183 100.00

Surveyable in O.I. and in R.I. 1,113 94.08

Surveyable in O.I., but not in R.I. (1) 5 0

Surveyable in R.I., but not in O.I. (2) 0 0

Unsurveyable in both O.I. and R.I. 65 5.49

Net difference: (1) - (2) 5 0

Gross difference: (1) + (2) 5 0

In the dwellings surveyed in R.I., it is generally not possible to use all of the information to assess the content errors, given that some of them have not been surveyed in O.I., due to the different causes included in table 5. As can be observed in this table, in the year 2008, all of the households surveyed in R.I. were likewise surveyed in O.I., and therefore, all of the information collected in R.I. can be used to assess the quality of the survey.

5. Incidences in O.I. of the households surveyed

only in R.I.Households Total Percentage

Surveyed in R.I. 787 100.00

Surveyed in R.I. and O.I. 787 100.00

Surveyed only in R.I. 0 0

- Not visited in O.I. 0 0

- Refusals in O.I. 0 0

- Absences in O.I. 0 0

- Not surveyed due to other causes in O.I. 0 0

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

The questionnaires that are processed electronically, and which allow for carrying out the analysis of the errors of coverage of persons and of the content errors in the different characteristics of the survey, are only those corresponding to the dwellings that have been interviewed in both the R.I. and the O.I.

Table 6 presents the data regarding the identity of the informant, obtained in the dwellings in which the two interviews were conducted. In O.I., in 50 percent of the dwellings, the data was obtained from the main breadwinner, whereas in R.I., the data was obtained from this person in 53 percent of the cases. The information was provided by the same person in the two interviews in 64 percent of the dwellings.

6. Data on the identity of the informant Dwellings Total Percentage

Surveyed in O.I. and in R.I. 689 100.00

Informant in O.I. - No data recorded - -

- Main breadwinner 345 50.07

- Another person 344 49.93

Informant in R.I. - No data recorded - -

- Main breadwinner 367 53.27

- Another person 322 46.73

Same informant in O.I. and in R.I. 441 64.01

The fact that the number of dwellings surveyed in O.I. and in R.I. that appears in tables 5 and 6 does not coincide in general, is due to the use of different sources for obtaining it. Table 5 is obtained from the summary of the coverage sheets collected in the fieldwork, whereas the data from table 6 is obtained from the O.I and R.I. questionnaires, once they have been subjected to the electronic processing.

VI.-Coverage of persons The persons who reside in dwellings in which it has been possible to conduct the interview both for the original survey and for the assessment survey, are always classified in one of the three following categories:

− Comparable persons − Omitted persons − Persons erroneously included

Comparable persons are those persons whom both agents have considered surveyable. For these persons, we therefore have information from O.I. and from R.I.

Omitted persons are those persons whose data has been collected by the R.I. agent, on considering them surveyable, but for whom information does not exist in the O.I.

Persons erroneously included are those persons who appear in the questionnaire of the original survey, and whom the R.I. agent has not included in the assessment survey, due to not considering them surveyable.

22

Both the omissions and the erroneous inclusions are considered errors in the coverage of persons, based on the hypothesis that the information of the repeat interview is of a better quality than that of the original interview.

The assessment of the coverage of persons is based solely on the occupants of the surveyable dwellings in which both the O.I and the R.I. have been conducted, and the corresponding data may be viewed in table 7.

7. Coverage of persons aged

16 years old and overPersons Total Percentage

Interviewed in R.I. 2,009 100.00

- Comparable 1,993 99.20

- Omitted (1) 16 0.80

Interviewed in O.I. 1,996 99.35

- Comparable 1,993 99.20

- Erroneously included (2) 3 0

Net difference (2) - (1) -13 -0.65

Gross difference (2) + (1) 19 0.95

.15

The net and gross differences are presented in said table, interpreting the former to be an indicator of the bias, and the latter to be an indicator of the total errors committed. Both differences stand within very low values, and therefore, the coverage of persons can be considered good.

Tables C.P.1 to C.P.6 of the annex include the distributions of the persons omitted and erroneously included, by sex, age, marital status and relationship with economic activity.

VII.-Content errors

VII.1. Presentation of results

Content errors are analysed from the information supplied, in the two interviews, by the households (or persons) classified as comparable. The O.I and R.I. questionnaires of these households are compared electronically, determining to what extent the two data series differ. To facilitate the analysis, two types of table are compiled: coincidence tables and quality indicator tables.

23

24

For a characteristic C with K modalities, the coincidence table responds to the following general format:

O.I.

R.I.

Total households

M1 M2 . . . Mj . . . Mk

Total households n n.1 n.2 . . . n.j . . . n.k

M1 n1. n.11 n.12 . . . n.1j . . . n1k

M2 n2. n.21 n.22 . . . n.2j . . . n2k

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mi ni. ni1 ni2 . . . nij . . . nik

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mk nk. nk1 nk2 . . . nkj . . . nkk

nij represents the number of households/persons classified in modality Mi according to the R.I., that in O.I. had been classified in modality Mj.

Appearing in the main diagonal is the number of households/persons classified identically in both interviews in each modality.

These tables allow for studying the transfers of households/population between modalities, due to content errors.

From the coincidence table, we can extract, for each modality Mi of characteristic C, a dual-entry table as shown below:

O.I.

R.I. With Modality Mi Without Modality

Mi

Total

With Modality Mi

Without Modality Mi

a

c

b

d

a + b

c + d

TOTAL a + c b + d n

where:

n the total households/persons classified in both interviews, with regard to the reference characteristic.

a the number of households/persons classified in modality Mi in both interviews.

b the number of households/persons classified in modality Mi in R.I. and in another in O.I.

c the number of households/persons classified in modality Mi in O.I and in another in R.I.

d the number of households/persons not classified in Mi in either of the interviews.

Based on this reduced table, the following quality indicators are defined:

A. Percentage identically classified

P.I.C. (M ) aa b

. 100i =+

Varies from zero to one hundred. Indicates response stability. Its optimum value, one hundred, expresses that all households (or persons) belonging, according to R.I., to modality Mi, are classified in the same way in O.I.

B. Net change index

I.C.N. (M)c ba b

. 100i

=−+

This may be positive (c>b) or negative (c<b). It measures the response bias of the survey, expressed as a percentage of the number of households belonging to Mi, according to R.I. Given that, for its calculation, it does not consider the different weighting of the data in each stratum, this index can only be interpreted as an indicator of the bias, and not as an estimator.

C. Rate of net difference

T.D.N. (M ) c bn

. 100i =−

D. Gross change index

I.C.B. (M ) c ba b

. 100i =++

It may be non-existent or positive. This indicates the response variance, expressed as a percentage of the number of households belonging to Mi in the R.I. It serves as a measurement of the errors which have been made in this modality.

25

E. Rate of gross difference

T.D.B. (M ) c bn

. 100i =+

From the definition of these indicators, we conclude that, if there are no content errors in a modality, the P.I.C. takes a value of one hundred, and the two indices and the two values take a value of zero.

It is also important to note that a small, or even non-existent, P.I.C. can co-exist with a zero bias. This occurs when the errors cancel each other out and b=c. In turn, the I.C.B. can only take on the value of zero if b=c=0, that is, if there is no content error.

In order to compare the general quality of the different characteristics assessed, we use the global consistency index, which is defined for a given characteristic C as:

I. C. G. (C)n

n. 100

iii=

∑

VII.2. Characteristics assessed

We have obtained coincidence tables for the following characteristics (section 3 of the annex):

A. Of the households

- Number of persons

− Dwelling tenancy regime

− Main source of income

− Value of net monthly income

B. Of the population

B.1. All of the population

- Sex and age

B.2. Population aged 16 years old and over

- Sex and marital status

- Nationality

- Highest level of studies completed

- Relationship with economic activity

26

27

The quality indicator tables have been obtained for these same characteristics (section 4 of the annex).

VII.3. Analysis of the characteristics assessed

A. Characteristics of the households

A.1. Number of persons

The results obtained for this characteristic and the corresponding quality indicators are presented in tables C.1 and I.1 of the annex.

The different modalities present high P.I.C.s, as the smallest value, corresponding to the modality of households with 5 persons, stands at 91 percent. The indices of net (indicator of bias) and gross (indicator of the total number of errors) change are quite small, as is customary in this characteristic.

A.2. Dwelling tenancy regime

Tables C.2 and I.2 of the annex present the results obtained and the quality indicators corresponding to this characteristic.

It can be observed that the modality of owned is that which presents the highest P.I.C., with a value of 98.3 percent, and is also the majority modality, since it classifies 85 percent of those classified in R.I.. The lowest P.I.C. is obtained in the modality of granted free-of-charge or semi-free-of-charge, with a value of 75 percent, which turns out to be the modality with the lowest number of persons classified.

The bias and the gross change index of the owned modality are very small; those of the other modalities are higher, though not especially high.

A.3. Main source of income

The data related to this characteristic may be seen in tables C.3 and I.3 of the annex.

In table C.3, we can observe that most of those classified have been such in one of the first three modalities, that is, self-employed work, work for others and contributory and non-contributory pensions.

The remaining modalities are not representative, given the scarce number of persons classified therein.

If we focus on the P.I.C.s (Table I.3), we see that the highest correspond to the majority modalities, work for others and contributory and non-contributory pensions, with values above 87 percent.

Regarding the biases and the gross change indices, we have observed that the highest are those that correspond to the minority modalities.

A.4. Value of net monthly income

The results corresponding to this characteristic are found in tables C.4 and I.4 of the annex.

In the C.4 tables, we can see that the quantitatively most important modalities are from the second to the fourth, with 62 percent of the households having been classified in R.I. in the three tables.

The fact that income constitutes a characteristic that is collected with great difficulty in surveys, might have an influence on the poor quality of its indicators. Thus, in tables I.4, we can observe that the P.I.C.s are very low, with only the modalities of 500 to 999 euros and 3,000 euros and more being above 50 percent, and the maximum value reached by the latter, 67 percent. In general, the biases are not excessively large, but the gross change indices reach quite significant values.

The global consistency indices of the characteristics analysed in this section are included in table 8. It can be observed that the highest indices correspond to the characteristics of number of persons and dwelling tenancy regime, whose values stand above 95 percent. The characteristic that is worst collected, as is customary, is the value of net monthly income with a G.C.I. of 49.6 percent.

8. Global consistency indicesCharacteristic

Number of persons 97.68

Tenancy regime of the dwelling 95.79

Main source of income 84.52

Value of net monthly income 49.64

B. Characteristics of the population

B.1. All of the population

B.1.1. Sex and age

Tables C.5 and I.5 of the annex contain the data corresponding to these characteristics.

We observe that the P.I.C.s are very high for both females and males, with the lowest corresponding to the modality of under 16 years of age in females, reaching a value of 88 percent. The highest P.I.C. is that corresponding to the modality of women 20 to 24 years of age, reaching a value of one hundred percent.

The biases (N.C.I.) are small, as with the indices of gross change, for both males and females.

28

29

B.2. Population aged 16 years old and over

B.2.1. Sex and marital status

The results obtained and the quality indicators corresponding to these characteristics are presented in tables C.6 and I.6 of the annex.

Some high P.I.C.s are observed, except in the modality of separated or divorced, which in the case of women stands at 79 percent. This is the modality in which the least persons are classified.

Regarding the N.C.I.s and the G.C.I.s, they are very small, with the highest being those that correspond to the mentioned modality.

B.2.2. Nationality

The results obtained for this characteristic are shown in tables C.7 and I.7 of the annex.

We observe that the modality that presents the best indicators is the Spanish modality, in which 95 percent of the persons are classified. Conversely, the modality of both, in which very few persons are classified, is that which presents the worst indicators.

B.2.3. Highest level of studies completed

The results obtained for this characteristic are shown in tables C.8 and I.8 of the annex.

The highest P.I.C. corresponds to the modality of 2nd and 3rd cycle university studies, with 86 percent, whereas the lowest is obtained in VT I, intermediate VT, industrial professional training, standing at 49 percent. Considering these results, it could be said that the P.I.C.s, in general, are low. The net and gross change indices could be considered relatively high, in general, and in particular, those relating to the modality of Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification.

What is observed in table C.8 is the existence of important population transfers between the different modalities. Thus, of the total classified in R.I. in the modality of Illiterate and without studies, 40 percent are classified in O.I. in the modality of Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification, and of those classified in R.I. in this last modality, almost 18 percent have been classified in O.I. in the modality of Illiterate and without studies.

These discrepancies may mainly be due to the difficulty in cataloguing a certain level of studies in the classification used thereof, which hampers its encoding. According to the data from table 9, in the year 2008, it is confirmed that there is a break in the trend of persons to elevate their social status by declaring a higher level of studies on receiving the visit of the R.I. interviewer, as what can be observed is that a greater number of persons declares a higher level of studies than in O.I.

9. Persons with different

levels of studies

in the two interviewsLevel of studies

Higher in O.I. 420

Higher in R.I. 172

B.2.4. Relationship with economic activity

Tables C.9 and I.9 of the annex contain the data corresponding to this characteristic.

Observing table I.9, we see that the modalities that present the worst indicators are those of With work, temporarily absent and Another situation, which are likewise those in which the fewest persons are classified. The remaining modalities have better indicators, though they are not very good, given that the highest P.I.C.s, corresponding to the modalities of Student and Employed, stand at around 90 percent.

In turn, table C.9 shows that the customary population transfer between the modalities of Unemployed and Employed is not excessively important on this occasion, since nearly 20 percent of those classified as Unemployed in R.I. are classified as Employed in O.I..

A transfer that is percentually more important than the above is that which occurs between the modalities of With work, temporarily absent and Employed, since 67 percent of those classified in R.I. in the former, are classified in O.I. in the latter. Also important is that which takes place between the modalities of Another situation and Retired (32 percent). What happens is that these transfer have little repercussion as there are very few persons who are classified in the modalities of With work, temporarily absent and Another situation, as previously mentioned.

Table 10 presents the global consistency indices regarding the characteristics analysed in sections B.1 and B.2.

10. Global consistency indices Characteristic

Age 95.10

- Males 96.21

- Females 96.89

Marital status 95.71

- Males 97.07

- Females 96.93

Nationality 98.86

Level of studies completed 63.92

Relationship with economic activity 82.61

30

The characteristics of age, marital status and nationality present high global consistency indices, which indicates that they are collected quite well.

The relationship with economic activity has an index of nearly 83 percent, whereas the level of studies completed presents a significantly lower index, as in the other surveys, reaching a value of 64 percent, indicating a slight decrease with regard to the year 2007.

11. Installations and services of the

dwellings in O.I. and in R.I.O.I. R.I.

Totals

Total dwellings 19,886 689

Dwellings with hot water 19,780 687

Dwellings with heating 12,156 469

Percentages

Total dwellings 100.00 100.00

Dwellings with hot water 99.47 99.71

Dwellings with heating 61.13 68.07

Table 11 shows the distribution in O.I. and R.I. of the hot water and heating installations in the dwellings. If we centre on the percentage distributions, we can observe that the percentages of dwellings that have hot water are practically equal in O.I. and R.I., and the percentages of dwellings with heating are not excessively different, presenting a difference of seven percentage points in favour of R.I..

31

32

VIII. Evaluation of non-response

VIII.1. Introduction of results

Among the errors that affect any survey are the errors other than sampling errors, which take place in the different phases of the statistical process, and can appear before the information collection (deficiencies in the framework, insufficiencies in the definitions or in the questionnaires), during the collection (defects in the work of the interviewers, incorrect statements or non-response on the part of the informants), and lastly, in the operations subsequent to the fieldwork (errors in encoding, recording, etc.).

Evaluating these errors can be a very difficult task, among other reasons, due to the wide variety of causes that could give rise to them.

From among these causes, worth noting is the non-response of the informant units, which may be due to a refusal to respond to the questionnaire, to the absence thereof, or to the dwelling being inaccessible at the time of the interview.

In order to analyse the non-response of the survey, we have designed an assessment questionnaire with which we intend to obtain information regarding the basic characteristics of the units that have not collaborated in the survey.

The assessment questionnaire is structured in three sections. The first section is for noting down the identification data of the dwelling. The second collects the type of incidence that has occurred on visiting the dwelling; likewise, it indicates whether the dwelling has been replaced or not, and if it has, it includes the order number of the replacement dwelling.

The third section collects the number of members of the household and the following basic characteristics of its main breadwinner: sex, age, marital status, highest level of studies completed, relationship with economic activity and nationality. The origin of the information is also requested.

The questionnaire is completed only for those original dwellings that have had some of the following incidences: refusal, absence or inability to respond.

VIII.2. Analysis of the data

Table EFR.1 presents the distribution of the theoretical sample (original dwellings) and of the total effective sample (total original households plus surveyed reserves), by Autonomous Community. The theoretical sample is presented as the number of dwellings, whereas the effective sample is expressed as the number of households, given that in each dwelling selected, the household or households residing therein are studied (one or more households may coexist in a single dwelling). The percentages of the total effective sample, for each Autonomous Community and for the national total, have been calculated with regard to the number of dwellings of the theoretical sample.

33

It can be observed that, on the national level, the effective sample represents 89.5 percent of the theoretical sample, this value being somewhat higher than that obtained in 2007. This indicates that 10.5 percent of the households have not collaborated in the survey for different reasons, and it has not been possible to replace them. Likewise, as is already customary, Madrid is the Autonomous Community with the lowest percentage of total effective sample, reaching a value of 80 percent, thereby improving with regard to 2007, when it reached 76 percent.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Murcia and Cantabria are the Autonomous Communities with the highest percentage of total effective sample, standing slightly above 96 percent.

Regarding the distribution by size of the municipalities (table EFR.2), we observe that the lowest percentage of total effective sample (81.5 percent) is obtained in the municipalities of Madrid and Barcelona, whereas the highest is achieved in the municipalities with between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, where it stands at 91 percent.

Table EFR.1. Distribution of the theoretical sample

of dwellings and effective sample of households,

by Autonomous CommunityAutonomous Communities Theoretical sample Total effective sample

Dwellings % Households %Total 23,765 100.00 21,261 89.46Andalucía 2,520 100.00 2,264 89.84Aragón 996 100.00 892 89.56Asturias (Principado de) 836 100.00 761 91.03Balears (Illes) 910 100.00 810 89.01Canarias 1,170 100.00 987 84.36Cantabria 780 100.00 750 96.15Castilla y León 1,527 100.00 1,413 92.53Castilla-La Mancha 1,270 100.00 1,073 84.49Cataluña 2,320 100.00 2,032 87.59Comunidad Valenciana 1,780 100.00 1,614 90.67Extremadura 1,040 100.00 952 91.54Galicia 1,430 100.00 1,370 95.80Madrid (Comunidad de) 1,740 100.00 1,396 80.23Murcia (Región de) 1,000 100.00 963 96.30Navarra (Comunidad Foral de) 1,526 100.00 1,408 92.27País Vasco 1,880 100.00 1,641 87.29Rioja (La) 780 100.00 707 90.64Ceuta and Melilla 260 100.00 228 87.69

Table EFR.2. Distribution of the theoretical sample

of dwellings and effective sample of households

by the size of the municipality (strata) Municipality size Theoretical sample Total effective sample

Dwellings % Households %Total 23,765 100.00 21,261 89.46Madrid and Barcelona (Large cities) 1,450 100.00 1,182 81.52Rest of provincial capitals 6,740 100.00 6,038 89.58Non-capital municipalitieswith more than 100,000 inhabitants 1,580 100.00 1,390 87.97Municipalities with 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants 2,430 100.00 2,169 89.26Municipalities with 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants 2,996 100.00 2,728 91.05Municipalities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants 8,569 100.00 7,754 90.49

Table EFR.3.1 allows the assessment of framework defects through the unsurveyable dwellings, whereas table EFR.3.2 shows the distribution, by

34

Autonomous Community, of the surveyable dwellings (those surveyed plus non-response).

If we focus on the first of these tables, we can see that the percentage of households surveyed of the theoretical sample, on the national level, stands at almost 65 percent. Dropping to the level of Autonomous Community, worth noting is the low percentage of households surveyed in País Vasco, where it stands at 56 percent; the highest percentage is obtained in Cantabria, where it reaches nearly 77.5 percent.

Regarding the unsurveyable original dwellings, their percentage on the national level stands at nearly 7 percent, with Madrid and País Vasco being the Autonomous Communities with the lowest percentage (3.5 and 3.8 percent, respectively) and Castilla-La Mancha that which presents the highest percentage (almost 10 percent).

TABLE EFR.3.1 Distribution of the original dwellings / households

by Autonomous CommunityOriginal dwellings / households

Autonomous Total Surveyed With incidences (dwellings/households)Communities (dwellings/households) (households) Total Unsurveyable Unavailable Previously selected

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Total 23,869 100.00 15,484 64.87 8,385 35.13 1,571 6.58 40 0.17 33 0.14Andalucía 2,534 100.00 1,647 65.00 887 35.00 211 8.33 3 0.12 9 0.36Aragón 997 100.00 648 64.99 349 35.01 73 7.32 1 0.00 1 0.00Asturias (Princ. de) 841 100.00 584 69.44 257 30.56 37 4.40 0 0.00 0 0.00Balears (Illes) 917 100.00 615 67.07 302 32.93 71 7.74 4 0.44 1 0.11Canarias 1,172 100.00 738 62.97 434 37.03 104 8.87 6 0.51 2 0.17Cantabria 780 100.00 604 77.44 176 22.56 60 7.69 0 0.00 0 0.00Castilla y León 1,536 100.00 1,073 69.86 463 30.14 119 7.75 6 0.39 5 0.33Castilla-La Mancha 1,273 100.00 763 59.94 510 40.06 123 9.66 2 0.16 4 0.31Cataluña 2,330 100.00 1,436 61.63 894 38.37 115 4.94 1 0.04 0 0.00Comunidad Valenciana 1,781 100.00 1,163 65.30 618 34.70 128 7.19 3 0.17 0 0.00Extremadura 1,044 100.00 698 66.86 346 33.14 86 8.24 1 0.10 2 0.19Galicia 1,433 100.00 1,018 71.04 415 28.96 92 6.42 1 0.00 4 0.28Madrid (Comunidad de) 1,758 100.00 1,010 57.45 748 42.55 62 3.53 3 0.17 0 0.00Murcia (Región de) 1,015 100.00 748 73.69 267 26.31 44 4.33 2 0.20 0 0.00Navarra (Com. Foral) 1,533 100.00 1,010 65.88 523 34.12 100 6.52 1 0.07 3 0.20País Vasco 1,884 100.00 1,053 55.89 831 44.11 72 3.82 6 0.32 1 0.05Rioja (La) 781 100.00 514 65.81 267 34.19 53 6.79 0 0.00 1 0.13Ceuta and Melilla 260 100.00 162 62.31 98 37.69 21 8.08 0 0.00 0 0.00

Table EFR.3.2 shows the distribution of the households corresponding to the surveyable original dwellings, by Autonomous Community, and it can be observed that the inabilities to respond are irrelevant as compared with the refusals and absences, where most of non-response is concentrated. For this reason, no comments will henceforth be included regarding inabilities to answer, as they are not considered to be of interest.

As all of the percentages of this table are calculated with regard to the total number of surveyable dwellings, that is, subtracting the unsurveyable dwellings, the unavailable dwellings and those that are previously selected, the percentage of households surveyed may be considered the response rate in the survey, which on a national level reaches a value near 70 percent, whereas by Community, it varies between the 58 percent recorded in País Vasco and the 84 percent obtained in Cantabria. 35

The refusals are the incidences with the greatest weight in non-response, as on a national level, they represent nearly 16 percent of the households of the surveyable dwellings, indicating a decrease of three points as compared with the value from 2007. By Community, País Vasco is the Community that shows the highest percentage of refusals, with 27 percent, and at the other end of the scale, Cantabria is the Community showing the lowest percentage (5.4 percent).

Absences, in turn, represent 13.4 percent of the households of the surveyable dwellings on a national level (one point less than in 2007), with Madrid being the Community with the highest percentage thereof (21 percent) and Cantabria presenting the lowest percentage (nearly 10 percent).

TABLE EFR.3.2 Distribution of the households corresponding to the

surveyable original dwellings, by Autonomous CommunitySurveyable

Autonomous Total Surveyed Non-responseCommunities Refusals Absences Inability to responTotal

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Total 22,225 100.00 15,484 69.67 3,514 15.81 2,982 13.42 245 1.10 6,741 30.33Andalucía 2,311 100.00 1,647 71.27 378 16.36 268 11.60 18 0.78 664 28.73Aragón 922 100.00 648 70.28 150 16.27 119 12.91 5 0.54 274 29.72Asturias (Princ. de) 804 100.00 584 72.64 102 12.69 106 13.18 12 1.49 220 27.36Balears (Illes) 841 100.00 615 73.13 86 10.23 124 14.74 16 1.90 226 26.87Canarias 1,060 100.00 738 69.62 151 14.25 158 14.91 13 1.23 322 30.38Cantabria 720 100.00 604 83.89 39 5.42 71 9.86 6 0.83 116 16.11Castilla y León 1,406 100.00 1,073 76.32 179 12.73 149 10.60 5 0.36 333 23.68Castilla-La Mancha 1,144 100.00 763 66.70 191 16.70 182 15.91 8 0.70 381 33.30Cataluña 2,214 100.00 1,436 64.86 424 19.15 322 14.54 32 1.45 778 35.14Comunidad Valenciana 1,650 100.00 1,163 70.48 254 15.39 204 12.36 29 1.76 487 29.52Extremadura 955 100.00 698 73.09 141 14.76 110 11.52 6 0.63 257 26.91Galicia 1,336 100.00 1,018 76.20 167 12.50 142 10.63 9 0.67 318 23.80Madrid (Comunidad de) 1,693 100.00 1,010 59.66 318 18.78 355 20.97 10 0.59 683 40.34Murcia (Región de) 969 100.00 748 77.19 86 8.88 126 13.00 9 0.93 221 22.81Navarra (Com. Foral) 1,429 100.00 1,010 70.68 234 16.38 150 10.50 35 2.45 419 29.32País Vasco 1,805 100.00 1,053 58.34 494 27.37 238 13.19 20 1.11 752 41.66Rioja (La) 727 100.00 514 70.70 91 12.52 113 15.54 9 1.24 213 29.30Ceuta and Melilla 239 100.00 162 67.78 29 12.13 45 18.83 3 1.26 77 32.22

Table EFR.4 shows the breakdown of the incidences, separately, for the original dwellings and for the reserve dwellings.

36

TABLE EFR.4. Breakdown of the incidences

Type of incidence No. % No. %

Total 23,869 14,668

Surveyed households 15,484 5,777

Total incidences 8,385 100.00 8,891 100.00

Incidences in dwellings 1,644 19.61 1,514 17.03

Unsurveyable dwelling 1,571 18.74 1,408 15.84

- Empty dwelling 1,309 15.61 1,094 12.30

- Unlocatable dwelling 186 2.22 244 2.74

- Dwelling intended for other purposes 76 0.91 70 0.79

Inaccessible dwelling 40 0.48 56 0.63

Previously selected dwelling 33 0.39 50 0.56

Incidences in dwellings (non-response) 6,741 80.39 7,377 82.97

Refusal 3,514 41.91 2,696 30.32

Absence 2,982 35.56 4,472 50.30

Inability to respond 245 2.92 209 2.35

Original Reserve

For both types of dwelling, we observe that, as a percentage, the incidences in the households (non-response) are much more important than the incidences in the dwellings. Within the latter, the highest percentage corresponds, in both cases, to the empty dwellings, with this being three percentage points higher in the original dwellings than in the reserve dwellings.

The non-response reached in both types of dwelling reached quite similar levels, there are notable differences in the percentages of refusals and absences. Thus, while in the original dwellings, the predominant incidence is the refusal (42 percent of the total incidences), in the reserve dwellings the main incidence is the absence (50 percent of the total incidences). Aside from this difference, there are not other notable differences between the two distributions.

The following tables have mostly been obtained from the information in the assessment questionnaires, and to a lesser extent, using the information from the household files of those households that began to collaborate in the survey that subsequently ceased to do so, mostly by refusal (subsequent refusals). The following considers the most relevant aspects of each one of them. Commentaries are not made regarding the inabilities to respond, due to their scant weight in non-response.

37

• Table EFR.5

This shows the distributions of the households corresponding to the original surveyable dwellings, according to the number of persons therein. We can observe very high percentages of No data recorded, above all in the absences, which subtracts a great deal of representativeness from the results obtained.

On performing an analysis by the number of persons in the household with the data available, we can observe that the refusals record their greatest weight in the single-person households, reaching a value of 15 percent therein, as with absences, which represent 15.7 percent of said households. These percentages have been calculated, as can be observed, with regard to the corresponding number of surveyable original dwellings of each size (horizontal percentages).

Table EFR.5. Distribution of non-response by household size

Households of the surveyable original dwellings Number of Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respondPersons Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Total 22,225 15,484 3,514 2,982 245No data recorded 2,507 11.28 0 - 1,090 31.02 1,327 44.50 90 36.73Total classified 19,718 100.00 15,484 78.53 2,424 12.29 1,655 8.39 155 0.791 person 3,348 100.00 2,243 67.00 500 14.93 525 15.68 80 2.392 persons 5,872 100.00 4,511 76.82 830 14.13 479 8.16 52 0.893 persons 4,599 100.00 3,763 81.82 522 11.35 304 6.61 10 0.224 persons 4,339 100.00 3,706 85.41 378 8.71 247 5.69 8 0.185 persons 1,102 100.00 918 83.30 127 11.52 56 5.08 1 0.096 or more persons 458 100.00 343 74.89 67 14.63 44 9.61 4 0.87

Table EFR.5.bis compares the distributions of refusals and absences, according to the number of members of the household, with the distribution by number of members that is obtained in the total of the surveyable original dwellings (vertical percentages). We conclude from this comparison, taking as a reference the figures of the surveyable dwellings, that the refusals are mainly concentrated in the households with one member, and to a lesser extent, in the households with two members, with the absences doing so very intensely in the one-person households.

Table EFR.5bis. Percent distribution of refusals

and absences according to household size.

Comparison with the distribution of the total

households of the surveyable original dwellingsType of incidence Households in surveyable

Number of persons Refusal (%) Absence (%) original dwellings (%)Total 100.0 100.0 100.01 person 20.6 31.7 17.02 persons 34.2 28.9 29.83 persons 21.5 18.4 23.34 persons 15.6 14.9 22.05 persons 5.2 3.4 5.66 or more persons 2.8 2.7 2.3

38

• Table EFR.6

This shows the distribution of the households corresponding to the surveyable original dwellings, by sex and age of the main breadwinner. We observe considerable percentages of Data on sex not recorded, which reduces the representativeness of the conclusions that could be drawn.

Regarding non-response, we observe that is much greater in the households with a female main breadwinner than those with a male main breadwinner, the difference being eleven points (27.9 percent as compared with 16.7 percent). This is due to the fact that the percentages of the three components of non-response are greater in the households with a female main breadwinner, yielding the greatest difference between both types of household, seven points, in the refusals, as can be confirmed.

Both in the households with a male main breadwinner and those with a female main breadwinner, the highest percentages of refusals are obtained in the modality of over 65 years of age, standing at 14.2 percent and 23.1 percent, respectively.

Table EFR.6. Distribution of non-response, according to the

sex and age of the main breadwinner Households of the surveyable original dwellings

Sex / age of the main breadwinner Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respond

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 22,225 - 15,484 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No sex recorded 2,385 10.73 0 0.00 1,017 28.94 1,289 43.23 79 32.24

Total classified by sex 19,840 100.00 15,484 78.04 2,497 12.59 1,693 8.53 166 0.84

Men 14,267 100.00 11,635 81.55 1,477 10.35 1,075 7.53 80 0.56No age recorded 298 2.09 3 0.00 174 11.78 99 9.21 22 27.50

Men classified by age 13,969 100.00 11,632 83.27 1,303 9.33 976 6.99 58 0.4216 to 25 years old 262 100.00 237 90.46 13 4.96 12 4.58 0 0.0026 to 35 years old 2,141 100.00 1,842 86.03 121 5.65 174 8.13 4 0.1936 to 45 years old 3,262 100.00 2,792 85.59 242 7.42 224 6.87 4 0.1246 to 55 years old 3,028 100.00 2,565 84.71 238 7.86 217 7.17 8 0.2656 to 65 years old 2,305 100.00 1,894 82.17 268 11.63 138 5.99 5 0.22Over 65 years old 2,971 100.00 2,302 77.48 421 14.17 211 7.10 37 1.25

Women classified by age 5,573 100.00 3,849 69.07 1,020 18.30 618 11.09 86 1.54No age recorded 235 4.22 1 0.00 139 13.63 77 12.46 18 20.93

Women classified by age 5,338 100.00 3,848 72.09 881 16.50 541 10.13 68 1.2716 to 25 years old 149 100.00 122 81.88 18 12.08 8 5.37 1 0.6726 to 35 years old 697 100.00 558 80.06 63 9.04 75 10.76 1 0.1436 to 45 years old 1,003 100.00 760 75.77 121 12.06 121 12.06 1 0.1046 to 55 years old 936 100.00 695 74.25 135 14.42 101 10.79 5 0.5356 to 65 years old 730 100.00 542 74.25 123 16.85 62 8.49 3 0.41Over 65 years old 1,823 100.00 1,171 64.23 421 23.09 174 9.54 57 3.13

Regarding absences, in those households with a male main breadwinner, the highest percentage (8.1 percent) is reached in the modality aged 26 to 35 years old, whereas in those households with a female main breadwinner, the highest percentage is obtained in the modality aged 36 to 45 years old, reaching a value of 12 percent.

39

Table EFR.6.bis shows the distribution of households, refusals and absent, by age of the main breadwinner, for the purpose of comparing it with the distribution, according to this same characteristic, that is obtained in the total of the households of the surveyable original dwellings. From the comparison, we can conclude that the refusals carry the greatest weight, by a great difference, in the households in which the main breadwinner is over 65 years of age, while the absences are mainly concentrated in those households in which the main breadwinner is 26 to 35 years of age.

Table EFR.6.bis. Percent distribution of refusals and

absences according to the age of the main breadwinner.


households of the surveyable original dwellings Type of incidence Households in surveyable

Age Refusal (%) Absence (%) original dwellings (%)Total 100.0 100.0 100.016 to 25 years old 1.4 1.3 2.126 to 35 years old 8.4 16.4 14.736 to 45 years old 16.6 22.7 22.146 to 55 years old 17.1 21.0 20.556 to 65 years old 17.9 13.2 15.7Over 65 years old 38.6 25.4 24.8

• Table EFR.7

This includes the distribution of the households corresponding to the surveyable original dwellings, according to the sex and marital status of the main breadwinner.

Table EFR.7. Distribution of non-response, according to the sex and

marital status of the main breadwinner Households of the surveyable original dwellings

Sex / marital status of the main breadwinner Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respondNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 22,225 - 15,484 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No marital status recorded 2,385 10.73 0 0.00 1,017 28.94 1,289 43.23 79 32.24Total classified by sex 19,840 100.00 15,484 0.00 2,497 12.59 1,693 8.53 166 0.84Men 14,267 100.00 11,635 81.55 1,477 10.35 1,075 7.53 80 0.56No marital status recorded 1,049 7.35 0 0.00 458 31.01 552 51.35 39 48.75Men classified by marital status 13,218 100.00 11,635 88.02 1,019 7.71 523 3.96 41 0.31- Single 1,532 100.00 1,331 86.88 111 7.25 86 5.61 4 0.26- Married 10,947 100.00 9,671 88.34 845 7.72 400 3.65 31 0.28- Widowed 383 100.00 310 80.94 41 10.70 26 6.79 6 1.57- Separate or divorced 356 100.00 323 90.73 22 6.18 11 3.09 0 0.00Women 5,573 100.00 3,849 69.07 1,020 18.30 618 11.09 86 1.54No marital status recorded 849 15.23 0 0.00 427 41.86 386 62.46 36 41.86Women classified by marital status 4,724 100.00 3,849 81.48 593 12.55 232 4.91 50 1.06- Single 1,065 100.00 929 87.23 82 7.70 52 4.88 2 0.19- Married 1,290 100.00 971 75.27 237 18.37 74 5.74 8 0.62- Widowed 1,689 100.00 1,348 79.81 225 13.32 78 4.62 38 2.25- Separate or divorced 680 100.00 601 88.38 49 7.21 28 4.12 2 0.00

40

In those households with a male main breadwinner, the percentages of refusals obtained in the four types of household do not present large differences, obtaining the highest in the modality of widowed, where it stands at 10.7 percent. When the main breadwinner is female, the highest percentage is obtained in the modality of married, reaching a value slightly higher than 18 percent.

Regarding absences, the highest percentages are obtained in the modality of widowed in the households with a male main breadwinner, reaching a value close to 7 percent. In those households with a female main breadwinner, the highest percentage is reached in the modality of married, standing at 5.7 percent.

Table EFR.7.bis compares the percent distributions of refusals and absences, according to the marital status of the main breadwinner, with the distribution of this same variable that is obtained in the total households of the surveyable original dwellings. From this comparison we can conclude, taking as a reference the figures of the total households of the surveyable dwellings, that the refusals are slightly concentrated in the households in which the main breadwinner is widowed, with the absences doing so, also slightly, in the households with a single main breadwinner.

Tabla EFR.7.bis. Distribución porcentual de negativas

y ausencias según estado civil del sustentador prin-

cipal. Comparación con la distribución del total de los

hogares de las viviendas titulares encuestablesTipo de incidencia Hogares en viv. tit.

Estado civil Negativa (%) Ausencia (%) encuestables (%)Total 100,0 100,0 100,0

Soltero/a 12,0 18,3 14,5

Casado/a 67,1 62,8 68,2

Viudo/a 16,5 13,8 11,5

Separado/a 4,4 5,2 5,8

• Table EFR.8

This includes the distribution of the households of the surveyable original dwellings, according to the relationship of the main breadwinner with economic activity. This characteristic presents, as is customary and as occurs in other surveys, some very high percentages of no data recorded: 57 percent for the refusals and 76 percent for the absences. Such high percentages subtract validity from the conclusions that can be obtained regarding this characteristic.

41

Table EFR.8. Distribution of non-response, according to the

relationship with economic activity of the main breadwinner Households of the surveyable original dwellings

Relationship with Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respondeconomic activity No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Total 22,225 - 15,484 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No data recorded 4,411 19.85 0 0.00 2,003 57.00 2,253 75.55 155 63.27Total classified 17,814 100.00 15,484 86.92 1,511 8.48 729 4.09 90 0.51Employed 10,845 100.00 9,645 88.93 731 6.74 459 4.23 10 0.09Unemployed 660 100.00 611 92.58 32 4.85 16 2.42 1 0.15Retired 5,223 100.00 4,335 83.00 599 11.47 221 4.23 68 1.30Homemaker 881 100.00 716 81.27 129 14.64 29 3.29 7 0.79Another situation 205 100.00 177 86.34 20 9.76 4 1.95 4 1.95

It can be observed, however, that the highest percentage of refusals is obtained in the households in which the main breadwinner is a homemaker, reaching a value of 14.6 percent. In the case of the absences, the highest percentage is shared by the households whose main breadwinner is employed or retired, in which it stands at 4.2 percent.

Table EFR.8.bis shows the percent distributions of the households with non-response, by the relationship of the main breadwinner with economic activity, together with the distribution of the total households, according to this same characteristic, that is obtained from the surveyable original dwellings. From the comparison of these distributions, we can conclude, with the due reservations due to the high percentage of no data recorded, the following: the refusals are fundamentally concentrated in households whose main breadwinner is retired, whereas the absences are not as concentrated in the households whose main breadwinner is employed.

Table EFR.8.bis. Percent distribution of refusals and absences,

according to the relationship with economic activity of the main

breadwinner. Comparison with the distribution of the total

households of the surveyable original dwellings Type of incidence Households in surveyable

Relationship with economic activity Refusal (%) Absence (%) original dwellings (%)Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Employed 48.4 63.0 60.9

Unemployed 2.1 2.2 3.7

Retired 39.6 30.3 29.3

Homemaker 8.5 4.0 4.9

Another situation 1.3 0.5 1.2

42

• Table EFR.9

Regarding the level of studies of the main breadwinner, we observe that the percentages of No data recorded are also important, 50 percent for the refusals and 65 percent for the absences.

In turn, the highest percentage of refusals is obtained in the households in which the main breadwinner has, as the highest level of studies completed, Illiterate and without studies, reaching a value of 12 percent. In the case of absences, the highest percentage is obtained in those households whose main breadwinner has, as the highest level of studies Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course, reaching a value of 11 percent. These percentages have been calculated, as in the previous tables, regarding the corresponding number of surveyable original dwellings for each modality (horizontal percentages).

Nevertheless, these results have a relative validity, due to the high percentages of No data recorded commented above.

Table EFR.9. Distribution of non-response, according to

the level of studies of the main breadwinner Households of the surveyable original dwellings

Level of studies Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respondNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 22,225 - 15,484 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No level of studies recorded 3,871 17.42 0 0.00 1,773 50.46 1,952 65.46 146 59.59Total classified 18,354 100.00 15,484 84.36 1,741 9.49 1,030 5.61 99 0.54Illiterate and without studies 5,782 100.00 4,721 81.65 713 12.33 284 4.91 64 1.11Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification 5,427 100.00 4,523 83.34 555 10.23 325 5.99 24 0.44

Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course 1,909 100.00 1,497 78.42 192 10.06 215 11.26 5 0.26VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional training 979 100.00 887 90.60 57 5.82 33 3.37 2 0.20VTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial training 1,281 100.00 1,124 87.74 94 7.34 62 4.84 1 0.081st cycle university studies 1,253 100.00 1,150 91.78 60 4.79 41 3.27 2 0.162nd and 3rd cycle university studies 1,723 100.00 1,582 91.82 70 4.06 70 4.06 1 0.06

Table EFR.9.bis shows the percent distributions of the households with non-response, by the level of studies of the main breadwinner, together with the distribution of the total households, according to this same characteristic, that is obtained from the surveyable original dwellings (vertical percentages). From the comparison of the distributions, we can arrive, with the reserves due to the high percentage of No data recorded, at the following conclusions: the refusals are concentrated fundamentally in the modality of Illiterate and without studies; regarding the absences, it can be seen that they are mainly concentrated in the households whose main breadwinner has, as the highest level of studies, Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course.

43


according to the level of studies of the main breadwinner.


households of the survyeable original dwellings Type of incidence Households in surveyable

Level of studies Refusal (%) Absence (%) original dwellings (%)Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Illiterate and without studies 41.0 27.6 31.5Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification 31.9 31.6 29.6Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course 11.0 20.9 10.4

VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional training 3.3 3.2 5.3

VTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial training 5.4 6.0 7.0

1st cycle university studies 3.4 4.0 6.8

2nd and 3rd cycle university studies 4.0 6.8 9.4

• Table EFR.10

The following is analysed: the distribution of all of the households corresponding to the original surveyable dwellings, according to the nationality of the main breadwinner.

It can be observed that the highest percentage of refusals is reached in the households whose main breadwinner is Spanish, standing at 11.9 percent. In the case of absences, the highest percentage is reached in those households whose main breadwinner is foreign, with 12.3 percent. The highest global non-response is obtained in the households whose main breadwinner is foreign.

Table EFR.10. Distribution of non-response, according to

the nationality of the main breadwinnerHouseholds of surveyable original dwellings

Nationality Total Surveyed Refusals Absences Inability to respondNo. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 22,225 - 15,484 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No nationality recorded 2,897 13.03 0 0.00 1,244 35.40 1,544 51.78 109 44.49Total classified 19,328 100.00 15,484 80.11 2,270 11.74 1,438 7.44 136 0.70Spanish 18,148 100.00 14,577 80.32 2,165 11.93 1,307 7.20 99 0.55Foreign 1,037 100.00 772 74.45 100 9.64 128 12.34 37 3.57Both 143 100.00 135 94.41 5 3.50 3 2.10 0 0.00

44

Table EFR.10.bis shows the percent distributions of the households with non-response, by the nationality of the main breadwinner, together with the distribution of the total households, according to this same characteristic, that is obtained from the surveyable original dwellings (vertical percentages). From the comparison of the distributions, we can deduce, with the reserves due to the high percentage of No data recorded, that that refusals are slightly concentrated in those households with a main breadwinner of Spanish nationality; conversely, the absences are concentrated similarly in those households where the main breadwinner has foreign nationality.


according to the nationality of the main breadwinner.

Comparison with the distribution of the total households

of the surveyable original dwellingsType of incidence Households in surveyable

Nationality Refusal (%) Absence (%) original dwellings (%)Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Spanish 95.4 90.9 93.9

Foreign 4.4 8.9 5.4

Both 0.2 0.2 0.7

• Table EFR.11

This table compares for percent distributions, according to the highest level of studies of the main breadwinner of the household: original households with non response, replacement households, households from the total effective sample and households in the surveyable original dwellings. Appearing as replacement households are all those reserves that have been surveyed, including both those that have been used to replace the non-response itself (refusals, absences and inabilities to respond) and those used to replace the rest of the incidences.

The discrepancies observed between the second and third distributions (replacement households and total effective sample), with those existing between these two and the last (households in the surveyable original dwellings) being quite small. The most significant differences are those that arise between the first distribution and the other three, fundamentally in the modalities of Illiterate and without studies and 2nd and 3rd cycle university studies, in which the percent differences stand above 7 points in the first case, and near six points in the second.

These differences indicate, as may be shown on comparing the distributions of the original households with non-response and of the replacement households, that in practice, it is fundamentally the households whose main breadwinner has the lowest level of studies completed, Illiterate and without studies, that are replaced, by households in which the main breadwinner has a higher level of studies completed, mainly 2nd and 3rd cycle university studies.

45

Table EFR.11. Distribution of the original households with non-response

and of the replacements, according to the level of studies of the

main breadwinner. Comparison with the effective sampleOriginal households Replacement Households in the Households in surveyable

Level of studies with non-response households total effective sample original dwellingsNo. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 6,741 - 5,777 - 21,261 - 22,225

No level of studies recorded 3,871 57.42 - - - - 3,871 17.42

Total classified 2,870 100.00 5,777 100.00 21,261 100.00 18,354 100.00

Illiterate and without studies 1,061 36.97 1,726 29.88 6,447 30.32 5,782 31.50Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification 904 31.50 1,721 29.79 6,244 29.37 5,427 29.57

Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course 412 14.36 531 9.19 2,028 9.54 1,909 10.40

VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional training 92 3.21 356 6.16 1,243 5.85 979 5.33

VTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial training 157 5.47 404 6.99 1,528 7.19 1,281 6.98

1st cycle university studies 103 3.59 420 7.27 1,570 7.38 1,253 6.83

2nd and 3rd cycle university studies 141 4.91 619 10.71 2,201 10.35 1,723 9.39

• Table EFR.12

This is similar to the previous table, but according to the number of persons in the household. The third and fifth distributions (total effective sample and surveyed original dwellings) are practically the same, whereas the second and third (replacement households and total effective sample) do not show large differences, with the greatest discrepancies being registered between the first distribution and the last, for households with one and four persons, and in particular, in the former, where the difference approaches twelve points.

If we compare the distributions of the original households with non-response and of the replacement households, it can be observed that, in practice, households with one person are substituted by larger households, mainly with four persons, this now being customary.

It could be stated that, in general, non-response reduces the representation of small households, and increases that of larger households, which is proven if we compare the distributions of the total effective sample, and that of the households of the surveyable original dwellings, although in this case, the differences observed are much smaller.

46

Table EFR.12. Distribution of the original households with non-response

and of the replacements, according to the size of the household.

Comparison with the effective sample Original households Replacement Households in total Households in surveyableSurveyed original

Number of with non-response households effective sample original dwellings householdspersons No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %Total 6,741 - 5,777 - 21,261 - 22,225 - 15,484

No data recorded 2,507 37.19 - - - - 2,507 11.28 - -Total classified 4,234 100.00 5,777 100.00 21,261 100.00 19,718 100.00 15,484 100.00

1 person 1,105 26.10 841 14.56 3,084 14.51 3,348 16.98 2,243 14.49

2 persons 1,361 32.14 1,668 28.87 6,179 29.06 5,872 29.78 4,511 29.13

3 persons 836 19.74 1,441 24.94 5,204 24.48 4,599 23.32 3,763 24.30

4 persons 633 14.95 1,318 22.81 5,024 23.63 4,339 22.01 3,706 23.93

5 persons 184 4.35 364 6.30 1,282 6.03 1,102 5.59 918 5.93

6 or more persons 115 2.72 145 2.51 488 2.30 458 2.32 343 2.22

Table EFR.12.bis compares the percent distribution of the total effective sample of the survey, by number of members, with the percent distribution of households, likewise according to the number of members, that the EAPS provides for 2008 (average of the four quarters). The greatest difference (3.5 percentage points) is obtained for 1-member households, with the percentage of the EAPS being higher; the following differences in importance, of 2.3 and one percentage points, are obtained respectively in the households with four and three members, in this case, the percentage in the EAPS being lower, with the figures being quite similar for the rest of the types of household. This would indicate, trusting in the figures from the EAPS, that the HBS slightly underestimates the households with 1 member, and overestimates the larger households, mainly those with 4 and 3 members, as occurs in other surveys, although the application of the calibration, by household size, in the estimation process, corrects this possible bias.

Table EFR.12.bis. Percent distribution of the

households in the total effective sample,

according to the number of members.

Comparison with EAPS 2008Effective sample EAPS (average 2008)

Number of members (%) (%)

Total 100.0 100.0

1 member 14.5 18.0

2 members 29.1 29.0

3 members 24.5 23.5

4 members 23.6 21.3

5 members 6.0 5.9

6 or more members 2.3 2.3

47

Lastly, table EFR.13 shows the distribution of non-response according to the source from which the corresponding information was obtained.

TABLE EFR.13. Distribution of non-response, according to

the origin of the information Non-response

Origin Total Refusals Absences Inability to respondNumber % Number % Number % Number %

Total 6,741 - 3,514 - 2,982 - 245 -No data recorded 2,276 33.76 995 28.32 1,190 39.91 91 37.14Total classified 4,465 100.00 2,519 100.00 1,792 100.00 154 100.00Direct 1,451 32.50 1,017 40.37 374 20.87 60 38.96Municipal Register 2,067 46.29 974 38.67 1,033 57.65 60 38.96Other means 947 21.21 528 20.96 385 21.48 34 22.08

On a global level, we observe that the highest percentage of information regarding non-response is obtained from the Municipal Register (46 percent). Singling out by type of incidence, we can see that in the refusals, most of the information (40 percent) is obtained directly, that is, from the household itself; in the inabilities to respond, both directly and from the Municipal Register (39 percent per process). In the case of absences, 58 percent of the information is obtained from the Register.

48

49

Annex

50

Coverage of persons

51

.25

.25

.25

Table C.P.1. Persons omitted in O.I., according to sex

and ageSex / age Number Percentage

Total 16 100.00No sex or age recorded 2 12.50Males 5 31.25Under 16 years of age - -16 to 19 years old - -20 to 24 years old 2 12.5025 to 54 years old 1 655 years old and over 2 12.50Females 9 56.25Under 16 years of age 6 37.5016 to 19 years old 2 12.5020 to 24 years old - -25 to 54 years old - -55 years old and over 1 6

Table C.P.2. Personas omitted in O.I., according to sex

and marital statusSex / marital status Number PercentageTotal 16 100.00

No sex or marital status recorded 4 25.00

Men 5 31.25

- Single 3 18.75

- Married 2 12.50

- Widowed - -

- Separated or divorced - -

Women 7

- Single 4 25.00

- Married 1 6

- Widowed 2 12.50


Table C.P.3. Persons omitted in O.I., according to

relationship with economic activityrelationship with economic activity Number PercentageTotal 16 100.00

No data recorded 4 25.00

Employed 5 31.25

Unemployed - -

Retired 5 31.25

Homemaker - -

Another situation 2 12.50

Table C.P.4. Persons erroneously included in O.I.

according to sex and ageSex / age Number Percentage

Total 3 100.00

No sex recorded 2 66.67Males - -Under 16 years of age - -16 to 19 years old - -20 to 24 years old - -25 to 54 years old - -55 years old and over - -Females 1 33.33Under 16 years of age - -16 to 19 years old - -20 to 24 years old - -25 to 54 years old 1 33.3355 years old and over - -


according to sex and marital statusSex / marital status Number PercentageTotal 3 100.00

No marital status recorded 2 66.67

Men - -

- Single - -

- Married - -

- Widowed - -


Women 1 33.33

- Single -

- Married 1 33.33

- Widowed - -



according to relationship with economic activityRelationship with economic activity Number PercentageTotal 3 100.00

No economic activity recorded 2 66.67

Employed 1 33.33

Unemployed - -

Retired - -

Homemaker - -

Another situation - -

52

53

Content errors

54

---

Table C.1. Households according to the number of persons Classification Total Number of personsaccording to O.I. Households Households Households Households Households Households

Classification with 1 with 2 with 3 with 4 with 5 with 6 or

according to R.I. person persons persons persons persons more persons

Total 689 92 210 141 191 42 13Households with 1 person 91 91 - - - -Households with 2 persons 210 - 208 1 1 -Households with 3 persons 142 1 2 136 3 -Households with 4 persons 188 - - 3 185 - -Households with 5 persons 45 - - 1 2 41 1Households with 6 or more persons 13 - - - - 1 12

Table C.2. Dwellings according to tenancy regime Classification Total Tenancy regimeaccording to O.I. Owned Rented Granted

Classification free-of-charge oraccording to R.I. semi-free-of-charge

Total 689 591 60 38Owned 587 577 3 7Rented 66 6 56 4Granted free-of-charge or semi-free-of-charge 36 8 1 27

55

3

---

Table C.3. Main source of household income (Next)

Classification Total No source No main Total Main source of incomeaccording to O.I. of income source of classified Self- Work

Classification recorded income employed foraccording to R.I. recorded work others

Total 689 6 4 679 104 312No source of income recorded 6 - - 6 -No main source of income recorded 14 - - 14 2 3Total classified 669 6 4 659 102 306Self-employed work 128 1 - 127 83 30Work for others 290 5 3 282 13 260

236 - 1 235 5 16Unemployment subsidy 9 - - 9 -Other subsidies 1 - - 1 -Property and/or capital earnings 3 - - 3 -Other regular income 2 - - 2 1 -

(End)Classification Main source of incomeaccording to O.I. Contributory and Unemployment Other Property Other

Classification non-contributory subsidy subsidies and/or capital regularsaccording to R.I. pensions earnings incomeTotal 241 12 2 7 1

No source of income recorded 3 - - - -

No main source of income recorded 9 - - - -

Total classified 229 12 2 7 1

Self-employed work 12 2 - - -

Work for others 8 1 - - -

206 2 1 5 -

Unemployment subsidy 2 6 - - 1

Other subsidies - 1 - - -

Property and/or capital earnings 1 - - 2 -

Other regular income - - 1 - -

Contributory and non-contributory pensions

Contributory and non-contributory pensions

56

671

Table C.4. Value of net monthly household income(Next)

Classification Total No Total Value of incomeaccording to O.I. value classified Up to 500 1,000 1,500

recorded 499 to 999 to 1,499 to 1,999Classification euros euros euros eurosaccording to R.I.

Total 689 248 441 9 74 83 76No value recorded 40 12 28 - 3 6 9Total classified 649 236 413 9 71 77Up to 499 euros 20 6 14 6 6 1500 to 999 euros 150 62 88 3 51 20 71,000 to 1,499 euros 144 61 83 - 11 40 171,500 to 1,999 euros 108 44 64 - 2 12 24

2,000 to 2,499 euros 84 25 59 - - 3 112,500 to 2,999 euros 57 16 41 - - 1 33,000 euros or more 86 22 64 - 1 - 4

(End)Classification Value of incomeaccording to O.I. 2,000 2,500 3,000

to 2,499 to 2,999 eurosClassification euros euros or moreaccording to R.I.Total 62 53 84

No value recorded 2 4 4

Total classified 60 49 80

Up to 499 euros - - -

500 to 999 euros 4 3 -

1,000 to 1,499 euros 5 4 6

1,500 to 1,999 euros 15 6 5

2,000 to 2,499 euros 25 11 9

2,500 to 2,999 euros 4 16 17

3,000 euros or more 7 9 43

57

4-

Table C.5. Population according to sex and ageClassification Total Malesaccording to O.I. Total Under 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 54 Over 54

16 years years years years yearsof age old old old old

Classificationaccording to R.I.Total classified by sex 1,978 962 193 41 55 427 246Males 968 950 188 41 54 425 242- Under 16 years of age 216 209 187 - 3 15- 16 to 19 years old 43 42 - 40 2 -- 20 to 24 years old 50 49 - 1 48 - -- 25 to 54 years old 420 415 1 - 1 407 6- Over 54 years old 239 235 - - - 3 232

Females 1,010 12 5 - 1 2 4- Under 16 years of age 198 5 4 - 1 - -- 16 to 19 years old 63 1 - - - 1 -- 20 to 24 years old 48 - - - - - -- 25 to 54 years old 410 2 1 - - 1 -- Over 54 years old 291 4 - - - - 4

Classification Femalesaccording to O.I. Total Under 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 54 Over 54

16 years years years years yearsof age old old old old

Classificationaccording to R.I.Total classified by sex 1,016 176 65 53 421 301

Males 18 4 2 1 7 4

- Under 16 years of age 7 4 1 1 1 -

- 16 to 19 years old 1 - 1 - - -

- 20 to 24 years old 1 - - - - 1

- 25 to 54 years old 5 - - - 5 -

- Over 54 years old 4 - - - 1 3

Females 998 172 63 52 414 297

- Under 16 years of age 193 170 2 2 10 9

- 16 to 19 years old 62 2 59 1 - -

- 20 to 24 years old 48 - - 48 - -

- 25 to 54 years old 408 - 2 - 404 2

- Over 54 years old 287 - - 1 - 286

58

-

2

-

Table C.6. Population 16 years old and over, according to

sex and marital statusClassification Total Menaccording to O.I. Total Single Married Widowed Separated

ordivorced

Classificationaccording to R.I.Total classified by sex 1,668 801 258 504 19 20Men 808 793 257 498 18 20- No marital status recorded 8 7 5 2 -

801 786 252 496 18 20- Single 251 245 239 4 -- Married 510 504 9 492 - 3- Widowed 22 20 1 - 18 1- Separated or divorced 17 17 3 - - 14

Women 860 8 1 6 1 -- No marital status recorded 5 0 - - -

855 8 1 6 1 -- Single 224 1 - 1 - -- Married 504 6 1 5 - -- Widowed 108 1 - - 1 -- Separated or divorced 19 0 - - - -

Classification Womenaccording to O.I. Total Single Married Widowed Separated

ordivorced

Classificationaccording to R.I.Total classified by sex 867 241 495 113 18Men 15 8 5 2 -- No marital status recorded 1 1 - - -

15 8 5 2 -- Single 6 6 - - -- Married 6 1 5 - -- Widowed 2 - - 2 -- Separated or divorced - - - - -Women 852 233 490 111 18- No marital status recorded 5 2 2 1 -

847 231 488 110 18- Single 223 217 4 2 -- Married 498 10 484 1 3- Widowed 107 2 - 105 -- Separated or divorced 19 2 - 2 15

-Total classified

-Total classified

-Total classified

-Total classified

Table C.7. Population aged 16 years old and over

according to nationalityClassification Total Nationalityaccording to O.I.

Classification Spanish Foreign Bothaccording to R.I.

Total 1,668 1,588 67 13Spanish 1,593 1,584 2 7Foreign 70 3 63 4Both 5 1 2 2

59

Table C.8. Population aged 16 years old and over, according to

highest level of studies completed (Next)Classification Total No Total Level of studiesaccording to O.I. level of classified

Classification studies

according to R.I. recorded

Total 1,668 6 1,662 496 553

No level of studies recorded 21 - 21 10 5Total classified 1,647 6 1,641 486 548Illiterate and without studies 753 5 748 427 302

292 - 292 52 205

159 1 158 4 25

81 - 81 1 11

99 - 99 1 41st cycle university studies 142 - 142 1 12nd and 3rd cycle university studies 121 - 121 - -

(End)Clasificación Level of studiessegún E.O.

Clasificaciónsegún E.R.Total 174 80 105 129 125

No level of studies recorded 3 1 1 1 -


Illiterate and without studies 8 7 4 - -

22 6 3 2 2

101 7 8 9 4

11 40 18 - -

8 18 65 3 -

1st cycle university studies 13 - 5 107 15

2nd and 3rd cycle university studies 8 1 1 7 104

Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education

Illiterate and without studies

Post-Secondary, Secondary

VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial

VTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial

1st cycle university studies

2nd and 3rd cycle university studies

Elementary Post-secondary

VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional trainingVTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial trainin

Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University

g

Course

Elementary Post-secondary Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University CourseVTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional trainingVTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial training

60

61

3

-

7

9

Table C.9. Population aged 16 years old and over, according to

relationship with economic activityClassification Total No relationship Total Relationship with economic activity

according to O.I. with economic classified Employed Employed,Classification activity temporarilyaccording to R.I. recorded absent

Total 1,668 6 1,662 748 39

16 1 17 2 1

Total classified 1,652 7 1,645 746 38Employed 739 1 738 661 22Employed, temporarily absent 49 - 49 33 12

Unemployed 92 - 92 18 1Retired 348 - 348 11 1Student 130 4 126 8 -Homemaker 272 - 272 15 1Another situation 22 - 22 - 1

(Conclusión)Classification Relationship with economic activity

according to O.I. Unemployed Retired Student Homemaker AnotherClassification situationaccording to R.I.Total 100 335 132 265 43

4 - 3 2


Employed 24 10 10 10 1

Employed, temporarily absent 1 2 - 1

Unemployed 52 - 3 11

Retired 2 298 1 26

Student 1 - 114 1 2

Homemaker 13 18 - 213 12

Another situation 3 7 1 1 9

No relationship with economic activity recorded

No relationship with economic activity recorded

62

Quality indicators

Table I.1. Households according to the number of persons Quality indicators

Number of persons P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Households with 1 person 100.00 0.15 1.10 0.15 1.10

Households with 2 persons 99.05 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.90

Households with 3 persons 95.77 -0.15 -0.70 1.60 7.75

Households with 4 persons 98.40 0.44 1.60 1.31 4.79

Households with 5 persons 91.11 -0.44 -6.67 0.73 11.11

Households with 6 persons or more 92.31 0.00 0.00 0.29 15.38

Table I.2. Tenancy regime of the dwelling Quality indicatorsTenancy regime P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Owned 98.30 0.58 0.68 3.48 4.09

Rented 84.85 -0.87 -9.09 2.03 21.21

Granted free-of charge or semi-free-of-charge 75.00 -1.31 -25.00 1.31 25.00

Table I.3. Main source of household income Quality indicatorsMain source of income P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Self-employed work 65.35 -3.79 -19.69 9.56 49.61

Work for others 92.20 3.64 8.51 10.32 24.11

Contributory and non-contributory pensions 87.66 -0.91 -2.55 7.89 22.13

Unemployment subsidy 66.67 0.46 33.33 1.37 100.00

Other subsidies 0.00 0.15 100.00 0.46 300.00

Property and capital earnings 66.67 0.61 133.33 0.91 200.00

Other regular income 0.00 -0.15 -50.00 0.46 150.00

63

64

Table I.4. Value of net monthly income

of the household

Quality indicatorsValue of income P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.Up to 499 euros 42.86 -1.21 -35.71 2.66 78.57500 to 999 euros 57.95 -4.12 -19.32 13.80 64.771,000 to 1,499 euros 48.19 -1.45 -7.23 19.37 96.391,500 to 1,999 euros 37.50 0.73 4.69 20.10 129.692,000 to 2,499 euros 42.37 0.24 1.69 16.71 116.952,500 to 2,999 euros 39.02 1.94 19.51 14.04 141.463,000 euros or more 67.19 3.87 25.00 14.04 90.63

Table I.5. Po

pulation according to sex and ag

e Quality indicatorsSex and age P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Males 98.14 -0.30 -0.62 1.52 3.10

- Under 16 years of age 89.47 -2.21 -10.05 2.42 11.00

- 16 to 19 years old 95.24 -0.11 -2.38 0.32 7.14

- 20 to 24 years old 97.96 0.53 10.20 0.74 14.29

- 25 to 54 years old 98.07 1.05 2.41 2.74 6.27

- Over 54 years old 98.72 0.74 2.98 1.37 5.53

Females 98.81 0.30 0.59 1.52 2.97

- Under 16 years of age 88.08 -2.10 -10.88 2.51 12.95

- 16 to 19 years old 95.16 0.10 1.61 0.70 11.29

- 20 to 24 years old 100.00 0.40 8.33 0.40 8.33

- 25 to 54 years old 99.02 0.60 1.47 1.40 3.43

- Over 54 years old 99.65 1.00 3.48 1.20 4.18

Table I.6. Population aged 16 years old and over,

according

to sex and marital statusQuality indicatorsSex and marital status P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Men 98.14 -0.42 -0.87 1.38 2.85

Single 97.55 0.89 2.86 2.42 7.76

Married 97.62 -1.02 -1.59 2.04 3.17

Widowed 90.00 -0.25 -10.00 0.25 10.00

Separated or divorced 82.35 0.38 17.65 1.15 52.94

Women 99.07 0.42 0.81 1.38 2.67

Single 97.31 0.94 3.59 2.36 8.97

Married 97.19 -1.18 -2.01 2.13 3.61

Widowed 98.13 0.35 2.80 0.83 6.54

Separated or divorced 78.95 -0.12 -5.26 0.83 36.84


according to nationalityQuality indicatorsNationality P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Spanish 99.44 -0.30 -0.31 0.78 0.82

Foreign 90.00 -0.18 -4.29 0.66 15.71

Both 40.00 0.48 160.00 0.84 280.00


according to highest level of studies completedQuality indicatorsLevel of studies P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Illiterate and without studies 57.09 -15.97 -35.03 23.16 50.80

Elementary Post-secondary education, OSE, Primary education qualification 70.21 15.60 87.67 26.20 147.26

Post-Secondary, Secondary School, Post-secondary non-higher education, Pre-University Course 63.92 0.79 8.23 7.74 80.38

VTI, Intermediate VT, industrial professional training 49.38 -0.12 -2.47 4.88 98.77

VTII, advanced VT, advanced industrial training 65.66 0.30 5.05 4.45 73.74

1st cycle university studies 75.35 -0.85 -9.86 3.41 39.44

2nd and 3rd cycle university studies 85.95 0.24 3.31 2.32 31.40


according to relationship with economic activityQuality indicatorsRelationship with economic activity P.I.C. N.R.D. N.C.I. G.R.D. G.C.I.

Employed 89.57 0.49 1.08 9.85 21.95

Employed, temporarily absent 24.49 -0.67 -22.45 3.83 128.57

Unemployed 56.52 0.24 4.35 5.11 91.30

Retired 85.63 -0.79 -3.74 5.29 25.00

Student 90.48 0.18 2.38 1.64 21.43

Homemaker 78.31 -0.55 -3.31 6.63 40.07

Another situation 40.91 1.09 81.82 2.67 200.00

65

Date post:	19-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Data quality assessment of the household budget …Data quality assessment of the household budget...

Documents