CHAPTER 1: THE NLS 1

THE NLS

The National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS), sponsored by

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), are a set

of surveys designed to gather information at multiple points

in time on the labor market experiences of groups of men and

women. Each of the cohorts has been selected to represent

all people living in the United States at the initial interview

date and born during a given period. This selection allows

weighted conclusions to be drawn about the sample group

that can be generalized to represent the experiences of the

larger population of U.S. residents born during the same period. Sample design procedures ensure that the labor market

experiences of blacks, Hispanics, youths, women, and the

economically disadvantaged can be examined. The NLS program also includes surveys of the children born to women

who participate in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

1979 (NLSY79). Detailed information is gathered biennially

on the child’s home environment and cognitive,

socioemotional, and physiological development; as they get

older, these young adults report on their education,

workforce participation, and fertility. This unique set of national surveys offers researchers the opportunity to study

large panels of men, women, and children over significant

segments of their lives.

The NLS samples

Each of the NLS cohorts consists of 5,000 or more original

members, some of whom have been surveyed over several

decades. Table 1.1 summarizes the NLS cohorts, the sizes of

the original samples, the span of years over which each group

has been interviewed, and the current interview status of

each group.

Development of the NLS

The National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience began in the mid-1960s. The Office of Manpower Policy,

Evaluation, and Research of the U.S. Department of Labor

contracted with the Center for Human Resource Research

(CHRR) at The Ohio State University to conduct longitudinal studies of the labor market experiences of four population groups:

Age Birth year Original Initial year / Number Number at

Survey group cohort cohort sample latest year of surveys last interview Status

Older men 45–59 4/1/06–3/31/21 5,020 1966 / 1990 13 1

2,092 Ended

Mature women 30–44 4/1/22–3/31/37 5,083 1967 / 2003 21 2,237 Ended

Young men 14–24 4/1/41–3/31/52 5,225 1966 / 1981 12 3,398 Ended

Young women 14–24 1943–1953 5,159 1968 / 2003 22 2,859 Ended

NLSY79 14–21 1957–1964 2

12,686 1979 / 2004 21 37,724 Continuing

NLSY79 children birth–14 — 4

— 1986 / 2004 10 33,190 Continuing

NLSY79 young adults 5

15 and older — 4— 1994 / 2004 6 34,238 Continuing

NLSY97 12–16 1980–1984 8,984 1997 / 2004 8 6

7,756 Continuing

Table 1.1. The NLS: Survey groups, sample sizes, interview years, and survey status

1Interviews in 1990 also were conducted with 2,206 widows

or other family members of deceased respondents. 2After dropping the military (in 1985) and economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic oversamples (in 1991), the

sample contains 9,964 respondents eligible for interview. 3The latest sample size available is from the 2002 survey.

4The size of the NLSY79 child sample depends on the number

of children born to female NLSY79 respondents, attrition over

time, and the gradual aging of the children into the young adult

sample. The size of the young adult sample depends on the

number of children who reach age 15 in each survey year. Information about the number interviewed in each survey is available in chapter 4. 5In 1998 only, the young adults eligible for interview were limited to those ages 15 to 20. 6The latest sample size available is from round 7.
2 CHAPTER 1: THE NLS

z Men 45 to 59 years of age—referred to as the “NLS of

Older Men”—first conducted in 1966

z Women 30 to 44 years of age—the “NLS of Mature

Women”—first conducted in 1967

z Young men 14 to 24 years of age—the “NLS of Young

Men”—first conducted in 1966

z Young women 14 to 24 years of age—the “NLS of Young

Women”—first conducted in 1968

These four groups of Americans, known collectively as the

“Original Cohorts” of the NLS, were selected because each

faced important labor market decisions of special concern to

policymakers. The Older Men respondents faced decisions

about the timing and extent of their labor force withdrawal at

retirement age. Mature Women were experiencing a return to

the labor force as their children became independent. As the

Young Men and Young Women completed their schooling,

they began careers or joined the military, married, and started

families.

The initial plan called for six interviews over a 5-year

period with a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 individuals in each group. As the 5-year period

ended, relatively high retention rates and the widespread

interest generated by these data led to the decision to continue the surveys.

On the basis of a survey of all known NLS data users

and the recommendations of a panel of experts convened by

the Department of Labor, policymakers decided in 1977 to

continue the surveys of the four original cohorts. The Older

Men and Young Men cohorts were administered until 1990

and 1981, respectively. The Mature Women and Young

Women cohorts were discontinued after the 2003 interviews.

The Department of Labor also decided in 1977 to begin

a new longitudinal study of young men and women. This

study would replicate the surveys of young men and women

that began in the 1960s. The new longitudinal study would

help policymakers and researchers evaluate the expanded

employment and training programs for youths legislated by

the 1977 amendments to the Comprehensive Employment

and Training Act (CETA).

This new survey would include a national probability

sample of civilian young women and men born in the years

1957 through 1964. The survey included supplemental

samples of blacks, Hispanics, and economically disadvantaged non-black/non-Hispanics to facilitate more reliable statistical analyses of these groups. The U.S. Department of

Defense provided funding to select an additional sample of

young persons serving in the Armed Forces and interview

them. The sample of civilian and military youths, called the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), was

interviewed for the first time in early 1979, when the respondents were ages 14 to 22. The cohort was interviewed annually until 1994 and has been interviewed biennially since then.

The military sample was dropped after the 1984 interviews,

and the sample of economically disadvantaged non-black/

non-Hispanic respondents was dropped after the 1990 interviews.

The “Children of the NLSY79” began in 1986 and further

enhanced the NLS program. With funding from the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

and a number of private foundations, detailed information

on the development of children born to NLSY79 women has

supplemented the data on mothers and children collected

during the main NLSY79. During the biennial interviews of

the Children of the NLSY79, interviewers administer a battery of child cognitive, socioemotional, and physiological

assessments to NLSY79 mothers and their children. Since

1994, children age 15 and older during the survey year—the

“Young Adults”—have replied to a separate survey that

contains questions similar to those asked of their mothers.

The complete child sample statistically represents the children of women born during the years 1957 to 1964 who resided in the United States in 1978.

In 1997, data collection began for another NLS cohort.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)

documents the transition from school to work for a nationally representative sample born in the years 1980 through

1984 (who were ages 12 to 17 during the first round of annual

interviews). The NLSY97 includes supplemental samples of

blacks and Hispanics to facilitate more reliable statistical

analyses of these groups. The NLSY97 enables researchers

to examine the transition of these youths from school to the

labor market and into adulthood. Information from the

NLSY97 allows researchers to compare the progress of this

cohort with that of other NLS cohorts.

Purposes and content of the surveys

The primary purpose of the NLS is to collect data on the

labor force experiences of adults and young adults. In addition, the surveys have regularly gathered information about

a range of factors potentially affecting labor market attachment, including investments in education and training, geographic region of residence, the influence of parents, marital

status and family responsibilities, socioeconomic status,

work-related attitudes and aspirations, health problems, and

job discrimination.

With the advent of the NLSY79 in the late 1970s, the

content of the surveys expanded to reflect the interests of

governmental agencies other than the Department of Labor.

Support from the U.S. Department of Defense made possible

the 1979–84 interviews of 1,280 youths enlisted in the military. In 1980, the Departments of Defense and Labor jointly

sponsored the administration of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to the civilian and military

NLSY79 samples. (The Department of Defense sponsored a

similar administration of the ASVAB for the NLSY97 cohort
CHAPTER 1: THE NLS 3

Supplemental data collections

 Family background and demographic characteristics

 Child development

 School records, aptitude, and intelligence scores

 Attitudes, aspirations, and psychological well-being

 Military experiences

 Work-related discrimination

 Retirement plans, pension eligibility, and pension plans

 Volunteer and leisure-time activities

 Alcohol, cigarette, and substance use

 Delinquent and criminal activities and arrest records

 Household chores, childcare, and care of ill and disabled persons

Core data collections

Labor market experiences

Training investments

Schooling information

Health conditions

Household composition

Marital histories, children, and dependents

Family assets and income

Geographic residence and environmental characteristics

in 1997.) The U.S. Department of Justice sponsored a series

of delinquency questions included in the 1980 administration of the NLSY79.

Beginning in 1979, a 5-year cooperative effort of the

National Center for Research in Vocational Education and

CHRR resulted in a survey of the high schools of civilian

NLSY79 respondents and the collection of detailed transcript

information on potential high school graduates. In 1981, the

National Institute of Education sponsored a set of time-use

questions. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have

provided funding in a number of years to include questions

on alcohol and substance abuse. NICHD has provided funds

for the assessments of the children born to female NLSY79

respondents, the development of the fertility and childcare

components of the NLSY79, the young adult survey, and a

survey conducted in 1995–96 of the schools attended by the

children of female NLSY79 respondents.

The 1989 NLS of Mature Women pension matching

project was funded by BLS in conjunction with the Women’s

Bureau and the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (now called the Employee Benefits Security Administration) of the U.S. Department of Labor, the Social Security

Administration, and the National Institute on Aging. The

Social Security Administration also provided financial support for interviews with the Mature Women. The National

Institute on Aging funded the 1990 survey of living Older

Men respondents and the family members of deceased respondents.

The U.S. Department of Education provided funding for

the 1996 and 2000 surveys of high schools that were conducted as part of the NLSY97. The Department of Education

also provided funding for the collection and coding of high

school transcripts for NLSY97 respondents and to include

questions in the NLSY97 about school-to-work programs.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention has provided funding to include questions in the NLSY97 about criminal and antisocial

behavior. NICHD has provided funding to include questions in the NLSY97 about health, fertility, and social relationships.

Figure 1.1 presents a summary of the topics covered by

NLS data. The core repeating modules are supplemented

with topical series administered to particular cohorts during

selected survey years. All topics are not necessarily available for all survey years or all cohorts; consult the cohortspecific chapters in this Handbook or each cohort-specific

user’s guide for more information.

The broad range of NLS data, the topical expansion of

the surveys, and the replication of cohorts across time make

the NLS a rich information source for the continued study of

many issues. These include life-cycle changes, the family,

the aging process, retirement decisions, geographic and occupational mobility, and a host of other topics.

While the NLS data can be used for cross-sectional studies, the longitudinal nature of the data offers significant advantages to researchers interested in causal processes.

Event histories covering topics such as employment, education, marriage, and childbearing support a variety of methodological approaches to research. The frequent overlap in

data content among cohorts, coupled with the variety of age

ranges covered by the different samples, invites cross-cohort comparisons and studies of social change.

For nearly four decades, NLS data have served as an

important tool for economists, sociologists, and other researchers interested in the study of earnings, job search and

separation, labor supply, labor market inequities, and human

capital investments. Researchers also have used these data

to study the impact of governmental policies and programs

and the effect of various social-psychological factors on labor force participation.

Annotated citations for research using the NLS cohorts

are available for review via an Internet bibliographic database (www.nlsbibliography.org). The continued relevance

of the NLS for the research community in general, and for

policymakers at the Federal, State, and local levels, is evident in the high number of citations added to the list each

year. See chapter 7 for more information.

Figure 1.1. NLS data content: Core and supplemental data collections
4 CHAPTER 1: THE NLS

File contents

Provides the longitudinal record of each respondent for the 1966–83 and 1990 interview years.

Includes information collected during the 1990 interviews with the widows or other family members

of deceased sample members and cause of death information collected from State vital records

departments.

Contains the longitudinal record of each respondent for the 1967–2003 interviews. Supplemental

pension plan data are described in figure 1.3.

Includes the longitudinal record of each respondent for the 1966–81 interview years. Includes

information from the separately administered 1968 survey of high schools attended by respondents

in this cohort.

Contains the longitudinal record of each respondent for the 1968–2003 interviews. Includes information from the separately administered 1968 survey of high schools attended by respondents in

this cohort.

Provides the longitudinal record of each respondent for the 1979–2002 interviews. Includes information from the separately fielded 1980 high school survey, the 1980 ASVAB administration, and the

1980-83 transcript data collections. Supplementary data for this cohort can be found in the special

data files discussed in figure 1.3.

Contains the record of each youth for all survey rounds. Includes information from each youth

interview, as well as the round 1 parent interview and the round 1 screener, household roster, and

nonresident roster questionnaire. Initial data from the round 1 ASVAB administration also are included in this data set Supplementary data for this cohort can be found in the special data files

discussed in figure 1.3.

Figure 1.2. NLS main data files

Cohort

Older Men

Mature Women

Young Men

Young Women

NLSY79

NLSY97

Period

1966–83

and 1990

1967–2003

1966–81

1968–2003

1979–2002

Rounds

1-7

BLS publishes summaries of NLS data in news releases,

Monthly Labor Review articles, and other reports.

NLS data sets

The cohort-specific data files summarized in figure 1.2 are

available to the public. Each file contains the cumulative

record of each respondent through the current release date.

In addition to the main data files, other special data files

are available (figure 1.3). These files, designed to be used

primarily in conjunction with variables from a cohort’s main

file, have been constructed from data collected during the

main surveys, from supplementary questionnaire data, or from

external data sources.

Chapters 2 through 6 of this handbook discuss in detail

each NLS cohort and the contents of the data files; information on accessing the data files is found in chapter 8.

Project administration

Responsibility for the administration of the NLS resides with

BLS, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor. Established in 1884, BLS is responsible for the analysis and publication of data on employment and unemployment, prices

and living conditions, compensation and working conditions,

productivity, occupational safety and health, and employment projections. Its mission is to promote the development

of the U.S. labor force by gathering information and disseminating it to policymakers and the public so that they can

make more informed, and thus more efficient, choices.

The NLS program supports BLS in this mission. Direction for the NLS is the responsibility of the Director of the

National Longitudinal Surveys program. BLS contracts with

CHRR to manage the NLS program, share in the design of the

survey instruments, disseminate the data, and provide user

services. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at

the University of Chicago works with CHRR to collect data

and assist with questionnaire design for the NLSY79, NLSY79

Children and Young Adult surveys, and the NLSY97. The

U.S. Census Bureau collected data for the now-discontinued

surveys of Mature Women, Young Women, Older Men, and

Young Men through a series of interagency agreements with

the Department of Labor.

The NLS Technical Review Committee, an advisory body

that consists of approximately 15 academic and government

researchers in economics, sociology, demography, child development, and survey methodology, provides valuable advice on ways to keep the NLS program useful and relevant

for researchers and policymakers. The committee advises

the NLS contractors regarding questionnaire design, potential survey topics, research uses, methodological issues, data

distribution, and user services.

BLS oversees all aspects of the work undertaken by the

other organizations involved in the program. For more information about the NLS program, visit the NLS Internet site at

www.bls.gov/nls. You also can contact BLS by e-mail at

NLS_Info@bls.gov or by telephone at (202) 691-7410.
CHAPTER 1: THE NLS 5

Cohort

Mature Women

 Pension Plan File

NLSY79

 Children and

 Young Adults

NLSY79

Work History

 NLSY79

 Geocode

 NLSY79

 Young Adult

 Geocode

 NLSY79 Women

 Support Network File

NLSY97 Event History

NLSY97 Geocode

Current status and changes in technology

As the NLS program nears the end of its fourth decade, interviews for the twenty-first round of the NLSY79 ended in the

winter of 2005, as did the tenth survey of the children of the

NLSY79 and the sixth survey of the NLSY79 Young Adults.

The next administration of these surveys is scheduled for

2006. The eighth round of the NLSY97 ended in early summer of 2005, and the ninth round is scheduled to begin in the

fall of 2005. The surveys of Mature Women and Young

Women ended following the 2003 interviews.

Technological advances have affected the mode of NLS

interviews and the media through which NLS data are distributed. The paper-and-pencil survey administrations, used

since the inception of the surveys, have been replaced with

computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI). The 1993

survey of the NLSY79 marked the first time that computerassisted interviews were administered to the full sample of

NLSY79 respondents. This event completed a 5-year effort

by BLS, CHRR, and NORC to improve the quality and timeliness of NLS data releases. Analyses of two NLSY79 CAPI

experiments conducted during 1989 and 1990 suggested

higher data quality, improvements in data transfer, and lower

data processing costs for CAPI interviews (Baker and

Bradburn, 1992; Bradburn, Frankel, et al., 1992; Olsen, 1991;

Speizer and Dougherty, 1991). Computer-assisted survey

interviewing software also has been used in all rounds of the

NLSY97 and was used in the interviews with the NLS of

Mature Women and Young Women from 1995 to 2003.

In the NLSY97, questions on sensitive topics such as

criminal activity, drug use, and sexual behavior are administered through the use of audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology. This technology enables

respondents to enter their answers to potentially sensitive

questions directly into a computer without an interviewer

knowing the responses. Respondents can choose to read

the questions from the computer screen or, if they prefer, use

headphones to listen to a recording of someone reading the

questions as they appear on the screen. With the ACASI

Figure 1.3. NLS special data files

1989

1986-2002

1979–2002

1979–2002

1994–2002

1983–85

Rounds

1-7

Rounds

1-7

File contents

Includes detailed information on the characteristics of 815 pension plans for which respondents or their husbands were eligible in 1989. These data were coded using the protocol

developed for the Survey of Consumer Finances and include plan definitions, benefit formulas, and eligibility requirements.

Contains information about the children born to female NLSY79 respondents. Data were

collected during the biennial assessments of each child, which began in 1986, and during

interviews of young adults (age 15 and older) beginning in 1994. Information on prenatal

care, maternal and child health, household composition, and maternal work history collected

during the main surveys of the NLSY79 also is included on the child files.

Provides a constructed week-by-week longitudinal record of labor force activity for each

respondent from January 1978 through the 2002 interview date. Three arrays provide information on the respondent’s labor force and military status, usual hours worked, and dual

jobs for those respondents working at more than one job during any of the survey weeks.

The work history data set also includes all main file data.

Identifies the State, county, and metropolitan statistical area of each NLSY79 respondent’s

current residence; provides selected environmental data for the respondent’s county or

metropolitan area of current residence. The geocode data also includes all main file data.

Identifies the State, county, and metropolitan statistical area of each NLS79 respondent’s

current residence; provides selected environmental data for the respondent’s county or

metropolitan area of current residence. The geocode data set also includes all of the child

and young adult main data.

Includes details on the geographic proximity of relatives, friends, and acquaintances of female NLSY79 respondents who were interviewed during 1983–85.

Contains constructed event history variables regarding respondents’ employment, schooling, marriages and cohabitations, and participation in government assistance programs. The

data set also includes all main file data.

Identifies the State, county, and metropolitan statistical area of each NLSY97 respondent’s

current residence; provides selected environmental data for the respondent’s county or

metropolitan area of current residence. The geocode data also includes all main file and

event history data.

Period
6 CHAPTER 1: THE NLS

technology, respondents are more likely to answer sensitive

questions truthfully than if they were asked to report their

answers to an interviewer. Compared with paper-and-pencil

self-administered questionnaires, ACASI technology improves response quality by reducing data-entry errors, permitting more complex questionnaire design and minimizing

errors due to respondent literacy problems or visual impairment.

NLS data sets can be downloaded for free from the

Internet at www.bls.gov/nls. For a fee, users can order a CD

that includes data for all NLS cohorts. The file downloads

and cross-cohort CD include Windows software with a userfriendly interface that allows users to peruse the variables

for a given cohort, select variables of interest, and create

ASCII extract files. The software also provides the information needed to read these data files into SAS, SPSS, or STATA

applications.

Organization of this Handbook

The rest of this publication comprises nine chapters:

z Chapters 2 through 6 contain overviews of the NLSY97,

the NLSY79, the NLSY79 children and young adults, the

Mature and Young Women, and the Older and Young

Men. Each chapter provides information on the samples,

the interviews, and the major data elements available for

each cohort.

z Chapter 7 presents a sampling of recent research based

on data from the NLS.

z Chapter 8 describes the NLS data sets, the search and

extraction software, and the comprehensive documentation available to researchers.

z Chapter 9 explains the procedures that have been implemented to protect respondent confidentiality and obtain the informed consent of respondents to participate

in each survey.

z Chapter 10 directs readers to other publications, manuals, and reports that provide more information on the

NLS.

References

Baker, Reginald P. and Bradburn, Norman M. “CAPI: Impacts on Data Quality and Survey Costs.” In Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records

and Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center

for Health Statistics (1992): 459–64.

Bradburn, Norman M.; Frankel, Martin R.; Baker, Reginald

P.; and Pergamit, Michael R. “A Comparison of Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI) with Paperand-Pencil Interviews (PAPI) in the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth.” NLS Discussion Paper

92-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992.

Olsen, Randall J. “The Effects of Computer Assisted Interviewing on Data Quality.” Columbus, Ohio: CHRR, The

Ohio State University, 1991.

Speizer, Howard and Dougherty, Doug. “Automating Data

Transmission and Case Management Functions for a

Nationwide CAPI Study.” In Proceedings of the 1991

Annual Research Conference. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau (1991): 389–97.
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 7

THE NLSY97

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)

documents the transition from school to work and from

adolescence to adulthood. The survey sample is designed

to represent U.S. residents in 1997 who were born during the

years 1980 through 1984. The majority of the oldest cohort

members (age 16 as of December 31, 1996) were still in secondary school during the first survey round and the youngest respondents (age 12) had not yet entered the labor market.

The original sample includes 8,984 respondents.

The NLSY97 collects extensive information on respondents’ labor market behavior and educational experiences.

The survey also includes data on the youths’ family and

community backgrounds to help researchers assess the impact of schooling and other environmental factors on these

labor market entrants. Data from the NLSY97 also aid in

determining how youths’ experiences relate to establishing

careers, participating in government programs, and forming

families. Finally, information from the NLSY97 allows researchers to compare the progress of this cohort with that of

other NLS cohorts.

Chapter organization

This chapter first discusses the sample for the NLSY97 cohort. Next, some of the mechanics of the interviews are described. The chapter then provides details about the various

instruments that were used in the round 1 (1997) survey—

the screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire; the youth questionnaire; the parent questionnaire;

and the computer adaptive form of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (CAT-ASVAB)—and about the instruments used in subsequent rounds. The final section

describes the major data elements of the NLSY97.

The NLSY97 samples

During the initial NLSY97 interview period, interviewers visited randomly selected households to identify all youths eligible for the NLSY97. All household residents ages 12 to 16

as of December 31, 1996, were considered eligible; the sample

included those who usually resided in a household in the

sample area but were away at school or college, as well as

those in a hospital, correctional facility, or other type of institution. If an eligible youth lived in the household, the interviewer also asked one of the youth’s parents (including

nonbiological parents) to participate.

To select the sample of 8,984 respondents, interviewers

screened 75,291 households in 147 primary sampling units

that did not overlap. (A primary sampling unit is a metropolitan area or, in nonmetropolitan areas, a single county or group

of counties.) Two samples were drawn—a cross-sectional

sample representing the U.S. population born in the years

1980 through 1984 and supplemental samples of the black

and Hispanic population born in those years. The supplemental samples facilitate more reliable statistical analyses of

these groups. Individual sample weights created by the

National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University

of Chicago permit comparisons between the full NLSY97

sample, which includes both the cross-sectional sample and

the supplemental samples, and the national population in

the same age range. Table 2.1 profiles the NLSY97 sample

during rounds 1 through 7 by sex, race, and ethnicity, and

cross-sectional or supplemental sample assignment.

Multiple-respondent households

In the NLSY97 cohort, 8,984 respondents originated from

6,819 unique households. Because the sample design selected all household residents in the appropriate age range,

1,862 households included more than one NLSY97 respondent. Table 2.2 lists the numbers of respondents living in

multiple-respondent households during the initial survey

round. Sibling was the most common relationship between

multiple respondents living in the same household during

the initial round. Table 2.3 provides the subset of respondents living with at least one sibling. The NLSY97 does not

contain nationally representative samples of siblings of all

ages and living arrangements; users should exercise caution

when generalizing from the findings of NLSY97 sibling studies. No spouse pairs were present in the data during round 1.

The NLSY97 interviews

The NLSY97 uses a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) system, which automatically guides respondents

down certain question paths and loops depending on their

age and responses to previous questions. A set of checks

within the CAPI system lowers the probability of inconsistent data, both during an interview and over time, relative to

the results of paper-and-pencil interviews. For example, if a
8 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

Table 2.1. NLSY97 sample sizes by sex, race and ethnicity, and subsample

NOTE: This table was created using the following variables:

KEY!RACE_ETHNICITY (R14826.), KEY!SEX (R05363.),

 Cross-sectional sample Supplemental sample

Total Total Nonblack Black, Hispanic Mixed Total Black, Hispanic Mixed

sample non-Hispanic non-Hispanic non-Hispanic

Round 1 Male 4,599 3,459 2,413 537 469 40 1,140 632 508 —

Female 4,385 3,289 2,252 544 452 41 1,096 622 472 2

Round 2 Male 4,283 3,213 2,238 504 433 38 1,070 599 471 —

Female 4,103 3,066 2,095 517 417 37 1,037 584 451 2

Round 3 Male 4,170 3,144 2,193 490 422 39 1,026 572 454 —

Female 4,039 3,029 2,076 503 412 38 1,010 568 441 1

Round 4 Male 4,117 3,098 2,153 485 423 37 1,019 580 439 —

Female 3,964 2,957 2,027 489 402 39 1,007 570 435 2

Round 5 Male 3,989 3,012 2,110 455 411 36 977 541 436 —

Female 3,894 2,907 1,991 478 401 37 987 558 427 2

Round 6 Male 3,998 2,996 2,083 466 411 36 1,002 567 435 —

Female 3,900 2,903 1,973 486 408 36 997 569 426 2

Round 7 Male 3,929 2,952 2,060 460 396 36 977 555 422 —

Female 3,827 2,831 1,916 482 396 37 996 565 429 2

Household type Respondents Households

1 respondent 4,957 4,957

Total multiple respondents 4,027 1,862

2 respondents 3,192 1,596

3 respondents 705 235

4 respondents 100 25

5 respondents 30 6

Total 8,984 6,819

Table 2.2. Round 1 distribution of NLSY97 respondents by household type

Sibling groups Respondents

No siblings in survey 5,129

Total multiple siblings 3,855

2 siblings 3,134

3 siblings 627

4 siblings 84

5 siblings 10

Total 8,984

Table 2.3. Round 1 distribution of NLSY97

sibling groups

NOTE: In this table, siblings include biological, adoptive, half,

and step relationships.

CV_SAMPLE_TYPE (R12358.), and RNI (R25102., R38277., etc.).

respondent who reported being enrolled in the 10th grade

stated that he or she already had completed the 12th grade,

the program prompts the interviewer to ask the respondent

either to correct the information or to explain the apparent

inconsistency.

Use of the CAPI system also allowed for a “screen and

go” method of screening the households in 1997. If the

screener identified an eligible youth in the household, the

program automatically transferred selected data (for example,

basic demographic information and a roster of household

members) into the parent and youth questionnaires for verification and use during the interview. As a result, the interviewer could administer the parent or the youth portion of

the NLSY97 immediately.

Questions on sensitive topics such as criminal activity,

drug use, and sexual behavior are administered in the NLSY97

through the use of audio computer-assisted self-interview

(ACASI) technology. This technology enables respondents

to enter their answers to potentially sensitive questions directly into a computer without an interviewer knowing the

responses. Respondents can choose to read the questions

from the computer screen or, if they prefer, use headphones

to listen to a recording of someone reading the questions as

they appear on the screen. With the ACASI technology,

respondents are more likely to answer sensitive questions

truthfully than if they were asked to report their answers to

an interviewer. Compared with paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaires, ACASI technology improves re-
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 9

1 February–October 1997 6,748 — 2,236 — 8,984 —

and March–May 1998

2 October 1998–April 1999 6,279 93.0 2,107 94.2 8,386 93.3

3 October 1999–April 2000 6,173 91.5 2,036 91.1 8,209 91.4

4 November 2000–May 2001 6,055 89.7 2,026 90.6 8,081 89.9

5 November 2001–May 2002 5,919 87.7 1,964 87.8 7,883 87.7

6 November 2002–May 2003 5,899 87.4 1,999 89.4 7,898 87.9

7 November 2003–July 2004 5,783 85.7 1,973 88.2 7.756 86.3

8 November 2004–July 2005 1

— 1— 1— 1— 1— 1—

Cross-sectional sample Supplemental sample Total sample

Round Fielding period Total Retention rate Total Retention rate Total Retention rate

sponse quality by reducing data-entry errors, permitting

more complex questionnaire design, and minimizing errors

due to respondent literacy problems or visual impairment.

The NLSY97 is an annual survey, but there was a longer

gap between rounds 1 and 2 than between other rounds.

Most respondents in round 2 were surveyed about 18 months

after their first interview. Table 2.4 provides information about

fielding periods and retention rates for each survey. Table

2.5 lists the mode of interview (in person or by telephone)

and completion rates for each survey year.

Sampling weights

The NLSY97 is a complex longitudinal survey composed of

multiple nationally representative samples. Because of this

complexity, the staff members working with NLSY97 data create a set of cross-sectional weights for each survey round. 

Using these weights provides a simple method that analysts

may use to correct the raw data for the complex survey design in a particular year. If an analyst is using data from

multiple rounds of the survey, the survey weight developed

for any particular round will provide an accurate adjustment

so long as the test for inclusion also is based on data from

the same round.

If a research project spans multiple survey rounds, one

can create a custom set of survey weights that adjust both

for the complexity of the survey design and for the use of

data from multiple rounds. The custom weighting program

can be found by going to the NLS Web site (www.bls.gov/

nls), clicking on the description of the NLSY97 cohort, and

then clicking on the link to “create a set of custom weights.”

After round 1, initial sampling weights for the entire

sample were constructed to adjust for differential

nonresponse and for the black and Hispanic oversamples.

These weights provide researchers with an estimate of the

number of individuals in the United States represented by

each respondent’s answers. NORC calculates the weights

Table 2.4. NLSY97 sample sizes, retention rates, and fielding periods

NOTE: Retention rate is defined as the percentage of base-year

respondents who were interviewed in a given survey year; deceased respondents are included in the calculations.

1

The sample sizes for round 8 are not yet available at the printing of this Handbook.

Table 2.5. NLSY97 interview mode

NOTE: Telephone was also the mode of interview for 223 of the

parent interviews conducted in round 1.

1

Less than 0.05%

Round Personal Telephone Not available Interviewed Not interviewed

1 8,700 96.8% 284 3.2% 0 — 8,984 — —

2 7,924 94.5 460 5.5 2 1 8,386 598 6.7%

3 7,552 92.0 656 8.0 1 1 8,209 775 8.6

4 7,372 91.2 707 8.7 2 1 8,081 903 10.1

5 7,215 91.5 665 8.4 3 1 7,883 1,101 13.6

6 6,614 83.8 1,283 16.2 1 1 7,898 1,086 13.8

7 6,825 88.0 929 12.0 2 1 7,756 1,228 15.5
10 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

after each survey round to account for noninterviews in that

round. Sampling weights for each round can be found in the

NLSY97 data set. Researchers should be aware that the

weights for rounds 1 through 3 were recalculated to improve

the efficiency of sample estimates. The previously released

weights are correct, but the new weights will result in smaller

standard errors for sample estimates. For more information,

see O’Muircheartaigh and Pedlow (2000).

Survey instruments and special data collections

This section describes the various NLSY97 instruments, as

well as special data collections conducted in conjunction

with the surveys. First, the main questionnaire and household income update are discussed. In addition to the main

questionnaire, the initial NLSY97 round used the screener,

household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire and

the parent questionnaire. Special data collections included

two surveys of high schools that were conducted in 1996

and 2000, the administration of the CAT-ASVAB that took

place during round 1, and the collection and coding of high

school transcripts.

Youth questionnaire. This questionnaire focuses in great

detail on the schooling and employment activities of the respondent; it also collects extensive data on the respondent’s

financial characteristics, family background, interaction with

a nonresident parent(s), social behavior, and health status.

In round 1, many topics in the youth questionnaire solicited

past and current information. In rounds 2 and beyond, the

questionnaires repeat some items asked in previous rounds

and also include some additional questions. The major data

elements section of this chapter describes the contents of

this instrument.

Household income update. If a youth respondent lived with

a parent or guardian, this self-administered paper update was

completed by the parent figure in rounds 1 through 5. (See

the income section of this chapter for more details.) This

instrument collected income information about the parent

and the parent’s spouse or partner. The parent who signed

the youth’s interview consent form completed the household income update; if the youth did not live with a parent or

guardian, no household income update form was administered.

Screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire. In round 1, an initial 3-minute screener collected

the name and birth date or age of each household resident. If

a household contained an NLSY97-eligible youth (born in

1980 through 1984), interviewers then administered an extensive two-part roster. The household roster section collected

information on all members of the respondent’s household,

and the nonresident roster portion gathered data on those

members of the respondent’s immediate family (for example,

parents, siblings, spouse, or children) who lived elsewhere.

For each household resident or nonresident relative, these

rosters collected demographic information, marital status,

educational attainment, and employment status. The major

data elements section of this chapter details the contents of

this questionnaire. Users should keep in mind that screening interviews were conducted only in round 1. However,

the youth survey updates some of this information in later

rounds, as described in the major data elements section.

Parent questionnaire. Also conducted only in round 1, this

interview asked one parent of each youth to participate.

Potential responding parents, selected during the screener

portion of the interview, were limited to those who resided in

the same household as the youth. Figure 2.1 presents the

preordered list used to choose the preferred responding parent. For example, the biological mother was chosen before

the biological father, and so forth. If the youth did not live

with a parent-type figure or lived with a guardian or parent

not listed (for example, a foster parent with whom the youth

had lived for less than 2 years), then no parent questionnaire

was administered. Note that, due to nonresponse, not all

youths with an eligible parent will have a completed parent

interview.

The resident parent or guardian provided extensive personal background information, including marital and employment histories. The responding parent also answered

questions about the family in general, as well as aspects of

his or her NLSY97-eligible children’s lives. Although parent

interviews were conducted only in round 1, a few questions

in the youth questionnaire update some basic information in

subsequent rounds. The major data elements section of this

chapter describes the data collected in the parent questionFigure 2.1. Resident parental hierarchy

1 Biological mother

2 Biological father

3 Adoptive mother

4 Adoptive father

5 Stepmother

6 Stepfather

7 Guardian, relative

8 Foster parent, youth lived with for 2 or more years

9 Other nonrelative, youth lived with for 2 or more

years

10 Mother-figure, relative

11 Father-figure, relative

12 Mother-figure, nonrelative, youth lived with for

 2 or more years

13 Father-figure, nonrelative, youth lived with for

2 or more years
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 11

naire, as well as parent information updated in the youth

questionnaires.

Interviews are available for 6,124 parents; 7,942 youth

respondents have information available from a parent interview. Table 2.6 shows the number of youths by age who had

a parent participate in the round 1 survey.

School surveys. In the fall of 1996, all public and private

schools that had a 12th grade and that were located in one of

the NLSY97 primary sampling units received school survey

questionnaires. Researchers should note that the round 1

school survey was a “school census,” or a census of schools

in the sampling areas, rather than a survey of only those

schools attended by respondents. This mail survey asked

school administrators to provide detailed data on the characteristics of the school. Nearly 7,500 schools received questionnaires; the response rate for this survey was 72 percent.

School characteristics include the type of school (for

example, public, private), the grades offered by the school,

the length of the school day, and the facilities available at the

school (for example, a health clinic, computer center, cafeteria). The survey obtained data on staff characteristics such

as the number of full-time and part-time teachers, the sex and

racial and ethnic composition of the teachers, and the proportion of teachers with more than a bachelor’s degree.

School administrators also provided information on the

characteristics of the student body. Questions in this section include the average daily attendance rate, total enrollment, and sex and racial and ethnic composition of the

students. The survey asked about programs available to

students—such as gifted and talented enrichment, dropout

prevention, job placement, and summer school—and about

the number of reported incidents of gang activity, vandalism, weapons possession, and alcohol or drug use.

Data on the 1996 graduating class include the percentage who took national college entrance exams (for example,

the SAT and American College Test [ACT]), the average

scores on these tests, and the percentage of graduates who

enrolled in postsecondary education or entered the Armed

Forces. Finally, the survey asked whether students must

pass a standardized test to graduate and the total number of

credits needed to graduate.

The 2000 school survey included all the schools in the

original 1996 sample, plus vocational high schools in those

original primary sampling units (vocational schools were not

included in the 1996 survey), plus high schools that NLSY97

respondents had attended after moving to a residence outside of the primary sampling unit in which they had lived at

the time the NLSY97 sample was selected. The 2000 school

survey began with questions about the school and its overall offerings: grade levels, school type, tuition, program offerings, computer and other facilities, and sources of Federal

funding. Faculty-related questions asked about the number

of teachers with different education and experience levels,

any staff development requirements, basic demographics,

and the salary schedule. Questions about the student body

captured basic demographics, special education and Limited

English Proficiency (LEP) enrollments, and remedial and accelerated program offerings, as well as percentages of students involved in such activities as athletics, truancy, and

illegal activities. The survey also asked about the academic

requirements of the high school’s curriculum and academic

outcomes of its graduates.

The career preparation section began with items about

how schools help students prepare for careers, how schools

support teachers in professional development, and how enrollments have changed in various career preparation programs since the 1994–95 school year. A battery of questions

asked about the existence of, enrollment in, duration of, and

targeting of several different career preparation programs.

More than 9,600 schools received questionnaires; the response rate for the 2000 school survey was 71 percent.

School survey data are not available in the main file or

geocode data sets. Access to these data is restricted because of confidentiality concerns. For more information

about how to request access to the school survey data, interested researchers should see the NLS Web page at

www.bls.gov/bls/blsresda.htm. These data files are available

for use only at the BLS National Office in Washington, DC,

on statistical research projects approved by BLS.

The CAT-ASVAB. Over the summer and fall of 1997 and the

winter of 1998, NLSY97 respondents took the computer adaptive version of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (CAT-ASVAB). The CAT-ASVAB comprises 12 separate

tests, listed in figure 2.2.

The U.S. Department of Defense, which funded the administration of the CAT-ASVAB for NLSY97 respondents,

administered the tests to two additional samples of youths.

The first group consisted of a nationally representative

sample of students who were expected to be in the 10th

through 12th grades in the fall of 1997. This sample included

many of the youths who participated in the NLSY97. The

Total number Youths with

Age (birth year) of youths parent interview

12 (1984) 1,771 1,583

13 (1983) 1,807 1,615

14 (1982) 1,841 1,595

15 (1981) 1,874 1,668

16 (1980) 1,691 1,481

Total 8,984 7,942

Table 2.6. NLSY97 youths and youths with parent

interview by age
12 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

second group was a nationally representative sample of

people who were 18 to 23 years old (as of June 1, 1997), the

principal age range of potential military recruits. The Department of Defense used data for this older group to establish

national norms for the score distribution of the ASVAB and

the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is based

on a formula that includes the scores for the first four tests of

the ASVAB.

The NLSY97 data file includes ASVAB scores but does

not include an official AFQT score. The Department of Defense chose not to calculate AFQT scores for the NLSY97

sample because of doubts about whether the national norms

for 18- to 23-year-olds are appropriate for test-takers who are

younger. As a substitute for the AFQT score, NLS staff

members devised a formula for an “ASVAB Math/Verbal

score” that is believed to approximate closely the formula

that the Department of Defense used to estimate AFQT scores

for the sample of 18- to 23-year-olds. The formula devised

by NLS staff has been used to create a variable on the

NLSY97 data file that is similar to the AFQT scores. Although the formula is similar to the AFQT score that the

Department of Defense generated for the NLSY79 cohort,

the NLSY97 variable reflects research done by NLS program

staff and is not specifically endorsed by the Department of

Defense. For more information about the ASVAB Math/Verbal score, consult the NLSY97 User’s Guide and Appendix

10 in the NLSY97 Codebook Supplement.

High school transcripts. In the spring of 2000, high school

transcripts were collected for NLSY97 respondents born in

1980 and 1981 who provided written permission to contact

their schools. A second phase of collecting high school

transcripts began in 2004 and included respondents born in

1982 through 1984 who had provided written permission to

contact their schools. Transcripts also were collected during the second phase for some respondents born in 1980 and

1981 whose transcripts were not obtained during the first

phase. The high schools, both public and private, were asked

to provide the respondent’s transcript, along with course

descriptions and information about the school’s grading

scale. Transcript information was coded using the Classification of Secondary School Coding system. The collection

and coding of high school transcripts concluded in the spring

of 2005, and transcript information is available on the NLSY97

data file for 6,232 respondents, or about 69 percent of the

8,984 respondents who participated in the initial round of the

NLSY97. The respondents for whom transcripts were not

obtained mainly include those who did not sign written consent forms to contact their schools, respondents whose

schools would not or could not provide transcripts, and respondents who were home-schooled and thus did not have

transcripts.

Major data elements

This section briefly describes the major data elements for the

NLSY97. The main questionnaire; the parent questionnaire;

and the screener, household roster, and nonresident roster

questionnaire collected data during the 1997 survey round.

Only the main questionnaire is currently administered. A

household income update collected income data from one of

the respondent’s parents in rounds 2-5. The following listing is not comprehensive and data elements are not necessarily present for all respondents in an age bracket.

Prospective users should examine the detailed variable table

at the end of this chapter, which presents a more comprehensive look at the types of variables available on the NLSY97

data files. To find out whether the specific variables of interest are available for the age(s) and respondent universe(s) of

interest, users should consult the NLSY97 User’s Guide

(available at www.bls.gov/nls), acquire copies of the NLSY97

data-collection instruments, and browse the documentation

files contained in the NLSY97 data set.

Data elements for the NLSY97 are discussed in the order

presented in figure 2.3. Unless otherwise noted, the following data elements come from the youth questionnaire.

Figure 2.2. Contents of the CAT-ASVAB

1 Arithmetic reasoning

2 Mathematical knowledge

3 Word knowledge

4 Paragraph comprehension

5 Assembling objects (a spatial test)

6 General science

7 Coding speed

8 Automobile information

9 Shop information

10 Numerical operations

11 Mechanical comprehension

12 Electronics information

Figure 2.3. Data elements in the NLSY97

1 Employment

2 Schooling

3 Training

4 Income, assets, and program participation

5 Family formation

6 Family background

7 Expectations

8 Attitudes, behaviors, and time use

9 Health

10 Environmental variables

11 Event history variables
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 13

1. Employment

Designed to capture each youth’s earliest experiences in the

labor market, the NLSY97 includes three categories of labor

market activity: Employee jobs (those in which the respondent had an ongoing association with a particular employer)

held since the age of 14, freelance or self-employment jobs,

and gaps between jobs. A freelance job is defined as any job

for which the respondent performed tasks for a number of

people but did not have a specific boss, such as babysitting

or mowing lawns. In rounds 1 and 4, respondents also reported their work experience in the week before the survey.

The data file includes a week-by-week longitudinal work

record for each respondent from his or her 14th birthday

through the most recent survey date; this record is described

in the Event History data element.

Employee jobs. The set of questions on employee jobs asks

respondents age 14 and older at the time of the survey (all

respondents beginning in round 3) about jobs held since

their 14th birthday. The youth reports information about the

job at the time he or she started working, such as the usual

number of hours worked per week; the regular rate of pay

(amount per month, per week, per day, or per hour); and the

amount of nonwage, nonsalary pay (overtime, tips, incentive pay, and so forth). The youth also provides a description of the industry and occupation of the job. These items

are coded according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2002 system of industry and occupation codes. The survey solicits

the same information as of the stop date or interview date for

all employee jobs lasting more than 13 weeks to capture

changes that occurred during the youth’s tenure.

All respondents who report a gap of a week or more at

an employee job (other than paid vacations or sick leave)

answer a follow-up question about the reason (for example,

on strike, on unpaid vacation) for that gap. Respondents

also state the number of weeks spent looking for work or on

layoff during that gap. Any respondent classified as not

looking for work provides the reason for not looking (such

as not wanting to work or being on vacation).

Respondents who report a job that ended after their

16th birthday (or those who are currently 16 or older and

report an ongoing job) answer an additional series of questions. This information includes the class of worker (government, private, nonprofit, unpaid worker in a business

owned by a family member, Armed Forces), the type of benefits offered (medical, dental, unpaid maternity leave, and so

on), and the number of paid vacation or sick days per year to

which the respondent is entitled at the time of the survey or

the job’s end date. Other questions in this section ask about

the respondent’s regular work shift; collective-bargaining

status; the sex, race, and age of the respondent’s immediate

supervisor; the number of employees working at the same

location as the respondent; and the number of employees at

all locations. The survey also collects data on the

respondent’s general satisfaction with the job and the reason for leaving a past job.

In round 4, several questions were added to identify

more effectively self-employment jobs for this and future

rounds. Respondents age 18 or older who had preexisting

freelance jobs that met the definition of self-employment (they

held the job when age 16 or older and earned $200 or more

per week) were routed into the regular employer section. For

each job, they were questioned about the industry, occupation, and the number of people who worked for them. If

respondents reported that the job had ended, they stated

the reason (for example, end of seasonal-type work or return

to school). Prior to round 4, all self-employment questions

were included with freelance jobs.

One special type of employee job included in the NLSY97

is military service. Youths in the service report their branch

of the military, pay grade, military occupation, and specific

military level (regular forces, reserves, or the National Guard),

as well as whether they left their term of service early. A

separate variable to identify military jobs is available in the

YEMP roster.

Freelance jobs. In rounds 1 through 3, respondents age 14

and older at the time of the survey (all respondents beginning in round 3) were questioned on the freelance jobs they

held since their 14th birthday. This changed in round 4,

when only respondents born in 1983–84 answered questions

in the freelance jobs section; in round 5, this universe was

restricted to respondents born in 1984. For all freelance jobs,

the youth stated the start and stop dates (month and year).

The questions on freelance employment gathered information about the usual number of hours the respondent worked

per week, the usual weekly earnings, the total number of

days worked per week (weekdays/weekend days), and the

number of hours per weekday/weekend worked.

The freelance section in rounds 1 through 3 asked additional questions of self-employed respondents, defined as

those who are age 16 or older and who usually earn $200 or

more per week in a freelance job. The youth defined his or

her industry and occupation and stated the number of people

who worked for him or her. Finally, those who reported that

the job had ended provided the reason (for example, end of

seasonal-type work or return to school). The freelance section continued to ask these questions in rounds 4 and 5 for

the youngest respondents. Beginning in round 4, older respondents reported these data as part of the self-employment questions in the regular employment section, as

described above.

Employment for youths ages 12 and 13. In rounds 1 and 2,

respondents ages 12 and 13 provided information about all

jobs held since the age of 12 (without explicitly distinguish-
14 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

ing between employee and freelance jobs). The type of information collected for each job was the same as that described above in the freelance section for youths age 14 and

older. Because every respondent had reached age 14 by the

round 3 field period, they all answered separate questions

about employee and freelance jobs.

Work experience in the week before the survey. Using questions from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the round

1 and round 4 surveys asked respondents age 15 and older

about their labor force status (for example, working, looking

for work, unable to work) in the week before the current interview. Employed respondents detailed the characteristics of

their current job(s), such as usual number of hours on the

main job, number of hours on all other jobs, number of overtime hours, reason for working part time, and so forth. Youths

classified as not working reported job search activities during the previous month. Users should note that the questions were included only in rounds 1 and 4.

Gaps between jobs. Any youth age 14 or older who reports

a period during which he or she is not working at an employee job states the number of weeks spent during that time

searching for another employee job or, if the youth went

through the freelance section, working at a freelance job.

Those who do not report search activity during a specific

period answer questions about the reason why no search

activity was undertaken (for example, did not want to work,

had health problems, was on vacation). The survey also

collects data on the type of search activity in which the youth

participated—for example, contacted an employer directly,

contacted an employment agency, or placed an ad.

2. Schooling

The schooling section of the youth questionnaire contains

questions on the respondent’s educational attainment, experiences, and coursework. The round 1 parent questionnaire also solicited information concerning the youth’s past

and current schooling experiences.

The schooling section first asks about the respondent’s

current enrollment status. Youths who report that they are

not enrolled provide their reason(s) for leaving school and

the date at which this separation occurred. The respondents

also state the highest grade level they have attended and the

highest grade level they have completed. In addition, the

survey asks all youths if they were ever suspended from

school. Those who have been suspended state the grade

level(s) in which this occurred and the duration of each

grade’s total suspensions. Any grades that the respondent

skipped or repeated also are recorded.

In round 1, all youths in the 12th grade or lower during

the fall 1996 school term answered questions about that term,

including the number of days the youth was absent, whether

the youth had something of value stolen, and whether the

youth was involved in a physical fight.

Interviewers administered the Peabody Individual

Achievement Test (PIAT) Math Assessment to youths enrolled in the 9th or a lower grade during round 1. In rounds 2

through 5, administration of the PIAT was restricted to respondents who were 12 years old as of December 31, 1996,

and who were enrolled in the 9th or a lower grade during

round 1, providing several scores for respondents born in

1984. (The PIAT was given to respondents in round 6 only if

they were 12 years old as of December 31, 1996, and were

currently in high school at the survey date.) Researchers

can potentially combine these test scores with information

on math courses the youth took to assess correlations between curriculum and math performance.

High school. If a respondent was enrolled in high school,

the survey collected information on the expected graduation

date. Those who had left high school since the last interview stated whether they had received a regular high school

diploma or a GED and the overall marks they had received

during high school.

Respondents who had attended the 9th or a higher grade

provided information about the overall marks they had received in 8th grade and about their course of study in high

school (for example, college preparatory, vocational). The

respondents then listed the types of math, science, and other

courses taken from 7th grade through high school; information about whether each course was an honors course also

was recorded.

Standardized achievement test scores were collected for

youths in the 9th grade or higher in round 1 and in the 11th

grade or higher in rounds 2 through 7. If respondents meeting these eligibility requirements had taken the SAT or ACT,

they reported the highest score received on each component of the SAT and the highest total ACT score. In round 1,

eligible respondents reported whether they had taken an

Advanced Placement (AP) test, their grade when the test

was taken, the subject of the test, and the highest AP score

they had ever received. Rounds 2 through 7 recorded only

the subject of any AP tests taken by youths meeting the

eligibility requirements.

School-based learning programs. The survey instrument

contains questions on school-based learning programs (apprenticeships, cooperative education, internships, mentoring, technical preparatory, and the like). Respondents

who participated in these programs in high school answer

questions about the program’s characteristics, such as the

type of program, time spent at the worksite, whether the respondent was paid, and the rate of pay. Other questions ask

whether the youth took any classes at the worksite and

whether the employer wrote an evaluation of the youth.
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 15

Parent questionnaire. The round 1 interview asked the responding parent about the youth’s current enrollment status and grade level. The responding parent also provided

information about all schools the youth had attended since

the 7th grade (including home schooling) and about gaps in

enrollment of 1 month or more. The “school finder” aided in

obtaining and verifying the name and address of each

school.1

This section also inquired about any academic classes

the youth took during a school break in the 9th or a higher

grade and the reason for taking the classes. For youths who

had been only home schooled since the 7th grade, the parent

stated whether the youth had ever taken the SAT, ACT, or

AP tests; the year in which the youth took the tests; and the

highest score received. Additional educational information

collected from the responding parent included whether the

child had ever been enrolled in Head Start, whether he or she

had ever repeated or skipped a grade, and the age at which

the youth had entered 1st grade.

College. The survey contains a number of questions related

to college experiences. This section asks youths who report

being enrolled in college for the number of years attended at

any college (either 2-year or 4-year colleges) and the number

of colleges attended. Information collected includes whether

the college is publicly supported, the type of degree sought

and received, the total credits required to graduate, and the

tuition and fees. The youth also reports on sources and

amounts of financial aid received while at each college. For

each completed college term, the survey gathers data on the

number of college credits the respondent took and earned

and the respondent’s grade-point average, primary and secondary major, and full- or part-time status. Finally, respondents report the name and address of each college; survey

staff use this information to provide the Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Code of each

institution. IPEDS codes are available only in the geocode

data; see chapter 8 of this Handbook for more details about

this restricted-use data set.

College Choice. This survey collects information on the

different colleges to which the respondent applied. The respondent reports the range of schools applied to by distinguishing between “safety” and “low chance” schools. Data

on the types of scholarships and financial aid offered to the

respondent by each institution also is provided. The identity of the schools applied to is available only on the restricted-access geocode data file.

3. Training

Respondents age 16 and older as of the interview date report

on their participation in training programs. These questions

solicit information about the youth’s reasons for participating in each program; the type of certification the youth

earned, if any; and the program’s length, contents, completion status, and source of funding. If the respondent states

that the training was for a specific employer, follow-up questions ask about the occupation for which the training program prepared the respondent and the reason for enrolling in

the training program. The survey gathers data about services provided, such as job search assistance. Finally, if the

respondent reported receiving a GED in the schooling section, the training section asks follow-up questions about

whether any training programs were part of obtaining that

GED.

4. Income, assets, and program participation

This section describes the data collected on the financial

characteristics of the respondent. Similar data, described

under family background in this section, also are gathered

for certain adults in the youth’s household. Users should

note that, through round 5, a number of questions in these

sections of the questionnaire were addressed only to independent youths. Independent youths are those who meet at

least one of the following criteria: Are age 18 or older, have a

child, have ever been married or are currently in a marriagelike relationship, are no longer enrolled in school or are enrolled in a 4-year college, or report not living with any parent

or parent figure. As of round 6, all respondents were 18

years of age and eligible for the full income section.

Income. The survey asks all respondents about their income from wages, salaries, and parental allowance during

the calendar year before the survey round. Independent

youths additionally report in detail on other income received

in the same year, such as self-employment income, child support, interest or dividend payments, or income from rental

properties. These youths also list the income of their spouse

or partner.

Parent questionnaire. In round 1, the NLSY97 collected

data from the responding parent on the 1996 earnings and

income of the youth. In addition, parents reported on the

amount of financial support given to independent youths

still living in the household.

Assets. In rounds 1 through 3, independent youths provided information about current asset holdings. Topics of

the questions included the market value of any residence or

business, whether the respondent paid property taxes in the

previous year, the average amount spent on utilities per

month, and the amount owed on motor vehicles. Other ques1

 The school finder is a record of the names and addresses of

primary and secondary schools located in the United States. This

information is taken from the “National Education Database,” provided under copyright by Quality Education Data (QED), Inc.
16 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

tions asked about the respondent’s current checking and

savings account balances, the value of various assets such

as stocks or certificates of deposit, and the amount of any

loans of at least $200 that the youth had received in the last

calendar year.

Beginning with round 4, the questions in the asset section remain the same, but the universe for the asset section is

more limited. Respondents answer these questions only at

specific points: the first interview in which they meet criteria

to be considered independent if they are less than 18 years

old, the first interview after they turn age 18, and the first

interview after they reach age 20. Respondents will continue

to answer these questions at regular intervals in future

rounds.

Program participation. This section questions independent youths about their participation in government programs. Included are specific questions (number of spells,

duration of each spell, amount of benefit, and so on) regarding a number of government assistance programs such as

Unemployment Compensation; Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF)/Aid to Dependent Children (ADC); the

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program; and Food

Stamps. Youths also are asked whether they lived in public

housing.

Welfare Knowledge. This section, included only in round 7,

gauged the respondent’s knowledge of welfare programs.

The respondent was presented with a hypothetical family.

Based on the family’s income and number of children, the

respondent was asked to state the type and amount of aid

benefits for which the family would be eligible. The respondent was also questioned on the time limits for these programs. The data from this section are available only on the

restricted-access geocode data file. The questions in this

section were asked only of female respondents in certain

States.

5. Family formation

Marriage. Respondents who were at least 16 years old by

the end of the previous calendar year provide information

about their history of marriage and marriage-like relationships. Along with the legal status and length of each relationship, this section gathers information about the age,

highest grade completed, employment status, and race/

ethnicity of each spouse or partner not listed on the household roster. For each relationship, the youth also reports

changes in the relationship status, such as separation, divorce, or marriage. In round 1 and rounds 4 through 7, respondents who were currently married or involved in a

marriage-like relationship answered questions about the quality of that relationship. Round 1 questions asked about the

frequency of specific behaviors, such as how often the

spouse or partner screams or yells, criticizes the respondent’s

ideas, blames the respondent for his or her problems, and

vice versa. A shorter series of questions in rounds 4 through

7 collected the respondents’ rating of the overall levels of

caring, closeness, and conflict between themselves and their

spouse or partner.

Fertility. A series of questions asks respondents who report having given birth to, fathered, or adopted a child about

their children. This section collects the number, sex, and age

of all biological and adopted children, including children who

are deceased or have been given up for adoption. Fertility

data also include characteristics of the child’s other biological parent (if that person is not a current spouse or cohabiting partner), such as race, age, and highest grade completed,

and the type of relationship the respondent had with that

person (married, dating, separated, or other). If that person

is a current spouse or cohabiting partner, the same information is collected in the household information or marriage

section of the questionnaire. Finally, the fertility questions

solicit information about the biological parents’ legal responsibility or custody rights with respect to the child.

A set of questions in rounds 4 through 7 addressed

only male respondents who had fathered a child. First—if

the mother was not the spouse or cohabiting partner—the

respondent provided current information about the mother

of each child, such as her enrollment and employment status, program participation status, and income. He also stated

whether he currently had a close relationship with the mother.

In addition, these male respondents provided information

about child support. Respondents first reported the amount

of support awarded in a child support agreement and then

stated whether they had provided additional informal support, such as performing household repairs, buying clothes

for the child, or buying household items or gifts for anyone

in the household, in the past 12 months. In rounds 5, 6 and

7, questions about the father of their children and child support details also were asked of female respondents.

Beginning in round 4, the survey asked about the relationship a male respondent had with each of his children.

Respondents reported whether they participated in prenatal

activities such as going with the mother to the doctor, buying things before the baby was born, and being present at

the delivery. If the respondent had seen the child in the past

month, he stated how often he performed activities such as

bathing or dressing the child, preparing a meal for the child,

or reading books to the child.

Information on other pregnancies is gathered in the selfadministered section of the questionnaire. Female respondents report the number of pregnancies that did not result in

live births, their age at the time of each such pregnancy, the
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 17

month and year in which each pregnancy ended, and the

outcome of each pregnancy. Male respondents state the

number of times they have gotten someone pregnant, the

number of pregnancies that ended in a live birth, and the

number of pregnancies that ended in abortion or miscarriage.

Child care. A new section added to the survey in round 5

gathered details about the childcare used by female respondents who have children. The respondent is first asked for

the total hours in a typical week during which she works for

pay, attends school or training, or commutes. Then, she

reports the childcare situation in which her children spend

most of these hours: In the care of a spouse or partner,

relative, or sibling; in self-care; in nonrelative care; at family

daycare; at a childcare center; or in formal schooling. For

each type of care the respondent reports, the following details are collected: The person responsible for transporting

the child, traveling time, amount paid for the childcare,

whether an outside source (for example, an employer or other

agency outside the household) contributes all or part of the

payment, and the number of hours spent in each type of

care. Hypothetical questions also are posed to these respondents and to childless female youths born in 1983 or

1984 concerning relatives who live close by and the amount

respondents would expect to pay or be willing to pay for care

at the nearest childcare center. The round 6 and round 7

surveys have a less extensive series of questions on

childcare. Female respondents who have children are asked

for the number of hours they are at work, school, or training

in a typical week. The series continues by ascertaining the

type of childcare used in a typical week for all children, the

amount paid weekly for that care, and whether an outside

employer or other entity paid for all or part of the childcare.

6. Family background

Parent’s background. Questions in the round 1 parent questionnaire determined the responding parent’s nationality,

month and year of birth, birthplace, and religious preference.

In addition, the survey collected information about the responding parent’s number of siblings, whether he or she had

lived with both biological parents while growing up, and the

ages and highest grade completed of his or her parents. The

responding parent also reported these data for his or her

current spouse. If the youth had been in contact with a

nonresident biological parent since the age of 10, the same

set of questions sought information about that nonresident

parent.

Parent’s history. In the round 1 parent questionnaire, interviewers collected historical data on the responding parent’s

employment history since the parent’s 18th birthday or the

youth’s date of birth, whichever was earlier. For each spell of

employment lasting at least 3 months, the responding parent

was asked about the usual number of hours he or she worked

per week. In a similar fashion, this section established a

marital or partner history for the responding parent, with

questions seeking information on the length of the marriage

and the employment status of the spouse during the marriage. Next, a number of questions recorded the history of

participation in various government programs such as AFDC/

TANF, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and

WIC.

Parent’s current status. The round 1 parent questionnaire

obtained detailed information on the status of the respondents’ parents, as described below. In subsequent rounds,

limited data are collected in the youth questionnaire and parental household income update (rounds 2 through 5).

Youth questionnaire. Demographic data from the household roster section of the questionnaire are available for parents who lived in the same household as the youth; the

household information section below describes these data

in detail. The round 2 youth questionnaire asked respondents who were classified as independent (see the income

section above) or who were age 14 or older by the end of

1997 to report the 1997 earnings of each parent. In rounds 3

through 7, all respondents reported each parent’s earnings

in calendar year before the survey round.

Household income update. In rounds 2 through 5, the resident parent of a dependent youth respondent completed

this self-administered paper supplement. The supplement

collected information on the income during the previous year

of the respondent’s parent and the parent’s current spouse

or partner.

Parent questionnaire. In round 1, the youth’s responding

parent stated his or her present employment status, marital

status, highest grade completed, and participation in government programs. Information on the resident parent’s earnings and income in 1996 was gathered; similar questions

summarized the same information with regard to the responding parent’s spouse. This section of the parent questionnaire also elicited information on the asset and debt holdings

of the responding parent and his or her spouse. Additional

questions asked about the amount received from government programs in the previous year.

Parents who had a youth ages 12 to 14 answered a series of questions on the parent’s attitude toward self (for

instance, “always optimistic about the future” or “hardly

ever expect things to go my way”), toward certain behaviors,

and toward the relationship with his or her partner. The

responding parent also provided information on religious

beliefs and practices.
18 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

Interviewers also collected information on the general

health and the presence of any longstanding health problems of the responding parent and his or her spouse. The

responding parent stated his or her own height and weight

and those of his or her partner. If the youth was adopted, the

responding parent reported the height and weight (if known)

of the youth’s biological parents.

Youth demographic characteristics. Several demographic

details have been collected about youth respondents. In

round 1, respondent birthdates were collected in the household screener and later verified by the youth and responding

parent. This birth date information is used in each round to

create a variable indicating the respondent’s age as of the

interview date. The youth’s sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity

also were reported in the round 1 household screener.

Residential history. Information about the respondent’s

residences has been collected in each round of the survey.

In round 1, the parent questionnaire and the screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire gathered

these data; some of the information is updated in the main

questionnaires in subsequent rounds.

Youth questionnaire. In rounds 2 through 7, the survey

instruments collected information on the changes in the

respondent’s living and custodial situations since the last

interview. These questions ask about the dates of each move

to a new State, city, or county and about the parent figures

with whom the respondent has lived since the last interview

date.

Parent questionnaire. The round 1 parent questionnaire

queried the responding parent about whom the youth had

lived with since birth. For adopted youths, information includes whether the youth had ever lived with either biological parent. For each youth not living with both biological

parents, the survey asked whether the responding parent

held legal responsibility for or legal custody of the youth. If

only the youth’s biological mother was listed on the birth

certificate, follow-up questions determined whether the biological father had been legally identified through a blood

test, court ruling, signed legal document, or other means.

Screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire. Information included the distance the youth lived

from his or her biological parents (if they were alive) or the

date on which each of the youth’s biological parents died.

Household environment. Respondents born in 1982 through

1984 have answered a brief series of questions about their

household environment in each survey round. Depending

on the round, these questions include whether the

respondent’s household was conducive to studying in the

past month and the number of days in a typical week on

which the family interacts. The round 1 survey also asked

these same respondents to report the number of days in a

typical week on which the youth heard gunshots in the neighborhood. In addition, in each round, respondents answer

various questions about knowing or being the victim of a

crime.

Household information. Data about other residents in the

respondent’s household were collected in the screener,

household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire in

round 1; similar questions are included in the youth questionnaire in later survey rounds.

Youth questionnaire. In surveys after round 1, the first section of the youth questionnaire identifies the youth’s resident and nonresident parents and establishes the

relationship to the youth of all nonrelative household residents. The current marital status of each nonresident parent

is collected, while follow-up questions verify demographic

data (such as marital status, age, and race or ethnicity) on

each household occupant from the previous round and

record any changes. For each occupant, this section also

asks about enrollment status, highest grade completed, and

the highest degree each has completed if currently enrolled

(already collected in a previous round for those not currently enrolled). Current labor force status is collected for

residents age 16 and older. In rounds 2 through 7, independent respondents provided information about the previous

year’s earnings for household residents age 14 or older.

Screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire. In round 1, this instrument collected the demographic and relationship information for household

occupants described in the above paragraph. For each resident age 16 or older, the roster also asked for the number of

weeks the resident had worked in 1996 and the usual hours

worked per week during that period.

The questions in the nonresident roster section of this

instrument determined the relationship to the youth of any

key nonresident relatives (biological, step-, or adoptive parents; siblings; spouses; children; or other parent of youth’s

children) and gathered the information summarized in table

2.7. Note that, while it was not collected directly, the sex of

nonresident relatives can be inferred from relationship codes

for parents, spouses, siblings, and children.

Parent questionnaire. In round 1, the responding adult provided information on the 1996 earnings (self-employment

earnings and earnings from an employee job) and income of

each household member age 14 and older.
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 19

7. Expectations

The round 1 survey asked respondents who were age 15 or

older by the end of the previous calendar year to assess the

probability of certain events occurring in their lives over the

next year, by the time they turn 20, and by the time they reach

30. The list included events such as working more than 20

hours per week, serving time in prison, and earning a 4-year

college degree. The round 4 survey asked all respondents

similar questions about the likelihood of events taking place

over the next year and within the next 5 years; the round 5

questions refer to several different periods.

Parent questionnaire. In round 1, responding parents of

youths age 15 and older answered a similar set of questions

about events that might occur in the youth’s life.

8. Attitudes, behaviors, and time use

Attitudes. Respondents report in each round on their contact with any absent parents and, in rounds 1 through 4 and

6, state their perception of the amount of supportiveness

displayed by each parent figure. Also collected in rounds 1

through 3 and 5 from respondents born in 1982 through 1984

were data on the youths’ opinions about their parent(s) (for

example, want to be like him or her, enjoy spending time with

him or her). In rounds 1 through 5, respondents’ beliefs

about their parents’ knowledge of their activities were reported. Younger respondents provide further information

about their parents’ relationship with spouses or partners

and about contact between biological parents who live separately.

One question was included in rounds 1 through 3 for

respondents who were born in 1982 through 1984 and was

addressed to all respondents in rounds 4 and 6. It asked

youths whom they would turn to for help with a personal

problem (for example, parent, sibling, friend, counselor).

Round 6 also asked respondents about their best friend. If

this person was someone other than a parent, spouse,

cohabitating partner, sexual partner, or other parent of the

youth’s child, a separate question collected demographic

data about the individual. If the best friend was anyone

other than a parent, respondents reported their frequency of

contact with this person and how often they had asked for

advice about decisions or relationships since the last interview. The Domains of Influence section, newly introduced

in round 7, collects information about the identity of the

persons who offer each respondent advice on financial issues, employment, education, training, and personal relationships.

Several series of questions address respondent perceptions about different aspects of society. Each round of the

survey asks about the respondent’s perception of the criminal justice system and the odds of being caught and punished for a hypothetical crime. In round 1, a series of

questions asked respondents about the activities of their

peers, including the percentage of students in their grade

they believe to be involved in a gang, an organized sport, or

volunteer work. The series also addressed peer behavior,

such as the percentage of students the respondents believe

smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use drugs. In addition,

respondents reported their attitudes toward their teachers

and perceptions of the school environment (for example,

whether the respondent considers school a safe place) during the round 1 survey.

The religiosity of the youth respondent also has been

included in the surveys. In round 1, respondents reported

Table 2.7. Data collected for nonresident relatives in NLSY97 round 1

1

Information on nonresident stepparents or adoptive parents

is collected only if those parents live with one of the youth’s biological parents. 2

Data on full- and half-siblings are gathered only if those siblings do not live with either of the youth’s nonresident biological

parents. Coresident siblings appear on the household roster. 3This information is collected only if the NLSY97 youth is aged

14 or older.

Marital Educational Employment

Relationship Sex Race Age status status status

Biological parent ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Adoptive parent1 ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Stepparent1 ∗

Full-sibling2 ∗∗ ∗

Half-sibling2 ∗∗ ∗

Spouse of youth ∗ ∗

Children of youth3 ∗ ∗

Parent of youth’s children ∗
20 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

their religious preference. Rounds 4 through 7 asked about

the frequency of their attendance at religious worship services, and round 6 also included a series about religious

beliefs. Religiosity information also is collected for household members, the youth’s parents, and the youth’s spouse

or partner.

Behaviors. A series of questions on health-related behaviors in each survey asks youths whether they have ever

smoked cigarettes, consumed alcohol, or used illegal drugs,

as well as whether and how often they have engaged in

these activities within the past month. This section also

solicits data on the age at which these activities first occurred. The survey collects delinquency information from

respondents age 16 or younger who have run away from

home and from all respondents who have carried a handgun

or joined a gang. Respondents answer questions about their

participation in criminal activities, such as assault, theft, battery, or carrying a handgun, and arrests or punishment resulting from these activities.

Besides answering questions concerning delinquent

behavior, respondents are also asked about their social behavior. All respondents are questioned about how often

they date and the number of different people they have dated.

Round 7 also included a more extensive series about the

current or most recent person the respondent had dated.

Respondents age 14 or older as of the end of the previous

calendar year (all respondents in round 3 and beyond) provide information on their sexual activity. Questions include

frequency of sexual intercourse and birth control use.

Youths born in 1983 or 1984 answered a series of questions in rounds 1 through 5 on how decisions concerning

their activities were made (for example, who determined how

late the youth could stay out at night, who determined the

type of TV shows and movies the youth could watch). If the

youth reported that the parents made the rules or that the

parents and the youth jointly decided, follow-up questions

asked about the number of times the youth had broken the

rules in the last 30 days.

Parent questionnaire. Responding parents of youths ages

12 or 13 answered a similar series of questions on control

and autonomy during the initial interview. Follow-up questions asked about the number of times the youth broke the

rules in the last 30 days.

Time use. In the series of questions on time use in rounds 1

through 3, respondents who were not in school or employed

and were at least age 16 (round 1) or at least age 15 (rounds

2 and 3) reported details about the way they spent a typical

day. Information collected included the time at which they

usually wake up each day, whether they go to a place on a

regular basis, and the time at which they leave for and return

from that place. In round 1, youths ages 12 to 14 assessed

the amount of time they spent in the prior week doing homework, watching television, reading, or taking extra classes or

lessons.

9. Health

Every round collects basic data on respondents’ health status. All respondents provide information about their general

health and state their height and weight. They also report a

perception of their weight (for example, very underweight,

slightly overweight, about the right weight), as well as any

action they are taking concerning their weight (for instance,

trying to lose, trying to gain, trying to stay the same). The

round 1 questionnaire asked respondents to report whether

they had entered puberty and, if so, their age at onset; this

information is updated in subsequent rounds if puberty was

not attained at the previous interview.

More detailed data were gathered in rounds 1 and 6.

The initial interview asked youths who were born in 1983 or

1984 about their practices with regard to health-related behaviors such as seatbelt use, nutrition, and exercise. In addition, these youths stated their opinions about whether

smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol contributes to certain

health problems (getting AIDS, getting heart disease, harming an unborn child, and so forth). Also in round 1, the health

section questioned youths not living with their parents about

their health insurance coverage (for example, covered by job,

covered by military-related plan, not covered).

In round 6, respondents reported their health practices

in a typical week (for example, nutrition, exercise, sleep, computer and television use) in a series similar to the one in

round 1. This series of questions also asked how many

times in the past month the youth had driven after drinking

or had ridden with a driver who had been drinking. Next, the

youth answered questions (similar to those asked of parents

in round 1) concerning any chronic health conditions or problems, including the age at which a condition was first noticed

and whether the condition currently limits activities. Two

new health series were also part of round 6. The first asked

about when the respondent was ill or injured in the past year,

the length of time since the last routine checkup, and

healthcare coverage over the past year. Finally, the other

new series questioned the youth about various traumatic

events that had occurred in the past 5 years. This list included the death of a close relative, being the victim of a

violent crime, periods of homelessness, hospitalization of a

household member, adult household members being in jail or

unemployed, and a parent’s divorce.

Parent questionnaire. The responding parent also answered

questions about the youth’s health during the first survey

round. In particular, this section questioned the parent about

whether the youth suffers from or takes medication for any
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 21

chronic health problems such as mental retardation, blindness, cancer, or asthma. Follow-up questions determined

the condition, the age of the youth when the condition was

first noticed, and whether the condition currently limited the

youth. Parents reported on the youth’s health insurance

coverage for youths who lived at home. Finally, if the youth

was born in 1983, the responding parent stated his or her

perception of the health effects of drinking alcohol.

10. Environmental variables

The NLSY97 main data set includes several created variables

that describe the respondent’s permanent residence. The

main variables indicate whether the respondent lives in an

urban or rural area, whether the respondent lives in a metropolitan statistical area, and in which census region the respondent resides. In addition, an unemployment rate variable

reports the unemployment rate (within a 3-percentage-point

range) for the respondent’s local labor market. These variables permit researchers to obtain general information about

the geographic area without having access to the restricteduse geocode data set.

11. Event history variables

These special created variables summarize the timing of a

variety of major life events for each respondent. The event

history variables are divided into four major sections. The

first section contains the employment status (working for

employer number 1, unemployed, out of the labor force, and

so on) of each respondent for each week from the

respondent’s 14th birthday to the interview date.

The variables for marital status, the second topic, cover

the respondent’s marital or cohabitation status during each

month from the respondent’s 14th birthday to the month of

the most recent interview. Possible status labels are never

married and not cohabiting, never married and cohabiting,

married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed.

Variables on program participation status, the third topic,

are similar in structure to those for marital status. For each

month since the respondent’s 14th birthday, these variables

indicate whether the respondent was receiving economic

assistance such as unemployment compensation, AFDC, or

Food Stamps.

The fourth event history topic concerns the

respondent’s schooling experiences. Unlike the other constructions, this section provides some information on a yearly

basis beginning with each youth’s date of birth. Beginning

in round 2, data also are provided in monthly variables to

capture information for each month from the respondent’s

interview date in round 1 to the current interview date.

These event history arrays are not included on the initial main data release, but are located on the subsequent

event history and geocode releases. In these data sets, the

variables can be found by searching for question names that

begin with “EMP_” for employment status, “MAR_” for

marital status, and “SCH_” for schooling experiences. Researchers may access the program participation status variables by searching for question names that begin with

“WKCOMP_,” “UNEMP_,” “AFDC_,” “FDST_,” “WIC_,”

or “OTHER_,” depending on the program of interest.

Data files and documentation

Data for the NLSY97 are distributed in three data sets:

(1) NLSY97 Main Files—includes main interview data and

created variables;

(2) NLSY97 Event History Data—includes all main file data

plus created event history variables; and

(3) NLSY97 Geocode Data—in addition to restricted-release

geographic information, includes main file and event

history data.

Each data set includes documentation files and is accompanied by search and extraction software that enables users to

easily peruse, select, and extract variables. Chapter 8 provides more technical information on the NLS data format and

extraction software, as well as descriptions of supplementary documentation items available for the NLSY97.

Reference

O’Muircheartaigh, C. and Pedlow, S. “Combining Samples

vs. Cumulating Cases: A Comparison of Two Weighting

Strategies in the NLSY97.” Proceedings of the Section

on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association (2000): 319–24.

Selected variables by age and instrument:

NLSY97

Table 2.8 depicts selected variables from the NLSY97 interviews. The first column of the table lists some of the variables included in the survey. Codes in the following columns

indicate which survey instrument yielded the information (Y

= Youth Questionnaire; P = Parent Questionnaire; S =

Screener, Household Roster, and Nonresident Roster Questionnaire; and U = Household Income Update).

As appropriate, age restrictions are noted in parentheses; the applicable dates for the restrictions are provided at

the beginning of each section or within the description of

the question. Age restrictions for each round refer to the

youth’s age as of December 31, 1996, unless otherwise noted

in the table. Other restrictions not mentioned here may apply to some variables; users should refer to the codebook or

to the NLSY97 User’s Guide (available at www.bls.gov/nls)

for more information. “Y” used in variable descriptions stands

for “youth respondent.” Users should be aware that, in some

instances, the variable descriptions in the table represent a

group of questions and not single response items.
22 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

I. EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND JOB SEARCH (age restrictions as of interview date) 

A. Current Population Survey (CPS): Week before survey

 Labor force and employment status Yt15 Yt15 

Worked for profit or pay; worked at unpaid position in family 

business or farm Yt15 Yt15 

 Hours per week worked or usually worked at main job Yt15 Yt15 

 Hours per week worked at main job last week Yt15 Yt15 

 Number of overtime hours Yt15 Yt15 

 Reason worked part time Yt15 Yt15 

 Reason absent from work Yt15 Yt15 

 Actual weeks or expected duration of layoff Yt15 Yt15 

 Disability prevents Y from working or accepting work Yt15 Yt15 

 Length of time spent looking for work Yt15 Yt15 

 Search methods used in last 4 weeks Yt15 Yt15 

 Is Y searching for part-time or full-time job Yt15 Yt15 

B. Characteristics of employee jobs (starting in round 4, also self-employed jobs of youths age 18 at end of prior calendar 

year) 

1. Jobs of any length

 Who helped Y find job Yt14 

 Job start and stop dates Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Industry and occupation at start date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Rate of pay at start date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Usual hours per week worked Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Overtime rate of pay at start date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Weeks Y had worked as of job’s stop date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Class of worker Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Y covered by collective bargaining (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Reason for gap during employment Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Did Y look for work during gap Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Age, race, and sex of immediate supervisor (all jobs in 

round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Shift worked (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Size of employer (number of employees/locations/people 

worked for Y) (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Benefits available at employer (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Reason for leaving job or reason self-employment job ended Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 General job satisfaction (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

2. Jobs lasting more than 13 weeks 

 Y covered by collective bargaining (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 23

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

Age, race, and sex of immediate supervisor (all jobs in round 

1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Shift worked (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Size of employer (number of employees/locations/people 

worked for Y) (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Benefits available at employer (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 General job satisfaction (all jobs in round 1) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Occupation and industry at current or stop date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Rate of pay at current or stop date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Overtime rate of pay at current or stop date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Usual hours per week at current or stop date Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

C. Characteristics of freelance jobs (any length)1

 Type and duration of freelance job(s) Y Y Y Y Y 

 Who helped Y find job Y 

 Usual hours worked per week Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weekdays, weekends worked Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of days per week usually worked Y Y Y Y Y 

 Hours per day worked on weekdays, weekends Y Y Y Y Y 

 Usual weekly earnings Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weeks worked at job Y Y Y Y Y 

1. Self-employment jobs for youths earning $200 or more per week 

 Industry and occupation Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 2 2 

 Number of people who worked for Y Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 2 2 

 Reason job ended Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 2 2 

D. Military (Youths age 16 and older who report an ongoing job) 

 Branch of Armed Forces Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current or most recent military occupation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current pay grade or pay grade when entered Y Y Y Y Y Y 

E. Periods not working at an employee job 

 Start and stop date of period not working Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weeks on layoff Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weeks unemployed Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weeks out of labor force Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of weeks actively looking for work Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

1

 In rounds 1 and 2, the survey collected characteristics of freelance jobs for youths ages 14 or older (as of the interview date)

and characteristics of all jobs for youths ages 12 and 13. The round 3 survey gathered characteristics of freelance jobs for all youths.

Round 4 included freelance jobs for youths born in 1983 or 1984. Round 5 included freelance jobs only for youths born in 1984. 2

 Youths age 16 or older at the interview date but younger than 18 at the end of the previous calendar year answer these

questions. Older youths report information on self-employment jobs in the regular employee jobs section.
24 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

 Methods of job search used Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Main reason did not look for work Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

II. SCHOOLING (age restrictions as of 12/31/96) 

Y’s educational history (number of schools, type) (since last 

interview) P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current enrollment status Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Grade level currently attending Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Reason stopped attending school Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Date of last enrollment Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type of school attended (public, private, or alternative) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Degree and date degree received Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Highest grade level attended Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Highest degree received Y Y 

Highest grade level completed Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Did Y ever skip or repeat a grade (since last interview) P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Gaps in enrollment P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Grade level(s) when and duration for which Y was suspended 

from school Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s experiences in school during fall term Y 

PIAT Math score—rounds 1–5: Youths in 9th or lower grade 

in round 1, round 6: Youths currently in high school Y Y=12 Y=12 Y=12 Y=12 Y=12 

A. High school 

 High school curriculum Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Grades received in 8th grade and high school Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Grade Y took SAT I or ACT, highest scores (in rounds 2 

through 6, grade 11 or higher only) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Subjects of AP exams taken (in rounds 2 through 6), highest 

score (round 1) Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Math and science courses taken or completed in grades 7 

through 12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Expected graduation date Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y received regular high school diploma Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y received GED Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Reason for and type of academic class taken during break P 

B. School-based learning programs 

 Y participated in school-based learning programs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type(s) of school-based learning programs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number of weeks/days/hours participated in most recent 

program 

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Stipend Y received for participation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 25

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

C. College 

 Number of colleges or universities attended Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Type of college Y currently attending (2-year or 4-year; public 

or private) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y currently full- or part-time student Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Cost of attendance at Y’s college Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type and amount of educational loans or financial aid Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Type of diploma/degree/certificate working toward Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Type of degree received Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number of credits required for Y’s degree Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 College credits Y earned before college Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Method of earning college credits before college Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Date and terms Y enrolled Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of credits enrolled for or earned per term Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Grade point average (GPA) in each term Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Field of study in each term Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Terms in which Y took remedial math or English course Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

D. College Choice 

 Colleges applied to (geocode only) Y Y 

 Location of colleges applied to (geocode only) Y Y 

 Amount and type of financial aid and scholarships offered Y Y 

III. TRAINING (age restrictions as of interview date) 

 Type(s) of training program(s) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Number and duration of training programs Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Type of degree/certificate/journeyman’s card Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Hours per day and days per week Y usually in training Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Method of financing training program Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Amount of training allowance (government program) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Skills learned in program Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Services provided by program Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Participate in job search assistance training Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Training related to specific employer Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Job or occupation Y in training program to acquire Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Reason for enrolling in training program if employer paid Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Did Y complete training program Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 
26 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

3

 Youths are asked these asset questions in the first interview after they become independent, turn age 18, and turn age 20.

They will continue to be asked periodically in future rounds.

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

IV. INCOME, ASSETS, AND PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

A. Income (all questions except wages/salary and parental allowance asked only of independent youths)

Previous year’s income from wages or salary (collected 

separately for Y and spouse) Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Previous year’s income from farm or own business (collected 

separately for Y and spouse) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s income from child support Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s interest or dividend payments Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Previous year’s income from 

estates/trusts/annuities/inheritance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s income from rental properties Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Previous year’s income from parental transfers other than 

allowance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s income from other sources Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s income from parental allowance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Previous year’s income paid to parents Y,P 

Y or spouse/partner claimed Earned Income Tax Credit 

(EITC) on previous tax return Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

B. Assets (all questions asked only of independent youths)3

 Market value of Y’s residence or business Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Amount of rent/mortgage/land contract/loans Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Improvements to property since last interview Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y paid property taxes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Average amount spent on utilities per month Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of Y’s stock or mutual funds Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of Y’s retirement plan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s current checking and savings balance Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of certificates of deposit/bonds/bills Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of real estate Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Value of business or professional practice Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of and amount owed on motor vehicles Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Estimated net value of Y’s household furnishings Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Value of other assets Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Amount of loans ($200 or more) Y received Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Amount owed on other types of debt Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Value of assets owned solely by spouse/partner Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Amount of college loans Y Y 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 27

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

C. Program participation (all questions asked only of independent youths) (asked of Y and spouse jointly except where noted) 

Number and duration of unemployment compensation spells, 

income per week each spell (Y and spouse collected 

separately) 

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number and duration of workers’ compensation spells, 

income per week each spell (Y and spouse collected 

separately) 

Y Y Y Y Y 

 Source of workers’ compensation payments Y Y Y Y Y 

Income from workers’ compensation, amount received (Y and 

spouse collected separately) Y Y Y 

Number and duration of AFDC/TANF/ADC spells, income per 

month each spell Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Persons covered under the AFDC/TANF/ADC program Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number and duration of Food Stamp (FS) spells, value of FS 

received per month each spell Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Persons covered under the FS program Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number and duration of WIC spells, income per month each 

spell Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Persons covered under the WIC program Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Number and duration of Low-Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program spells, income per spell Y 

Number and duration of other welfare spells, income per 

month each spell Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Persons covered under other welfare programs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y lives in public housing or receives rental vouchers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

D. Welfare Knowledge (geocode release- selected respondents only) 

 Words used by Y to describe assistance programs Y 

 Y’s knowledge of assistance program eligibility Y 

 Y’s knowledge of assistance program benefits Y 

 Y’s knowledge of assistance program time limits Y 

V. FAMILY FORMATION (age restrictions as of end of previous calendar year—12/31/96 in round 1, 12/31/97 in round 2, and so 

on) 

A. Marital history 

 Spells Y married or lived with sexual partner Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s current marital status Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Duration of Y’s and partner’s cohabitation Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

Current partner’s age, race, highest grade completed, degree 

earned, and labor market status (from household roster; only 

in rounds 2 through 6 if new to household) 

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Demographic characteristics of noncurrent partner (new since 

last interview) Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Partner’s religion Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 
28 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

4

 In round 1, information on adopted children was collected only if such children were reported on the household or nonresident

rosters; otherwise, an age filter made these questions impossible to reach. In rounds 2 through 4, these questions were asked only of

respondents who reported an adopted child on the household or nonresident roster or who were age 17 or older as of the end of the

previous calendar year.

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

 Partner enrolled in government program Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Changes in relationship status Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s and partner’s relationship quality (questions vary) Yt16 Yt16 Y Y Y Y 

B. Fertility and children 

 Number, sex, and ages of biological children S,Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number, sex, and ages of adopted children4 S,Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number and outcome of pregnancies not ending in live births Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current residence of live biological or adopted children4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Y has legal responsibility for or custody of biological or 

adopted child4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Male youths: has Y gotten someone pregnant, number, 

outcome Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Male youths: quality of relationship with child’s mother Y Y Y Y Y 

 Female youths: quality of relationship with child’s father Y Y Y Y 

Male youths: current economic status of child’s mother, 

amount of informal child support Y Y Y Y Y 

Female youths: current economic status of child’s father, 

amount of informal child support Y Y Y Y 

 Male youths: contact with resident and nonresident children Y Y Y Y Y 

Race, age, highest grade completed, welfare recipiency, 

school enrollment, religion, and labor force status of other 

parent at conception (if not already collected in household 

roster or marriage section) 

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

C. Childcare 

1. Female youths with at least one resident child under the age of 13 

Hours spent at work, at school, at training, or commuting in a 

typical week Y Y Y Y 

 Type of childcare Y Y Y Y 

 Hours spouse/partner cared for child Y 

 Specify relatives who care for child, location of this care Y 

 Hours spent in each type of childcare Y 

Payment details (total amount, amount of funding from 

outside source) Y Y Y Y 

Who most often dropped off and picked up child at childcare, 

travel time Y 

2. Female youths with children who did not use child care 

 Number of relatives living close to youth’s home Y 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 29

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

These relatives able to care for child without or with pay, 

amount would need Y 

Amount expect to pay or be willing to pay for outside care 

provider Y 

3. Female youths without children who were born in 1983 or 1984 

 Number of relatives living close to Y’s home Y 

 Any relatives be able to care for child Y 

Amount expect to pay or be willing to pay for outside care 

provider Y 

VI. FAMILY BACKGROUND (age restrictions as of 12/31/1996) 

A. Parent history and current status 

 Parent nationality P Y Y Y 

 Parent birthplace/date of birth P 

 Parent religious affiliation when growing up and currently P 

 Reason parent did not live with both biological parents P 

 Parents’ number of siblings P 

 Type of community when parent was age 14 P 

 Y’s parents’ parents’ birth year and highest grade completed P 

 Language spoken by parent at the time of the survey P 

 Highest grade parent completed P,S 

 Highest degree received Y Y Y 

 Number and duration of parents’ previous marriages P 

 Parent employment history (dates, hours per week worked) P 

Parents’ earnings in last calendar year (in rounds 1 and 2, 

independent youths and youths age 14 or older as of previous 

calendar year) 

P,Y Y,U Y,U Y,U Y,U Y Y Y 

Parents’ participation in and income from government 

program 

P 

 Parent income from all other sources P U U U U 

 Value of parents’ IRA or prepaid tuition accounts P 

 Value of parents’ assets P 

Amount of parents’ debt P 

 Parents’ height and weight P 

Parents’ longstanding health problem P 

 Parent’s attitude toward self P=12–14 

 Parent’s attitude toward certain behaviors P=13 

 Parent’s attitude toward relationship with partner P=12–14 

B. Youth history 

 Country/state of birth Y Y Y Y 
30 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

 Citizenship status Y Y Y Y 

 Age when first came to United States Y Y Y Y 

 Which parent(s) Y lives with P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Custody arrangements P Y Y Y Y Y 

 Number of residential moves away from parent P Y Y 

 Y has adoptive parent(s) P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Is Y legally adopted, year adoption occurred P 

 Did Y ever live with biological parent P Y Y 

 Distance from biological mother/father S 

 Date biological mother/father died S 

 Y ever in Head Start P 

 Y at childcare from birth to age 5 P 

Y’s biological father legally identified by medical test, signed 

legal or nonlegal document P 

C. Household environment 

Y’s house conducive to studying, had computer in the past 

month Yd14 Yd14 Yd14 Y Yd13 Y Y 

 Days per week Y’s family interrelates Yd14 Yd14 Yd14 Yd14 

 Days per week Y’s family completes housework Yd14 

 Days per week Y hears gunshots in the neighborhood Yd14

 Y was victim of crime before age 12 Y 

Y was victim of crime between ages 12 and 18 (if not already 

answered) (age restrictions as of end of previous calendar 

year) 

Yt18 Yt18 Yt18 Yt18 Yt18 Yt18

 Specific traumatic events (past 5 years) Y 

D. Household information 

 Relationship of other household occupants to Y S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Relationship of nonresident relatives to Y S 

Household occupants’ demographics (age, sex, race, 

ethnicity, marital status) S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Nonresident demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital 

status) S 

Current labor force status: household occupants age 16 and 

older S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Employment status in 1996: nonresident spouse, biological or 

adoptive parent S 

Current or most recent occupation, weeks worked in past 

year: household occupants age 16 and older S 

Current enrollment status, highest degree and grade 

completed: household occupants S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Highest grade completed: nonresidents S 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 31

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

Income received, all sources: household occupants age 14 

and older (independent youths) P,Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type of dwelling S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

VII. EXPECTATIONS (age restrictions as of 12/31/96) 

Situations parent expects Y to be in during next year, by age 

20, and by age 30 Pt15 

Situations Y expects to be in during next year, by age 20, and 

by age 30 in round 1; by next year and in 5 years for round 4; 

various times in round 5 

Yt15 Y Y 

VIII. ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, AND TIME USE 

A. Attitudes (age restrictions as of 12/31/96) 

 Y’s perception of teachers, school discipline, school safety Y 

 Percent of peers Y believes participate in various activities Y 

 Percent of peers Y believes have had sexual intercourse Yt15 

 Y’s contact with absent parent Y Y Y Y<14 Y<14 Yt13 Y Y 

 Y’s opinion of parent’s supportiveness, permissiveness Y Y Y Y Yt13

Y’s opinion of resident/biological mother, resident/biological 

father 

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14 Y Y 

 Belief about parent’s knowledge of Y’s activities Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14 Y Y 

Frequency of contact between Y’s parents, level of 

friendliness and hostility 

Y=12–

14

Y=12,

13

Y=12,

13

Y=12–

14 Y 

 Y’s opinion of parents’ relationship behaviors Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14

Y=12–

14 Y<13 

 How much say Y has in making rules P,Y= 

12,13 

Y=12,

13

Y=12,

13

Y=12,

13

Y=12,

13 

 Y’s communication with and advice from parent figures Y Y Yt13 Y Y 

 Whom Y would turn to for help with a problem Yd14 Yd14 Yd14 Y Y Y 

 Religious identification and attendance (questions vary) Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s perception of criminal justice system Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Y’s perception of own personality traits 

 (series shortened in R7) Yd14 Yd14

 Series about Y’s best friend Y Y 

 Frequency of family rituals and holidays Y Y 

 Persons Y turns to for advice on relationships Y 

Persons Y turns to for advice on education, employment, and 

finances Y 

B. Behaviors (age restrictions as of previous calendar year—12/31/96 in round 1, 12/31/97 in round 2, and so forth) 

Dating: Age first dated, frequency of dating, number of 

people dated Y Y Y Y Y 

 More detailed dating series about most recent partner Y Y Y 

 Age first had sexual intercourse Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 
32 CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97

5

 First commission of a crime and first arrest information were collected in a later round only if not available from a previous round. 6

 Questions were asked only to those previously arrested and the control group.

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

 Number of sexual partners Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Characteristics of first and most recent sexual partner or 

experience Y Y Y Y Y 

 Risky sexual behaviors Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type and use of birth control (condom use, other) Yt14 Yt14 Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Amount of cigarettes/alcohol/marijuana in past month Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Age of first cigarette/alcohol/marijuana use Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Age first used/frequency of use of other drugs such as 

cocaine, crack, heroin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Age first time/number of times ever ran away (age restriction 

as of last interview date) Y Yd16 Yd16 Yd16 Yd16 Yd16 Yd16

 Age Y first carried a handgun Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y carried a handgun to school in the last month Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Age Y joined a gang Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Type of crimes Y committed Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y6

 Age when Y committed crime first time Y 

Number of crimes committed in the previous year or since last 

interview Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y6

 Amount from selling illegal drugs or merchandise Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y6

 Number of times Y arrested Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Date of Y’s first or most recent arrest Y Y5

 Y5 Y5 Y5 Y5 Y5

 Y5

 Offense charged with for each arrest Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y convicted or plead guilty for each arrest Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Facility, duration of sentence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s Internet experience and current access to the Internet Y Y 

C. Time use (age restrictions as of 12/31/96) 

 Time spent on homework (weekends/weekdays) Y=12–

14 

Time in extra classes, reading, watching TV 

(weekends/weekdays) 

Y=12–

14 

 Time Y usually gets up (not enrolled or employed youths) Yt16 Yt15 Yt15

Place Y goes to on a regular basis, time goes and returns (not 

enrolled or employed) Yt16 Yt15 Yt15 

IX. HEALTH (age restrictions as of 12/31/96) 

 Y’s general health Y,P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Mental health in past month (series) Y Y Y 

Y practices health-related behaviors 

 (details vary, shortened in R7) Y=13 Y Y 
CHAPTER 2: THE NLSY97 33

Table 2.8. Selected NLSY97 variables by survey round: Respondents ages 12 to 17 in 1997

Variable Round 

1

Round 

2

Round 

3

Round 

4

Round 

5

Round 

6

Round 

7

Round 

8

 Y’s opinion on effects of smoking or drinking Y=13 Y=13 

 Y’s height and weight Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s perception about weight Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Y’s health insurance coverage Y,P Y Y Y 

 Y diagnosed with chronic health condition P Y 

 Age first noticed health condition P Y 

 Health condition limits school or work activities P Y 

 Visits to doctor in past 12 months Y Y Y 

 Knowledge of pregnancy and birth control Y=13 Y=13 

 Has Y entered puberty and age at onset Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

X. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 

 Interested in government and public affairs Y 

 Voter registration in 2004 Y 

 Vote in 2004 Y 

XI. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES (in main data set) 

Dates of residential moves to new State/city/county (since last 

interview) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Collapsed unemployment rate for local labor market Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current residence urban or rural Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Current residence in metropolitan statistical area Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

 Region of residence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
34 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

THE NLSY79

The NLSY79 is a nationally representative sample of 12,686

young men and women who were 14 to 22 years of age

when first surveyed in 1979. During the years since that first

interview, these young people typically have finished their

schooling, moved out of their parents’ homes, made decisions on continuing education and training, entered the labor market, served in the military, married, and started families

of their own. Data collected from the NLSY79 respondents

chronicle these changes, providing researchers with a unique

opportunity to study in detail the life-course experiences of

a large group of adults representative of all men and women

born in the late 1950s and early 1960s and living in the United

States when the survey began.

The cohort was interviewed annually through 1994.

Since 1994, the survey has been administered biennially.

Interviewing for round 21 of the NLSY79 began in January

2004 and ended in the winter of 2005. This chapter reflects

the contents of the round 21 interview, although data for that

survey will not be available to the public until early 2006.

Since 1986, detailed information on the development of

children born to women in the NLSY79 cohort has supplemented the data on mothers and children collected during

the main NLSY79. Chapter 4 describes the biennial surveys

of this group, referred to as the “Children of the NLSY79.”

Chapter organization

This chapter supplies an overview of the main NLSY79 cohort and the types of data present within this data set. It

provides information about the main and supplemental

NLSY79 samples and includes a discussion of multiple-respondent households in the NLSY79, an important feature

of the original sampling design. This chapter also gives

information on interviews with the NLSY79 men and women,

as well as information relevant to assessing how attrition

has affected the sample sizes over time. Major data elements

for the NLSY79 are then highlighted. The chapter concludes

with a brief summary of the data files and documentation

available for the NLSY79.

The NLSY79 samples

The NLSY79 sample design enables researchers to analyze

the disparate life course experiences of groups such as

women, Hispanics, blacks, and the economically disadvantaged. Three subsamples make up the NLSY79:

z A cross-sectional sample of 6,111 youths designed to

be representative of noninstitutionalized civilian youths

living in the United States in 1979 and born between

January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1964 (ages 14 to 21 as

of December 31, 1978)

z A supplemental sample of 5,295 youths designed to

oversample civilian Hispanic, black, and economically

disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic youths living in

the United States during 1979 and born between January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1964

z A military sample of 1,280 youths designed to represent

the population born between January 1, 1957, and December 31, 1961 (ages 17 to 21 as of December 31, 1978),

and enlisted in one of the four branches of the active

military forces as of September 30, 1978

All members of the cross-sectional sample and the Hispanic

and black supplemental samples have been eligible for interviewing during each round of the NLSY79. Funding constraints limited the numbers of military sample members

interviewed after 1984 and of economically disadvantaged

nonblack/non-Hispanic supplemental sample members interviewed after 1990. (See table 3.1.)

Multiple-respondent households

In accordance with the NLSY79 sample design, all eligible

individuals ages 14 to 21 who resided in a surveyed household at the end of 1978 were selected as respondents. As a

result, the 11,406 civilian respondents interviewed in 1979

originated from 7,490 unique households; 2,862 households

included more than one NLSY79 respondent.

At the time the surveys began, the primary types of

relationships between respondents living in multiple-respondent households were those of spouse and biological, step-

, or adopted sibling. Table 3.2 lists the number of cohort

members living in multiple-respondent households during

the initial survey by type of relationship.

The NLSY79 interviews

Interviews with NLSY79 respondents were conducted on an

annual basis from 1979 through 1994. After 1994, the survey
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 35

was placed on a biennial schedule. The original interview

schedule, calling for primarily in-person interviews, was maintained from 1979 to 1986. In 1987, budget constraints dictated that almost 86 percent of respondents participated in a

more limited telephone interview, while others were administered the shortened survey in person. Personal interviews

were again the dominant type of interview for the 1988 round

through the 2000 interview. Telephone efforts again became

a major part of the field strategy beginning with the 2002

interview.

From 1979 to 1986, NLSY79 interviews generally were

conducted in the first half of the year. Beginning in 1987, the

fielding period was shifted to the summer and fall months.

This continued until the 2002 survey when the fielding began in January with a telephone effort. Researchers should

carefully note interview dates and fielding periods when using variables that may be affected by the time of year of the

interview.

In 1993, computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI)

replaced the traditional paper-and-pencil interview (PAPI)

Table 3.1. Distribution of NLSY79 respondents by sample type, race, and sex

1The economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic

supplemental sample was dropped after the 1990 interview. 2After the military sample was dropped in 1985, 201 sample

members were retained for continued interviewing; 183 of these

respondents were interviewed in 1990.

Sample type 1979 1984 1990 1994 2000 2002

Total sample 12,686 12,069 10,436 8,891 8,033 7,724

Cross-sectional sample 6,111 5,814 5,498 5,457 4,949 4,775

Males 3,003 2,839 2,664 2,648 2,356 2,270

Nonblack/non-Hispanic 2,439 2,303 2,157 2,150 1,926 1,852

Black 346 329 318 310 272 268

Hispanic 218 207 189 188 158 150

Females 3,108 2,975 2,834 2,809 2,593 2,505

Nonblack/non-Hispanic 2,477 2,365 2,271 2,243 2,065 1,999

Black 405 393 365 363 343 328

Hispanic 226 217 198 203 185 178

Supplemental sample 5,295 5,040 4,755 3,256 2,921 2,792

Males 2,576 2,442 2,280 1,599 1,412 1,353

Economically disadvantaged

 nonblack/non-Hispanic 742 699 664 1— 1— 1—

Black 1,105 1,055 979 973 847 828

Hispanic 729 688 637 626 565 524

Females 2,719 2,598 2,475 1,657 1,509 1,440

Economically disadvantaged

 nonblack/non-Hispanic 901 851 819 1— 1— 1—

Black 1,067 1,034 984 987 912 879

Hispanic 751 713 672 670 597 561

Military sample 1,280 1,215 2183 178 163 157

Males 824 774 168 164 152 147

Nonblack/non-Hispanic 609 575 70 68 64 61

Black 162 151 68 62 61 60

Hispanic 53 48 30 34 27 26

Females 456 441 15 14 11 10

Nonblack/non-Hispanic 342 331 7 7 6 6

Black 89 86 5 5 3 3

Hispanic 25 24 3 2 2 1
36 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

Type of household Number of respondents

Sibling 5,914

Two siblings 3,398

Three siblings 1,743

Four siblings 624

Five siblings 125

Six siblings 24

Spouse 334

Table 3.2.Number of NLSY79 civilian respondents

by type of multiple-respondent household (1979)

instruments used during the 1979–92 interviews. Experimental CAPI administrations had taken place during the 1989

and 1990 interviews, with documented improvements in data

quality. (See Baker and Bradburn, 1992; Bradburn, Frankel et

al., 1992; Olsen, 1991; Speizer and Dougherty, 1991.) For the

2004 interview, Web-based survey instruments were used

for the first time in conducting telephone interviews.

Table 3.3 presents the type of survey (personal or telephone) and the completion rate for each year. Table 3.4 lists

the number of interviewed respondents by sample type and

the resulting retention rates for each NLSY79 round.

Attrition and sample drops

As table 3.4 shows, retention rates for NLSY79 respondents

considered eligible for interview remained close to 90 percent during the first 16 interview rounds and were approximately 85 percent for rounds 17 and 18. Retention rate,

expressed as a percentage, is calculated by dividing the number of respondents interviewed by the number of respondents remaining eligible for interview. All base-year

respondents, including those reported as deceased, are considered eligible for interview; those sample types that have

been permanently dropped from the sample are not considered eligible for interview. In the round 20 (2002) survey,

7,724 civilian and military respondents out of the 9,964 eligible were interviewed, for an overall retention rate of 77.5

percent.

The number of respondents interviewed also can be expressed as a percentage of the number of base-year respondents not known to be deceased. This number, called

response rate, is reported for each survey in table 3.5. As of

2002, 346 respondents (more than 3 percent of the respondents eligible for interview) had been reported as deceased.

Thus, the response rate for those believed to be alive is 80.9

percent.

Funding constraints required that selected respondents

in the military and supplemental subsamples be dropped from

interviewing following the 1984 and 1990 surveys, respectively. After the 1984 survey, interviewing ceased for 1,079

members of the military subsample; 201 respondents were

retained for continued interviewing and were randomly selected from the entire military sample. After the 1990 survey,

all 1,643 economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic

respondents in the supplemental sample were dropped from

the interview rolls.

Sampling weights

The NLSY79 is a complex longitudinal survey composed of

multiple nationally representative samples. Because of this

complexity, the staff members working with NLSY79 data create a set of cross-sectional weights for each survey round. 

Using these weights provides a simple method that analysts

may use to correct the raw data for the complex survey design in a particular year. If an analyst is using data from

multiple rounds of the survey, the survey weight developed

for any particular round will provide an accurate adjustment

so long as the test for inclusion also is based data from the

same round.

If a research project spans multiple survey rounds, one

can create a custom set of survey weights that adjust both

for the complexity of the survey design and for the use of

data from multiple rounds. The custom weighting program

can be found by going to the NLS Web site (www.bls.gov/

nls), clicking on the description of the NLSY79 cohort, and

then clicking on the link to “create a set of custom weights.”

After the initial round, sampling weights were constructed to adjust for differential nonresponse and for the

black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged

oversamples. These weights provide the researcher with an

estimate of the number of individuals in the United States

who are represented by each respondent’s answers. The

sampling weights are recalculated after each survey to account for noninterviews.

Major data elements

Each round of the NLSY79 contains core sets of questions

on the following topics: Labor market experiences, training

investments, schooling, family income, health conditions,

geographic residence and environmental characteristics,

household composition, and marital and fertility histories.

Although the surveys have collected information on these

topics on a regular basis, users should note that the number

of questions on a given topic, as well as the wording and

universe(s) for each question, may differ from year to year.

In selected years, the surveys have included additional

sets of questions on a variety of factors potentially affecting

labor force attachment. The initial survey, for example, collected information on each respondent’s family background,

NOTE: Siblings may be biological, step, or adopted. Some

households may include both siblings and spouses, as well as

respondents with other relationships not presented in this table.
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 37

his or her knowledge of the world of work, and a detailed

retrospective evaluation of the respondent’s labor market

experience. Subsequent surveys have included questions

on subjects such as job search methods, migration, school

discipline, health, childcare, self-esteem, time use, delinquency, knowledge about AIDS, attitudes toward work, childhood residences, neighborhood problems, drug and alcohol

use, educational/occupational aspirations, and prenatal and

postnatal health behaviors.

In addition to these core and supplemental data collections, several special surveys have focused on NLSY79 respondents. These studies include the 1980 high school

survey, the 1980–83 high school transcript data collections,

and the 1980 administration of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB).

This section briefly describes major data elements for

the NLSY79. The categories encompass information available not only from the NLSY79 main files but also from the

Table 3.3. NLSY79 interview schedule

 1Less than 0.05%.

2

The total number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents

eligible for interview beginning in 1985 was 11,607. A total of

201 military respondents were retained from the original sample

of 1,280. 3

The total number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents

eligible for interview beginning in 1991 was 9,964. The 1,643

economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic male and female members of the supplemental subsample were not eligible

for interview as of the 1991 survey year.

NOTE: PAPI interviews are those conducted with paper survey instruments and pencil-entered responses; CAPI interviews

are administered using a laptop computer and an electronic questionnaire that captures respondent-, interviewer-, and machinegenerated data.

Year Personal Telephone Not available Interviewed Not interviewed

1979 11,863 93.5% 548 4.3% 275 2.2% 12,686 — —

1980 11,493 94.7 648 5.3 0 — 12,141 545 4.3%

1981 11,541 94.6 654 5.4 0 — 12,195 491 3.9

1982 11,066 91.3 1,054 8.7 3 1 12,123 563 4.4

1983 11,897 97.3 324 2.7 0 — 12,221 465 3.7

1984 11,422 94.6 646 5.4 1 1 12,069 617 4.9

1985 9,941 91.3 953 8.7 0 — 10,894 2

713 6.1

1986 9,726 91.3 929 8.7 0 — 10,655 952 8.2

1987 1,126 10.7 8,998 85.8 361 3.4 10,485 1,122 9.7

1988 9,494 90.7 920 8.8 51 0.5 10,465 1,142 9.8

1989 PAPI: 8,832 83.3 1,469 13.9 3 1 10,605 1,002 8.6

CAPI : 252 2.4 49 0.5

1990 PAPI: 6,972 66.8 1,032 9.9 2 1 10,436 1,171 10.1

 CAPI: 2,145 20.6 285 2.7

1991 7,773 86.2 1,241 13.8 4 1 9,018 3

946 9.5

1992 7,848 87.0 1,164 12.9 4 1 9,016 948 9.5

1993 7,917 87.9 1,081 12.0 13 0.1 9,011 953 9.6

1994 7,948 89.4 933 10.5 10 0.1 8,891 1,073 10.8

1996 7,594 87.9 1,042 12.1 0 — 8,636 1,328 13.3

1998 6,330 75.4 2,069 24.6 0 — 8,399 1,565 15.7

2000 5,420 67.5 2,613 32.5 0 — 8,033 1,931 19.4

2002 2,317 30.0 5,407 70.0 0 — 7,724 2,240 22.5
38 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

NLSY79 work history and geocode constructed data files.

This listing is by no means comprehensive, and not all data

elements are necessarily present for all respondents in all

survey years. To determine whether the specific variables of

interest are available for the year(s) and respondent

universe(s) of interest, prospective users should examine

several sources. They first should look at the detailed variable table in this chapter, which presents a more comprehensive look at the types of variables available on the NLSY79

main data files. Additional information can be found in the

NLSY79 questionnaires, the NLSY79 User’s Guide (available

at www.bls.gov/nls), and the documentation files in the

NLSY79 data sets.

Data elements for the NLSY79 are discussed in the order

presented in figure 3.1.

 1 Retention rate is defined as the percentage of base-year respondents remaining eligible who were interviewed in a given survey year; deceased respondents are included in the calculations.

 2 A total of 201 military respondents was retained from the original sample of 1,280; 186 of the 201 participated in the 1985 interview. The total number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents

eligible for interview beginning in 1985 was 11,607.

 3 The 1,643 economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic

male and female members of the supplemental subsample were

not eligible for interview as of the 1991 survey year. The total

number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents eligible for

interview beginning in 1991 was 9,964.

1979 6,111 — 5,295 — 1,280 — 12,686 —

1980 5,873 96.1 5,075 95.9 1,193 93.2 12,141 95.7

1981 5,892 96.4 5,108 96.5 1,195 93.4 12,195 96.1

1982 5,876 96.2 5,036 95.1 1,211 94.6 12,123 95.6

1983 5,902 96.6 5,093 96.2 1,226 95.8 12,221 96.3

1984 5,814 95.1 5,040 95.2 1,215 94.9 12,069 95.1

1985 5,751 94.1 4,957 93.6 2

186 92.5 210,894 93.9

1986 5,633 92.2 4,839 91.4 183 91.0 10,655 91.8

1987 5,538 90.6 4,768 90.1 179 89.1 10,485 90.3

1988 5,513 90.2 4,777 90.2 175 87.1 10,465 90.2

1989 5,571 91.2 4,853 91.7 181 90.0 10,605 91.4

1990 5,498 90.0 4,755 89.8 183 91.0 10,436 89.9

1991 5,556 90.9 33,281 89.9 181 90.0 39,018 90.5

1992 5,553 90.9 3,280 89.8 183 91.0 9,016 90.5

1993 5,537 90.6 3,293 90.2 181 90.0 9,011 90.4

1994 5,457 89.3 3,256 89.2 178 88.6 8,891 89.2

1996 5,290 86.6 3,171 86.8 175 87.1 8,636 86.7

1998 5,159 84.4 3,065 83.9 175 87.1 8,399 84.3

2000 4,949 81.0 2,921 80.0 163 81.1 8,033 80.6

2002 4,775 78.1 2,792 76.5 157 78.1 7,724 77.5

Cross-sectional sample Supplemental sample Military sample Total sample

Year Retention Retention Retention Retention

Total rate1 Total rate1 Total rate1 Total rate1

Table 3.4. NLSY79 retention rates by sample types

1. Labor market experiences

For the years 1979 through 2002, information is available for

all respondents on their current labor force status (that is,

whether the respondent was employed, unemployed, or out

of the labor force during most of the week preceding the

survey). Those who report being employed supply job- and

company-specific data, such as occupation, industry, firm

size, availability of fringe benefits, job satisfaction, and number of hours worked each week. For all surveys, detailed job

information is available on up to five employers for whom

the respondent worked since the last interview. Respondents are asked about the dates on which the job started and

stopped, the number of hours worked, the reason why the

respondent left the job, details on up to four gaps in employment while associated with an employer, occupation, class
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 39

Table 3.5. NLSY79 response rates (excluding deceased respondents) by sample types

1979 6,111 0 — 5,295 0 — 1,280 0 — 12,686 0 —

1980 5,873 4 96.2 5,075 5 95.9 1,193 0 93.2 12,141 9 95.8

1981 5,892 15 96.7 5,108 14 96.7 1,195 0 93.4 12,195 29 96.3

1982 5,876 24 96.5 5,036 19 95.5 1,211 1 94.7 12,123 44 95.9

1983 5,902 27 97.0 5,093 26 96.7 1,226 4 96.1 12,221 57 96.8

1984 5,814 30 95.6 5,040 33 95.8 1,215 4 95.2 12,069 67 95.6

1985 5,751 36 94.7 4,957 43 94.4 2186 0 92.5 2

10,894 79 94.5

1986 5,633 43 92.8 4,839 51 92.3 183 1 91.5 10,655 95 92.6

1987 5,538 51 91.4 4,768 56 91.0 179 3 90.4 10,485 110 91.2

1988 5,513 56 91.0 4,777 68 91.4 175 3 88.4 10,465 127 91.2

1989 5,571 60 92.1 4,853 78 93.0 181 3 91.4 10,605 141 92.5

1990 5,498 67 91.0 4,755 82 91.2 183 3 92.4 10,436 152 91.1

1991 5,556 75 92.1 33,281 65 91.5 181 4 91.9 39,018 145 91.8

1992 5,553 81 92.1 3,280 71 91.6 182 4 92.4 9,015 156 91.9

1993 5,537 90 92.0 3,293 83 92.3 181 4 91.9 9,011 177 92.1

1994 5,457 104 90.8 3,256 96 91.6 178 4 90.4 8,891 204 91.1

1996 5,290 129 88.4 3,171 109 89.5 175 5 89.3 8,636 243 88.8

1998 5,159 152 86.6 3,065 118 86.7 175 5 89.3 8,399 275 86.7

2000 4,949 170 83.3 2,921 136 83.1 163 7 84.0 8,033 313 83.2

2002 4,775 188 81.2 2,792 151 80.6 157 7 81.6 7,724 346 80.9

Cross-sectional sample Supplemental sample Military sample Total sample

# Response # Response # Response # Response

Year Total deceased rate1 Total deceased rate1 Total deceased rate1 Total deceased rate1

1

Response rate is defined as the percentage of base-year respondents remaining eligible and not known to be deceased who

were interviewed in a given survey year. 2

A total of 201 military respondents was retained from the

original sample of 1,280; 186 of the 201 participated in the 1985

interview. The total number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents eligible for interview (including deceased respondents)

beginning in 1985 was 11,607. 3

The 1,643 economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic

male and female members of the supplemental subsample were

not eligible for interview as of the 1991 survey year. The total

number of NLSY79 civilian and military respondents eligible for

interview (including deceased respondents) beginning in 1991

was 9,964.

of worker, rate of pay, the types of fringe benefits available,

and collective bargaining activity in setting wages. In the

1994–2002 surveys, the information collected about each

employer was expanded to include the job search method(s)

that the respondent used to obtain the job. Also beginning

with the 1994 survey, questions were included on whether

the respondent participated in a pension plan available

through that employer, and whether the respondent received

severance pay when leaving the job. The 1994–98 surveys

also asked whether the position held with the employer was

permanent, temporary, or as an independent contractor.

Beginning in 2002, the employer supplement section of

the questionnaire includes questions tailored to self-employed respondents and respondents with nontraditional

Figure 3.1. Data elements in the NLSY79

1 Labor market experiences

2 Training investments

3 Schooling, school records, and aptitude information

4 Military experience

5 Income and assets

6 Health conditions, injuries, and insurance coverage

7 Alcohol and substance use, criminal behavior

8 Attitudes and aspirations

9 Geographic residence information

10 Family background and demographic characteristics

11 Household composition

12 Marital and fertility histories

13 Child care
40 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

employment arrangements such as contract or temporary

workers. Similar information is collected for these types of

jobs and for regular employment, so that comparability is

maintained, but the specialized questions more accurately

reflect the job’s characteristics.

Also available is information on the activity of the respondent during periods when he or she was not associated

with an employer or in the military (that is, weeks not working, weeks spent looking for work, reasons not looking for

work). Data are collected on job search behavior for unemployed respondents and on plans to seek employment for

those out of the labor force. The surveys also have gathered

information on the type and success of various job search

methods used by unemployed respondents to find work.

The 1979 interview included hypothetical job offer and reservation wage information.

The Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR) at

The Ohio State University has constructed a week-by-week

longitudinal work record for each respondent from January

1, 1978, through the most recent survey date; this record is

present in the work history area of interest (found only on

the main file with the work history data set). These weekly

data are arranged in three primary arrays:

z A STATUS array of the respondent’s labor force/military activity each week, beginning in January 1978

z An HOUR array of the usual hours worked per week at

all jobs, beginning in January 1978

z A DUALJOB array, containing up to four additional job

numbers for respondents who worked at more than one

job simultaneously in any week, beginning in January

1978

Work history variables include information about the number of weeks of a respondent’s active military service, the

number of weeks that the respondent spent in various labor

force states, and detailed information regarding up to five

civilian jobs reported by the respondent during each survey

year. The respondent identification number permits researchers to link these data with the separate NLSY79 child data.

2. Training investments

The surveys have regularly collected detailed information

about the types of non-government-sponsored vocational

or technical training programs in which a respondent had

enrolled since the last interview. In general, the scope of

information gathered includes the occupation in which a respondent received training, dates of enrollment and completion, the type of school providing the training, whether the

respondent received any subsequent training, the types of

certificates or licenses he or she earned, and how the respondent paid for the training.

The 1979–86 surveys asked an extensive series of questions about government-sponsored training programs in

which the respondent had enrolled since the last interview.

This series includes program-specific information regarding

the respondent’s current enrollment status, dates/hours of

participation, periods of nonparticipation, and whether the

program was part of a federally funded training program such

as the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)/Comprehensive

Employment and Training Act (CETA) or the Work Incentive

Program (WIN). These surveys also collected information

on the types of occupational or on-the-job training received,

the types of classroom training and supportive services provided, and the respondent’s rate of pay during training. For

jobs identified as government-sponsored, information includes the job’s occupational code, the types of classroom

training received, and supportive services provided in conjunction with the job and job placement information. Surveys conducted after 1986 posed substantially fewer

questions about respondents’ participation in government

training and employment programs.

In 1993 and 1994, the interviews included a series of

questions on (1) the informal methods (for instance, classes/

seminars, supervisors, coworkers, self-study) used to learn

skills required on the respondent’s current job and (2) the

potential transferability of skills acquired during various onand off-the-job training programs. The 1993 survey also

fielded a set of high school course relevancy questions. This

series included questions on whether the skills learned in a

training program added to those the respondent had acquired

during high school. For respondents who did not take such

high school courses, questions attempted to determine how

much of what was learned in the training program could have

been learned in high school. Beginning in 1996, questions

on informal training on current jobs in the last 4 weeks replaced the questions about informal training used to learn

the job. In 2002 and 2004, this series was limited to questions

on the use of self-training materials.

3. Schooling, school records, and aptitude information

NLSY79 respondents regularly answer questions about their

schooling investments since the date of last interview. Information available includes respondents’ current school

enrollment status, the highest grade they have attended or

completed, whether they have earned a high school diploma

or GED equivalency, the type of their high school curriculum, their college enrollment status, their major field of study

at college, and the type(s) of college degrees they have

earned. The 1994 survey collected retrospective information

about respondents’ participation in Head Start or another

preschool program.

The 1980 high school survey gathered data from the

records of the last secondary school attended by NLSY79

respondents; data are available for more than 8,500 respondents. This set of variables includes both respondent-spe-
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 41

cific and school-specific information about factors such as

(1) the respondent’s school enrollment status, highest grade

attended, remedial classes taken, and scores for various intelligence and aptitude tests that had been administered during the youth’s schooling and (2) each school’s total

enrollment, grading system, types of curricula offered, dropout rate, student body composition, and staffing characteristics.

Transcript data collected during the 1980–83 survey

years are available for more than 9,000 NLSY79 respondents

who had completed or were expected to complete high

school. Information about as many as 64 high school

courses includes course titles, final grades, and credit received. The transcript data collection also provided respondents’ attendance records, class rank, and scores on various

aptitude and achievement tests.

In addition to the aptitude and intelligence scores collected during the high school and transcript surveys described above, scores from the ASVAB are available for 11,914

NLSY79 respondents. These data include individual respondent raw scores, standard scores, scale scores, and standard

errors for each of the 10 test sections (for example, general

science, arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, mechanical

comprehension). Two Armed Forces Qualifications Test

(AFQT) scores also are available in the data files.

4. Military experience

The survey provides information regarding the respondent’s

enlistment intentions, attitudes toward the military, dates of

military service/reserve duty, branch of service, military occupation, pay grade, income, education/training received,

and reasons for leaving the military or reenlisting. Surveys

after 1985 use an abbreviated set of military experience questions.

5. Income and assets

The interviews record information about the sources and

amounts of income received during the past calendar year

by the respondent and his or her spouse or partner. Data on

income sources of an opposite-sex partner are available beginning in 1990; if a respondent volunteers such information

for a same-sex partner, that information also is recorded. Income sources identified include the respondents’ and their

spouses’ or partners’ wages and salaries, income from military service, profits from a farm or business, Social Security,

pensions and annuities, and alimony/child support. Surveys between 1993 and 2000 asked child support questions

that allow comparisons to be made between amounts of

money to which a respondent or spouse was legally entitled

and amounts of child support received. Finally, the surveys

ask respondents to report the total income received by other

family members living in the household. In some surveys,

the sources of this income are recorded, but the specific

amounts received from each source are not.

Income received through various government programs

also is recorded. The survey asks about monthly income

received by the respondent and spouse or partner from unemployment compensation, Aid to Families with Dependent

Children/Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (AFDC/

TANF), Food Stamps, and other public assistance, including

Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In response to the 1996

welfare reform legislation, the 1998 and 2000 surveys included

questions about the effect of reform on respondents. In

1998, for example, respondents reported whether they had

enrolled in training, looked for a job, or gotten a job to fulfill

new welfare requirements, and reported in detail on receipt

of targeted benefits. In 2000, a shortened targeted benefits

series asked about receipt of job or skills training, clothing

assistance, or food assistance other than Food Stamps, WIC,

or school meals.

In addition to the information described above, the data

include a set of created variables detailing the respondent’s

history of participation in unemployment compensation (respondent and spouse), AFDC/TANF, SSI, and Food Stamp

programs. For each type of recipiency program, variables

include: (1) A monthly dollar value of the benefits, (2) a

yearly indicator of receipt or nonreceipt, and (3) a yearly

dollar value of the benefits. In addition, there are two yearly

summary variables that indicate whether the respondent received any form of public assistance during the year and the

total dollar value of all benefits received from AFDC/TANF,

SSI, and Food Stamp programs.

Asset and liability information collected during the 1985–

90, 1992–2000, and 2004 survey years includes: (1) The types

and total market value of property owned by the respondent; (2) the value of other assets, including vehicles and

savings accounts; and (3) the total amount of debts owed,

including mortgages, back taxes, and other debts over $500.

Although not included in the 2002 survey, asset information

was asked in 2004 and will continue to be collected on a

regular basis in future rounds.

6. Health conditions, injuries, and insurance coverage

The surveys provide data regarding the respondent’s height

and weight, as well as the presence and duration of health

conditions that prevent or limit labor market activity. In some

surveys, respondents answer questions about the type(s)

of work-related injuries or illnesses they had experienced

and their impact on the respondent’s work activity. The International Classification of Diseases coding system identifies health conditions and work-related injuries reported by

respondents during selected survey years. In some years,

mothers provide data on prenatal healthcare, infant feeding

practices, infant illnesses and treatment, and well-baby care,

as well as accidents and injuries to their children. Recent

surveys have included questions on the respondent’s physi-
42 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

cal activity and health behaviors.

Most surveys since 1989 have collected information on

whether NLSY79 respondents, their spouses, and their children are covered by a private or governmental healthcare/

hospitalization plan and the source(s) of the coverage (current or previous employer, direct purchase, public assistance

healthcare program, or other). The 1994 survey asked about

specific periods without coverage for respondents, their

spouses, and their children; surveys since 1994 have asked

about specific periods without coverage only for respondents.

A set of health questions first asked in the 1998 survey

established baseline health data for respondents age 40 and

older. Each subsequent survey addresses the health module

to respondents who have reached age 40 but have not yet

answered these questions. This extensive module records

general health status, the ways in which respondents’ health

influences daily activities, and their emotional well-being in

the past 4 weeks. Respondents also state whether they have

experienced any of a list of potential health problems, such

as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, back pain, and so forth. A

series about respondents’ exercise habits was included in

the 2000 survey; this was replaced in 2002 by a short series

of questions on general health behaviors. Finally, limited

data are collected on the health of the respondents’ parents,

including their life status, current state of health, major health

problems, and cause of death, if deceased.

7. Alcohol and substance use, criminal behavior

Alcohol use questions, asked during selected survey years,

cover the respondent’s consumption of alcohol, his or her

frequency of use, quantity usually consumed, whether such

use has affected the respondent’s schoolwork or job performance, and whether any relatives have alcohol-related problems. Respondents also have provided information on their

use of cigarettes, including the age at which they began

smoking, how frequently they smoke, and the age at which

they stopped smoking, if applicable. Substance use data

include the respondent’s age at first use; extent of use of

marijuana/hashish, amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, and

heroin; and whether the respondent has used such substances on the job. Female NLSY79 respondents have regularly reported on their use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana,

or cocaine during pregnancy.

A self-report supplement to the 1980 survey collected

data on the respondent’s participation in and income from

various delinquent and criminal activities such as truancy,

alcohol/marijuana use, vandalism, shoplifting, drug dealing,

and robbery. A second set of questions in this supplement

measured involvement with the criminal justice system, including reported arrest records and police contact.

8. Attitudes and aspirations

Attitude variables available for selected survey years include

the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966),

the Mastery Scale (Pearlin et al., 1981), the Self-Esteem Scale

(Rosenberg, 1965), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale (Radloff, 1977). In some years,

the survey has included questions on attitudes toward

women and work; occupational aspirations; work commitment; knowledge of the world of work; perceived problems

in getting a good job; and future expectations about marriage, education, and employment. In the initial survey, respondents reported on the attitude of the most influential

person in their life toward certain key career, occupational,

residence, and childbearing decisions.

9. Geographic residence information

The main NLSY79 data files contain general information on

the larger environment in which the respondent lives and

works. This information includes details on each

respondent’s region of residence at birth and at age 14, region of residence at each interview date, whether the current

residence is urban or rural, and whether the residence is located in a metropolitan statistical area. The 1992-2000 surveys collected neighborhood characteristics information

from NLSY79 women, asking them to rate their neighborhood as a place to raise children and to identify the extent of

neighborhood problems such as crime and violence, lack of

police protection, neighborhood apathy, and joblessness.

The restricted-release, detailed geocode data files provide additional geographic information about NLSY79 respondents. These files are distributed only to NLS

researchers who complete the BLS geocode application process. The geocode file includes information on the

respondent’s State, county, and metropolitan statistical area

of residence; the location of the most recent college that the

respondent attended; and selected environmental variables

from the U.S. Census Bureau’s County and City Data Books

for the respondent’s county or metropolitan statistical area

of current residence. More information about how to apply

for access to the NLSY79 geocode file is available at

www.bls.gov/nls/geocodeapp.htm.

A separate data set, the NLSY79 Women’s Support Network data file, offers measures of the geographic proximity

of the residences of relatives, friends, and acquaintances to

female NLSY79 respondents interviewed during the 1983

through 1985 surveys.

10. Family background and demographic

characteristics

Selected surveys have collected information on respondents’

sex (interviewer-coded), racial/ethnic identification, date of

birth, State or country of birth, number of siblings, religious

affiliation, childhood residences from birth to age 18, and
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 43

immigration/visa status, as well as background information

about their parents’ birthplace, education, and work experiences. The 1993 survey asked respondents to report the

age, education, and fertility of as many as 13 biological siblings. For those respondents identifying a sibling of the

same age, follow-up questions in 1994 confirmed whether

the paired relationship was that of an identical or fraternal

twin, triplet, or quadruplet.

11. Household composition

Basic demographic information is available for each person

living in the respondent’s household at the time of the survey. These data include each resident’s sex, relationship to

the respondent, age, highest grade of schooling completed,

and work experience during the past year.

12. Marital and fertility histories

Regularly collected information includes respondents’ marital status at the survey date, changes in marital status since

the last interview, and dates of each marital status change.

Beginning in 2002, information about the respondent’s cohabitations since the last interview has been recorded, replacing questions that asked only about cohabitations that

were ongoing as of the interview date. Certain surveys have

gathered information about the respondents’ spouses (and,

on a more limited basis, partners), including birth and death

dates, occupation, educational attainment, labor force status, religious affiliation, previous marriages, and health limitations. Since 1994, “partner” is generally considered equal

to “spouse” for the purposes of administering questions.

Beginning with the 2000 release, the data include a new

series of constructed variables for each survey year that

provide information about the respondent’s relationship status. All previous surveys were examined to match names of

spouses and partners, resulting in the creation of two variables for each year. The first variable provides information

about the respondent’s total number of spouses and partners since 1979 and can range from 0 to 9. The second variable is a unique code assigned to each new spouse/partner

at the interview date. If the same spouse or partner resides

with the respondent during the next survey round, his or her

code remains the same. If the respondent has a new spouse

or partner, the next available number is given to that person.

If the respondent is reunited with a previous spouse or partner in a later survey round, the total number of spouses/

partners is not increased, and the code for that year reflects

the recurring spouse/partner’s original number. For more

details about these created variables, see the NLSY79 User’s

Guide.

Fertility data collected for NLSY79 women include information about all pregnancies resulting in live births, a cumulative roster of all children, residence status of all children,

contraceptive methods used, birth expectations and

wantedness information, confidential abortion reports, and

ages at menarche and first sexual intercourse. Fertility data

collected for men in the NLSY79 cohort are more limited.

Information includes birth data for the respondent’s children, the residence status of his children, his age at first

sexual intercourse, and contraceptive methods used by the

respondent. Additionally, a set of questions asked in 1998

and 2000 recorded the frequency of the male respondent’s

various interactions with his oldest and youngest children.

A set of edited fertility variables added to the main data

file (area of interest Fertility and Relationship History/Created) provides revisions to dates of birth, sex, and usual

living arrangements for all respondents’ children, as well as

flag variables indicating the types of revisions made. Constructed variables include the beginning and ending dates

of marriages, ages at first marriage and first birth, spacing

between births, and spacing between marriage and first birth

for the respondent’s children. Because they have been corrected, variables in this area of interest are more accurate

than the raw data. Users are strongly encouraged to use

these edited and created variables. Finally, the database

contains a variable evaluating the consistency of each female respondent’s longitudinal fertility record between the

1979 and 1982 survey years. Male fertility data is available

for download separately and will be included in the data for

the next round.

13. Childcare

Select surveys provide information about the types of

childcare used by female respondents (for instance, care by

relatives, care by nonrelatives, daycare center, nursery or

preschool, child cares for self), the types of childcare payments incurred, and the number of hours or days that the

respondents’ children spent in childcare. Retrospective data

collected in recent surveys include childcare experiences and

arrangements in the first 3 years of life for all children at least

1 year old.

Data files and documentation

Data for the NLSY79 from 1979–2002 are distributed in two

data sets:

(1) NLSY79 Main/Work History File 1979–2002 data set,

which excludes the restricted geocode data but includes

the created work history data; and

(2) NLSY79 Geocode File 1979–2002 CD with all main/work

history file data and geocode data.

The combined main/work history data set is available for

download from the www.bls.gov/nls Web site.

Each data set includes documentation files and is accompanied by search and extraction software that enables

users to easily peruse, select, and extract variables.
44 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

Chapter 8 provides more technical information on the NLS

data format and extraction software, as well as descriptions

of supplementary documentation available for the NLSY79.

References

Baker, Reginald P. and Bradburn, Norman M. “CAPI: Impacts on Data Quality and Survey Costs.” In: Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records

and Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center

for Health Statistics (1992): 459–64.

Bradburn, Norman M.; Frankel, Martin R.; Baker, Reginald

P.; and Pergamit, Michael R. “A Comparison of Computer-Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI) with Paperand-Pencil (PAPI) Interviews in the National

Longitudinal Study of Youth.” NLS Discussion Paper

92-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992.

Olsen, Randall J. “The Effects of Computer Assisted Interviewing on Data Quality.” Columbus, Ohio: Center for

Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University,

1991.

Pearlin, Leonard I.; Lieberman, Morton A.; Menaghan, Elizabeth G.; and Mullan, Joseph T. “The Stress Process.”

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22 (December

1981): 337–56.

Radloff, Lenore Sawyer. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report

Depression Scale for Research in the General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1,3 (Summer 1977): 385–401.

Rosenberg, Morris. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Rotter, Julian B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs.

External Control of Reinforcements.” Psychological

Monographs 80,1 (1966): 1–28.

Speizer, Howard and Dougherty, Doug. “Automating Data

Transmission and Case Management Functions for a

Nationwide CAPI Study.” In: Proceedings of the 1991

Annual Research Conference. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau (1991): 389–97.

Selected variables by survey year: NLSY79

Table 3.6 depicts selected variables from the NLSY79 main

data files. Additional raw and constructed variables on a

number of topics (such as geographic-environmental data

and detailed individual work histories) can be found on the

separately released NLSY79 geocode CD and within the work

history area of interest. Detailed information on the Children

of the NLSY79 can be found in the various handbooks, user’s

guides, and evaluation reports that document the child data;

more information is available in chapter 4.

The top row of the table lists the years in which the

NLSY79 has been administered; the first column gives some

of the variables for which information has been collected.

An asterisk (*) indicates that information for the designated

variable was obtained for the given cohort in the year indicated. “R” used in variable descriptions stands for “respondent.” Users should be aware that, in some instances, the

variable descriptions in the table represent a group of questions and not single response items.
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 45

1 Beginning in 1994, characteristics of the current or most recent job were collected in the first Employer Supplement loop,

rather than in the CPS section. To maintain consistency, these questions are still included in this section of the table. 2

 Note that, beginning in 2002, the questionnaire includes separate sets of questions for self-employed respondents and respondents with nontraditional employment arrangements. The information collected is very similar to the regular employment questions, but wordings may vary to accommodate different situations. The three types of employer questions are not represented

separately in the table.

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

A. Current labor force and employment status and characteristics of current/most recent job1

 Survey week labor force and employment status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Occupation (DOT code) * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Shift worked (in 2002/2004 for CPS job only) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Promotion (varies with year) * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Commuting time to current job * * * * * * 

Availability of fringe benefits (beginning in 1994 

for multiple jobs) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Global job satisfaction item * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Job satisfaction scale * * * * * 

 Job characteristics inventory * * 

Size of employer (in 2002/2004, only at R’s 

worksite) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Minority status of coworkers (1980 only), 

supervisor * * 

 Time R expects to stay at job * * * * 

 Participation in work-study program * * * * * * * * 

 B. Work experience since Jan. 1, 1978, or previous survey, or in past calendar year 

 Weeks worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours usually worked per week * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of weeks, spells of unemployment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks out of labor force * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 C. Characteristics of jobs since Jan. 1, 1978, or last survey, including current or most recent job (more than 10 to 20 hours per 

a week and more than 9 weeks in duration if not CPS job)2

 Occupation and industry (Census code) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Class of worker * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours usually worked at home * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Shift worked (only current/most recent job in 

2002/2004) * * * * * * 

 Rate of pay, hourly rate of pay * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Covered by collective bargaining * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
46 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Is R union member * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason for leaving job * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Severance pay received * * * * * * 

Availability of fringe benefits (CPS job) (all jobs 

since 1994) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Characteristics of employer’s pension plan * * * * * * 

Is employer exempt from Social Security; does 

another plan replace it * * 

 Global job satisfaction item * * * * * * 

 Promotion and promotion potential with employer * * * * * * * * * 

 Size of employer (in 2002, only at R’s worksite) * * * * * 

 Sex of supervisor and coworkers * * 

 Is R a temporary or contractual worker * * * 

 D. Job search 

 Job search activities and (some years) intentions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

R looking for work or employed when found 

current or most recent job * * * * * 

 Methods of job search * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Job offers rejected (while looking for each job) * * * * * * * * 

 Desired characteristics of job sought * * * * 

 II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences/Parental status

 Nationality and birthplace * * 

 Birth date * * 

 Ethnic self-identification (revised 2002) * * 

 Year foreign-born R entered the United States * 

Month and year R entered the United States to 

live for at least 6 months * * 

 Country of citizenship when immigrated * 

 Immigration or visa status * 

Religious affiliation, frequency of attendance 

(only new spouses in 2002/2004) * * * * * 

 Periods lived away from parents (birth to age 18) * * 

Non-English language spoken when R was a 

child * 

Were magazines, newspapers, or library cards 

available in home when R was age 14 * 

 Person(s) R lived with at age 14 * * 

 Occupations of primary adults when R was 14 * 

 Birthplace of parents: State or country * 

 Highest grade completed by father and mother * 
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 47

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

Employment status of father and mother in past 

year 

* * 

 Are R’s parents living * * 

R’s biological parents—life status, health, cause 

of death (40-and-older health module) * * * * 

 B. Education 

 Current enrollment status, date of last enrollment * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Highest grade completed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason stopped attending school * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Highest degree and date received * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Is or was school public or private * 

 High school curriculum * * * * * * * 

Comparison of high school courses to skills 

training * 

 College degree received * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Type of college attending (2- or 4-year) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Field of study or specialization in college * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 College tuition * 

 Educational loans or financial aid in college * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward selected aspects of high school * 

 Courses taken during last year of high school * 

 Ever suspended or expelled from school; date * 

 C. Vocational training outside regular school 

 Type(s) of training * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of weeks, hours per week in training * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Was training completed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Was degree, certificate, or journeyman’s card 

obtained * * 

 Was training related to specific job or employer * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Was training related to a promotion * * * * * 

 Reason for training * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Method of financing training * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Informal job learning activities (questions vary; 

self-training only in 2002 and 2004) * * * * * * * 

 D. Government jobs and training programs 

 Participation in programs * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Type of program * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Satisfaction with program * * * * * * * * * 

 Did program help on subsequent jobs * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Services provided by program * * * * * * * * * 
48 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Length of participation in program * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week and per day spent in program * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Amount of income from participating in program * * * * * * * * 

 Aspects liked most and least about programs * 

 Reasons for entering and leaving programs * * * * * * * * * 

 E. Health and physical condition 

 Does health limit work, duration of limitation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Type of health problem (ICD-9 code) * * * * 

 Work-related injury or illness (ICD-9 code) * * * * * * * * * 

 Height * * * 

 Weight * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Health insurance coverage—R, spouse, children * * * * * * * * * * 

 Frequency and intensity of R’s physical activity * * 

 R’s general health behaviors * * 

General perception of health (40-and-older health 

module) * * * * 

Does health interfere with daily activities (40-andolder module) * * * * 

Emotional health in past 4 weeks (40-and-older 

module) * * * * 

R’s various health problems (heart problems, 

cancer, diabetes, poor eyesight or hearing, and 

so forth) (40-and-older module) 

 * * * * 

Time spent on healthcare activities (40-and-older 

module) * * * * 

 Diagnosed with asthma * 

 F. Marital history and spouse characteristics (note that all spouse items also refer to partners beginning in 1994) 

Dating behaviors and attitudes (unmarried 

females) * * * * * * * * 

 Marital status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Changes in marital status since 1/1/1978 or 

previous interview; number and duration of 

marriages 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Month, year R and partner began living together * * * * * * * * * * 

Did R and spouse live together continuously 

before marriage (or R and partner continuously 

until now) 

 * * * * * * * * * * 

Changes in cohabitation with partner since last 

interview * * 

 Occupation of spouse * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Extent spouse worked in previous calendar year * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Current labor force status, reason not employed 

for spouse * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 49

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Shift worked by spouse * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Rate of pay, hourly rate of pay of spouse * * * * * * * * * * 

Spouse’s religious affiliation and attendance (new 

spouses only in 2000–2004) * * * * 

 Number of spouse’s marriages, details * * * * * 

 Effect of spouse’s health on R’s work * 

Quality of R’s relationship (14 items) (mothers in 

1988; females all other years) * * * * * * * * 

 Age at which R expects to marry * 

 G. Household and children 

Relationship of household or family members to 

R * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Household or family members’ demographics 

(sex, age, highest grade completed, work status 

in past year) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of dependents or exemptions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Number and ages of R’s children living in 

household * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Expected number of children * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of children R considers ideal * * 

 Healthcare during pregnancy (females) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Postnatal infant healthcare and feeding (females) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Father’s relationship with children (males) * * 

 Fertility history * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Use of birth control methods * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Pregnancies not resulting in live births (includes 

how ended through 1990) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Characteristics of children with asthma * 

H. Childcare (only female R’s in even years after 1986) 

 Current childcare arrangements * * * * * * * 

 Childcare during first 3 years of life * * * * * * * * * 

 Cost per week * * * * 

 Number of hours per week * * * * * * 

Is childcare a hindrance to R’s work, school, or 

training * * * * * 

 Extent of various neighborhood problems * * * * * 

 I. Financial characteristics and program participation (note that all spouse items also refer to partners beginning in 1994) 

 Total family income in previous calendar year * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse in previous calendar 

year from: 

 Farm or own business * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
50 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Wages or salary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment compensation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Public assistance * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Food Stamps * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Targeted cash or noncash benefits * * 

 Pensions/Social Security * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Military service * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, 

other disability (collected separately beginning 

in 2002) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Other sources * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

R receives government rent subsidy or public 

housing * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from child support * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Child support expected vs. received * * * * * 

Rights to estate or trust; income from inheritances 

(since last interview) * * * 

R claimed Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on 

previous tax return, amount * * * 

 Possession of various assets (R and spouse) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Asset market value (R and spouse) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Amount of debt * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Amount spent on food, other than Food Stamps * * * * * 

Effect of 1996 welfare reform on R (shorter in 

2000) * * 

R receives targeted benefits from public 

assistance program (gas vouchers, childcare, and 

so forth) 

 * 

 J. Military service (current or past) 

 Branch of Armed Forces * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Months spent in Armed Forces * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Military occupation(s) * * * * * * * 

 ROTC or officer training * 

 Reserve or guard activities * * * * * * * 

 Pay grade and income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Type and amount of military training * * * * * * * 

 Does R use military skills on civilian job * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Formal education received while in service * * * * * * * 

 Family members who have served on active duty * 

Participation in Veteran’s Educational Assistance 

Program (VEAP) (after 1985, with GI bill) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward military service * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79 51

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Future military plans * * * * * * * 

 Reason for entering and leaving military * * * * * * 

 Contact with military recruiters * * * * * * * 

 Type of discharge * * 

 Enlistment or reenlistment bonuses received * * * * * * * 

 Civilian job offer at time of discharge * * * * * * 

 Return to same employer after active duty * * * * * * 

 K. Educational and occupational aspirations and expectations 

 Would R like more education or training; type * 

How much education desired and actually 

attained * * * 

 Kind of work R would like to be doing at age 35 * * 

 Expectation of achieving occupational goal * * 

 L. Attitudes 

 Knowledge of World of Work score * 

 Would R work if had enough money to live on * 

Characteristics of job R is willing to take (R 

unemployed or out of labor force) * * * * * * * * 

 Reaction to hypothetical job offers * 

 Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter) * 

 Mastery Scale (Pearlin) * 

 Attitude toward women working * * * * 

 Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg) (10 items) * * 

CES-Depression Scale (40-and-older health 

module in 1998–2004) * * * * * * 

Person having most influence on R, his or her 

responses to various situations * 

 M. Retrospective evaluation of labor market experience 

 Perception of age, race, and sex discrimination * * 

 Reason for problems in obtaining employment * * 

 N. Delinquency, drugs, and alcohol use 

 Activities within last year (20 items) * 

 Income from illegal activities within last year * 

 Alcohol consumption in last week or month * * * * * * * * * 

 Extent of cigarette use * * * * 

Age R first smoked and stopped smoking 

cigarettes * * * 

 Extent of marijuana use * * * * * * 

 Age R first used marijuana * * * * * 

 Extent of cocaine use, age R first used * * * * * 
52 CHAPTER 3: THE NLSY79

NOTE: Excluded from this table are the detailed geographic, fertility, and child-specific variables that appear on separate NLSY79

constructed data files.

Table 3.6. Selected NLSY79 variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 22 in 1979

Variable 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Extent of “crack” cocaine use, age R first used * * * 

 Ever used sedatives, barbiturates, and so forth * * * * 

 Cigarette and alcohol use during pregnancy * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Marijuana and cocaine use during pregnancy * * * * * * * * * 

 O. Reported police contacts 

 Number of times stopped by police * 

 Number of times booked or arrested * 

 Number of convictions, charges * 

 Number of times incarcerated; date of release * 

 P. Time use 

Use of time at various activities (school, work, 

watching TV, household chores, and so forth) * 

 III. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

 Region of residence * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Current residence urban or rural * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Current residence in metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment rate of local labor market * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Changes in residence since January 1, 1978, or 

date of last interview (collected as a history) * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 53

CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

On a regular basis, the main surveys of the NLSY79 have

collected information on the experiences of NLSY79

women as they became mothers, including the birth and early

childhood of their children. In 1982, the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) program obtained funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(NICHD) to expand the collection of fertility information from

NLSY79 women; in 1983, NICHD provided funds for prenatal

care questions. Collection of data on children of NLSY79

women was further expanded in 1986, when NICHD began

sponsoring a set of supplemental surveys to gather a large

amount of information about the lives of these children. A

battery of child assessments, cognitive, socioemotional, and

physiological has been administered biennially since 1986 to

obtain NLSY79 mothers and their children. Since 1988,

NLSY79 children age 10 and older have answered a selfadministered set of questions gathering information on a

variety of more sensitive topics related to family, friends,

jobs, school, attitudes, peers, and deviant behaviors.

Since 1994, a computer-assisted personal interview

(CAPI) has been used to ask children who had reached age

15 by December 31 of the survey year (known as the “young

adults”) about their work experiences, training, schooling,

health, fertility, attitudes, and relationships. This NLS-style

interview, repeated in subsequent rounds, has replaced the

child assessments for these older adolescents. A confidential supplement has recorded self-reports from the young

adults on topics such as parent-child conflict, participation

in delinquent or criminal activities, use of controlled and

uncontrolled substances, access to computers and computer

training, volunteer activities, and expectations for the future.

Beginning with the 2000 survey, components of the confidential supplement have been integrated into the CAPI instrument, and no separate paper instrument has been used.

The collection of information from young adults has

been repeated in each subsequent survey year; in 1998, however, the sample was limited to those who had not reached

age 21 by the interview date. Young adults age 21 and older

were again eligible for interview in the 2000 survey, but the

primary mode of interview was changed to telephone, rather

than in-person, interviews. In addition, about 40 percent of

children and young adults under age 21 from the households originally selected in the black and Hispanic

oversamples were not eligible for interview in 2000 due to

funding constraints. The entire black and Hispanic child

and young adult oversample was again eligible for interview

in 2002.

The child data and the longitudinal mother information

from the main NLSY79 data offer researchers a unique opportunity to examine linkages among maternal-family behaviors, attitudes, and child development. Researchers also can

investigate relationships between child development and

subsequent schooling and early employment activities. Data

through the 2002 interview are available to researchers on

the cross-cohort CD and online at www.bls.gov/nls. Users

should always consult the survey instruments for the exact

questions included in each year.

Chapter organization

This chapter provides an overview of the Children of the

NLSY79 data collection and the types of information present

within this data set. The composition of the child sample is

first discussed, followed by a description of the survey instruments and assessments used in this data collection. The

next section highlights major data elements for the Children

of the NLSY79. The chapter concludes with a brief summary

of the data files and documentation available for the Children of the NLSY79.

The NLSY79 child sample

The child sample consists of all children born to female

NLSY79 respondents. The number of children born to interviewed mothers increased from 5,255 in 1986, the initial child

collection survey year, to a total of 8,323 in 2002. During

2002, interviewers completed surveys with 7,467 children of

NLSY79 mothers. After applying the child sampling weights,

this sample is nationally representative of the children of

women who were born from 1957 to 1964 and who were living

in the United States in 1978.

Starting in 1994, two separate groups of children have

been interviewed in each round of the NLSY79. The first is

made up of children younger than age 15 (as of December 31

of that survey year) who live with their NLSY79 mothers.

These children are directly assessed, and additional information about each child is obtained from the child’s mother.

Making up the second group are NLSY79 children who are
54 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

age 15 or older by the end of the calendar year (limited to

those age 20 and younger in 1998 only). These young adults,

who had previously been assessed during child surveys,

answer a separate set of questions gathering information on

a wide range of topics. Due to funding constraints, in 2000,

approximately 40 percent of the minority child and young

adult oversamples were not eligible for interview. In 2002,

the excluded oversamples were brought back into the survey. In the 2002 survey, 3,229 children were assessed and

4,238 young adults were interviewed.

Table 4.1 presents sample sizes for NLSY79 mothers and

children across surveys. Several publications discuss important issues related to changes over time in the NLSY79

child and mother sample sizes; see the NLSY79 2002 Child

and Young Adult Data Users Guide and the NLSY Child

Handbook: A Guide to the 1986–1990 NLSY Child Data

for more information.

The sample of children interviewed during 2002 included

substantial numbers of Hispanic and black children, and children of each age from birth through their late twenties. While

the sample was composed mainly of children under 10 years

of age in all survey years through 1994, the number of children age 10 and older represented a majority of the sample

for the first time in 1996. By 2002, the number of young adult

children exceeded the number of children under age 15. More

than 1,700 of these young adult children were age 21 or older

as of the end of the most recent survey year. Table 4.2 presents, by select age ranges and race/ethnicity, the numbers

of children across survey years who completed interviews.

Due to residence status and nonresponse, not all children born to interviewed NLSY79 mothers were assessed or

interviewed. As of 2002, the overall sample of children born

to NLSY79 mothers represents a cross-section of children

born to women in the NLSY79 sample who were 37 to 44

years of age on December 31, 2001. Large numbers of children were born to NLSY79 women between about age 17 and

age 33, as shown in table 4.3. These children represent a

large majority of the children to be born to this cohort of

women. The number of children born to these women can be

considered fully representative of children born to a nationally representative sample of women who were between the

ages of 14 and 21 on December 31, 1978.

Sampling weights

Child sampling weights are based on the sampling weights

of their mothers, discussed in chapter 3, with an adjustment

factor used to account for different interview rates for children in various age, race, and sex groups. These factors use

counts of children known to exist, as well as estimates of

fertility for women who have discontinued their participation in the main NLSY79 sample. However, child weights do

not adjust for children who were eligible to complete a specific assessment but did not, even though they completed

other parts of the interview. For more information, see the

Table 4.1. NLSY79 mother and child samples: 1986–2002 surveys

Sample groups 1979 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

NLSY79 females:

Interviewed 6,283 5,418 5,312 4,510 4,535 4,480 4,361 4,299 4,113 3,955

NLSY79 mothers:

Interviewed — 2,922 3,346 3,088 3,325 3,464 3,489 3,533 3,425 3,315

Interviewed; children also

interviewed — 2,774 3,196 2,772 2,964 3,212 3,228 3,221 2,934 3,122

NLSY79 children:

Born to interviewed mothers — 5,255 6,543 6,427 7,255 7,862 8,123 8,395 8,323 8,100

Children not young adults 6,622 6,010 5,343 4,438 3,502

Young adults 1,240 2,113 3,052 3,885 4,598

Interviewed1 — 4,971 6,266 5,803 6,509 7,089 7,103 2

7,067 6,417 37,467

Children not young adults 6,109 5,431 4,924 3,392 3,229

Young adults 980 1,672 2,143 3,025 4,238

1

An interview was considered “complete” if an interviewer

was able to directly assess a child or obtain a maternal report of

the child’s background, health, or assessment information as recorded in either the child or mother survey instrument. 2

This total includes 37 children who were assessed and interviewed, but whose mothers were not interviewed. 3

This total includes 14 children (age 0-14) who were assessed or interviewed, but whose mothers were not interviewed,

and 257 young adult children whose mothers were not interviewed.

NOTE: Sample sizes for all child surveys exclude the 441 female members of the military subsample dropped from interviewing in 1985 and their children. In addition, sample sizes for 1990

and later exclude female members of the economically disadvantaged nonblack/non-Hispanic subsample whose children were

not eligible for assessment. The exclusion of this subsample after 1990 accounts for much of the drop in the sample size between 1988 and 1990.
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 55

Table 4.3. Distribution of child’s age in 2002 by mother’s age at birth of child: NLS79 children

assessed and young adults interviewed in 2002

Table 4.2. NLSY79 child sample sizes by age and race and ethnicity: 1986–2000

Sample groups 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Total interviews 4,971 6,266 5,803 6,509 7,089 7,103 7,067 6,417 7,467

By age1

Birth to 9 years 4,676 5,380 4,508 4,430 4,154 3,480 2,978 1,915 1,621

10 to 14 years 294 851 1,158 1,700 1,955 1,951 1,996 1,477 1,608

15 years and older 1 35 137 379 980 1,672 2,143 3,025 4,238

By race and ethnicity2

Hispanic 937 1,158 1,304 1,483 1,546 1,520 1,550 1,193 1,625

Black 1,604 1,895 1,994 2,133 2,350 2,330 2,229 1,914 2,412

Nonblack/non-Hispanic 2,430 3,213 2,505 2,893 3,193 3,253 3,288 3,310 3,430

1

Starting in 1994, children who are aged 15 by December 31st

of the interview year are interviewed as young adults. They are

counted in this table as 15 years and older even though the chronological age at the time of the actual interview might be 14 years

for some respondents. Age for children under the age of 15 refers to their age at their mother’s interview date. 2

Decision rules used to assign race/ethnicity are described in

the NLSY79 User’s Guide (available at www.bls.gov/nls).

NOTE: In this table, the age for children under age 15 is

measured as of the mother’s interview date (C00047.45) and

may be different from the age at the time of the child assessment. The age of children 15 years and older (young adults) is

measured at their date of interview (Y11924). The age of the

mother at the birth of her child is found in the variable C00070.

Age of Mother at Birth of Child Child 

Age d

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

+

Total 

LT 1 1 9 34 44 

1 1 6 17 44 68

2 1 25 32 23 32 113 

3 20 25 18 21 23 107

4 7 23 29 34 27 21 33 174 

5 2 36 29 33 30 26 11 7 174

6 3 31 33 34 26 22 8 14 5 176 

7 31 25 44 38 25 14 16 15 3 211

8 3 42 43 42 36 28 30 14 17 1 256 

9 3 47 38 50 51 38 25 21 22 3 298

10 4 40 51 50 44 49 26 13 15 3 295 

11 50 52 59 42 41 44 28 27 6 349

12 1 44 55 55 55 48 46 36 31 3 374 

13 4 40 48 59 58 54 43 34 33 8 381

14 & 

Ch 11 37 34 31 27 34 16 12 7 209 

14 & 

YA 7 35 32 38 50 42 27 32 13 276

15 7 40 70 51 44 50 58 42 34 3 399 

16 7 56 73 65 59 57 49 41 41 7 455

17 6 39 62 53 56 42 46 62 38 7 411 

18 3 44 58 57 54 50 61 47 38 3 415

19 4 40 53 52 57 59 53 48 38 2 406 

20 27 42 63 56 53 60 55 48 6 410

21 50 43 62 59 44 33 44 4 339 

22 63 45 45 59 53 40 4 309

23 54 37 47 34 46 6 224 

24 64 29 43 36 4 176

25 70 32 30 4 136 

26 74 35 7 116

27-31 101 3 104

Total 545 325 402 406 443 430 444 421 402 450 417 420 352 320 320 287 220 206 190 154 313 181 7467
56 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

NLSY79 Child Handbook: A Guide to the 1986–1990

NLSY79 Child Data and the current Child-YA Data Users

Guide.

Using these weights provides a simple method that analysts may use to correct the raw data for the complexity of

the survey design in a particular year. If an analyst is using

data from multiple rounds of the survey, the survey weight

developed for any particular round will provide an accurate

adjustment, so long as the test for inclusion also is based on

data from the same round.

If a research project spans multiple survey rounds and,

for example, focuses only on a certain module found in various years, the analyst can create a custom set of survey

weights that adjust both for the complexity of the survey

design and for the use of data from multiple rounds. The

custom weighting program can be found by going to the

NLS Web site (www.bls.gov/nls), clicking on the description

of the NLSY79 cohort, and then clicking on the link to “create a set of custom weights.”

The interviews

The NLSY79 child survey is designed to collect information

from the children, their mothers (or, occasionally, other guardians), and from interviewers from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, who are

trained to assess each child directly and evaluate the home

environment. Interviewers conducted child surveys through

1992 primarily in person, using a traditional paper-and-pencil

interview (PAPI) method. Beginning with the 1994 interviews,

CAPI replaced the traditional interview method for the Child

Supplement and for certain child assessments, such as the

WISC-R Digit Span Subscale, the Self-Perception Profile

for Children, the reading and math subtests of the Peabody

Individual Achievement Test, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. The primary mode remains in-person, with a small percentage of the Mother-Supplement and

Child Self-Administered Supplement administered by telephone. The young adult surveys have used the CAPI format since they were started in 1994.

The timing of mother-child assessments generally coincides with the main NLSY79 interview of each mother. Fielding has occurred over periods of approximately 6 months:

February through July of 1986; June through December of

1988 and 1990; May through November of 1992, 1994, and

1996; April to September of 1998; and May to November of

2000. Because of the switch to telephone interviews, the

2002 young adult survey began in January, before the main

NLSY79 interviews. In 2002, the child interviews were conducted primarily in June and July, with a small number completed in May and the remainder in August through

November.

Each child interview includes the administration of a

number of instruments: The Mother Supplement, the Child

Supplement, and, for children ages 10 to 14, the Child SelfAdministered Supplement. The young adults provide responses to the NLSY79 Young Adult CAPI Questionnaire

and, through 1998, completed a confidential Self-Report

Booklet. Beginning with the 2000 survey, many questions

from this booklet are included as a section in the Young

Adult CAPI questionnaire administered over the telephone.

In 2002, all instruments were administered using CAPI. These

child and young adult instruments:

z Elicit reports from the mother on each child’s background,

home environment, schooling, health, temperament, behavior problems, and motor-social development

z Directly assess a child’s development using nationally

normed tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test-Revised (PPVT-R); the Wechsler Intelligence Scale

for Children-Revised (WISC-R): Digit Span Subscale;

the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT): Math,

Reading Recognition, and Reading Comprehension

Assessments; and Harter’s Self-Perception Profile for

Children (SPPC)

z Record the interviewer’s observations of each child’s

home environment and provide an interviewer evaluation of the testing conditions

z Gather information from those NLSY79 children in their

preteen, teenage, and young adult years on a variety of

factors, including child-parent interactions, child home

responsibilities, attitudes toward school, schooling,

employment, training experiences, religious attendance,

health, substance use, dating and friendship patterns,

sexual activity, marital history, and expectations for the

future

As indicated in table 4.4, not all assessments were fielded in

each child survey year and, in some instances, selected assessments were administered to only those children for whom

no valid score had been obtained during a previous survey.

All children ages 10 or 11 complete any assessment for which

they are age-eligible in order to establish a representative

index group for future analyses. The exception is the SelfPerception Profile, which is administered, as of 1996, only

to those 12 to 14 years old.

During each survey year, substantial numbers of children have valid scores available on both the assessments

completed directly by the children and those completed by

the mother about the child. Completion rates remain relatively high for each instrument. (See the NLSY79 Child Assessments Selected Tables for more information.) In 2002, for

example, a total of 3,078 children have valid scores on the

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment

(HOME), the one assessment for which all children under

age 15 in each survey year are eligible. Table 4.5 presents the

numbers of children with valid scores in 2002 by assessment
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 57

Eligible ages1

Assessment 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

Parts of the Body 1–2 1–2 — — —

Memory for Locations2 8 months–3 years (8 months–3 years) — — —

McCarthy Verbal Memory Subscale2 3–6 (3–6) (4–6) (3–6) (3–6)

What I Am Like 8 and older 8 and older 8 and older 8 and older 8–14

(Self-Perception Profile)

WISC-R Digit Span Subscale2 7 and older 10–11 10–11 10–11 10–11

(7 and older) (7 and older) (7 and older) (7–14)

PIAT Math and Reading 5 and older 5 and older 5 and older 5 and older 5–14

PPVT-R2 3 and older 10–11 10–11 3 and older 10–11

(3 and older) (4 and older) (3–14)

The HOME All ages All ages All ages All ages 0–14

How My Child Usually Acts 0–6 0–6 0–6 0–6 0–6

(Temperament)

Motor & Social Development 0–3 0–3 0–3 0–3 0–3

Behavior Problems Index 4 and older 4 and older 4 and older 4 and older 4–14

Table 4.4. NLSY79 child assessments: Variations in administration by survey year

1

Age in years unless otherwise noted.

2

Parentheses indicate age eligibility for children with no previous valid score. For example, in 1990, all 10- and 11-year-olds

were eligible for the PPVT-R; a 6-year-old with no previous score

also was eligible, but a 6-year-old with a previous valid score

Eligible ages1

Assessment 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Parts of the Body — — — — —

Memory for Locations — — — — —

McCarthy Verbal Memory Subscale2 ——— — —

What I Am Like 12–14 12–14 12–14 12–14 12–14

(Self-Perception Profile)

WISC-R Digit Span Subscale2 7–11 7–11 7–11 7–11 7–11

PIAT Math and Reading 5–14 5–14 5–14 5–14 5–14

PPVT-R2 10–11 4–5, 4–5, 4–5, 4–5,

(4–14) 10–11 10–11 10–11 10–11

The HOME 0–14 0–14 0–14 0–14 0–14

How My Child Usually Acts 0–6 0–6 0–6 2–6 3–6

(Temperament)

Motor & Social Development 0–3 0–3 0–3 2–3 —

Behavior Problems Index 4–14 4–14 4–14 4–14 4–14

from 1986 or 1988 was not eligible.

NOTE: Beginning in 1994, assessments were no longer

given to children who reached age 15 by the end of that calendar year.
58 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Race and ethnicity

Nonblack/

All children Hispanic Black non-Hispanic

Assessment Child age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Children home environment

The HOME Inventory All ages (birth to 14) 3,078 95.3 627 94.7 784 95.4 1,667 95.5

Under 3 years 148 67.0 42 68.9 32 69.6 74 64.9

3 to 5 years 441 96.3 83 95.4 89 92.7 269 97.8

6 to 9 years 924 98.5 181 98.9 222 98.7 521 98.3

10 to 14 years 1,565 97.1 321 97.0 441 96.9 803 97.2

Child motor, social, and

emotional development

Temperament Scale1 2 to 6 years 718 97.7 151 97.4 152 97.4 415 97.9

Motor and Social Under 4 years 211 95.9 51 96.2 46 97.9 114 95.0

Development Scale

Behavior Problems Index 4 to 14 years 2,872 99.1 571 98.4 738 98.5 1,563 99.7

Self-Perception Global 12 to 14 years 872 91.0 184 92.0 271 94.1 417 88.7

Self-Perception Scholastic 12 to 14 years 872 91.0 184 92.0 271 94.1 417 88.7

Child cognitive development

WISC-R Digit Span Subscale 7 to 11 years 1,307 93.6 250 91.6 333 97.4 724 92.7

PIAT Math PPVT aged 5 to 14 2,487 91.9 491 90.3 669 94.5 1,327 91.3

PIAT Reading Recognition PPVT aged 5 to 14 2,491 92.1 492 90.4 672 94.9 1,327 91.3

PIAT Reading Comprehension PPVT aged 5 to 14 2,469 91.3 485 89.2 670 94.6 1,314 90.4

PPVT-R 4 to 5 years 294 88.8 51 82.3 59 88.1 184 91.1

10 to 11 years 585 93.3 114 90.5 151 96.8 320 92.8

Table 4.5. Numbers and percentages of children with valid assessment scores: Children of the NLSY79

in 2002

1

The Temperament Scale score reported is “Compliance,” administered for children ages 2-6. Other temperament subscales

are computed for subgroups of more restricted age ranges.

NOTE: Of the 8,100 children born to mothers interviewed in

2002, 3,229 were living in the household of an eligible mother or

were otherwise known to be available, and were interviewed

and assessed in 2002. The “percent” columns indicate children

with a valid score as a percent of those eligible for a particular

assessment. Mother Supplement completion rates increased in

2002 due to CAPI administration of the mother-report assessments. Children who reached age 15 by the end of 2002 were

not eligible for assessment. The black and Hispanic child

oversamples that were dropped in 2000 were reintroduced into

the sample in 2002.

instrument and race/ethnicity. The “Major data elements”

section below describes the types of child variables present

on the NLSY79 child data file.

Major data elements

The NLSY79 child and young adult data release includes

data from the child assessments and the young adult interviews, self-reports from children ages 10 to 14, and selected

maternal and child information from the main NLSY79 interviews with the children’s mothers. All child-specific information in the NLSY79 child file can be linked with any item

from the mother’s record present on the NLSY79 main data

file and the specially constructed NLSY79 work history and

geocode files. The following discussion summarizes the

major child data elements in this collection; mother data elements are described in chapter 3 of this Handbook. Users

can find more detailed information on the types of data available for the NLSY79 children and their mothers by examining

the child assessment instruments, young adult questionnaires, and main NLSY79 questionnaires; by browsing the

documentation files on the NLSY79 child and main files; or

by consulting the documentation products described in

chapter 10 of this Handbook.

Data elements for the Children of the NLSY79 are discussed in the order presented in figure 4.1.
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 59

1. Child demographic and family background

characteristics

A series of constructed demographic variables is provided

for every child, regardless of age or survey status. This

demographic information includes his or her date of birth,

birth order, sex, and race, as well as the respondent identification number of each sibling. Also listed are characteristics

of the child’s immediate family (for example, mother’s age,

mother’s educational attainment). Additionally, the survey

provides data on the usual living arrangements of the child

at each of the mother’s interview dates by stating whether

the child usually resides with the mother, with the father, or

elsewhere. Starting with the 1984 main NLSY79 interview,

information for children living in the mother’s household includes whether the child’s father is alive and if he is present

in the household. If the father does not reside with his children, the survey asks about the frequency and pattern of the

child’s contact with him.

2. Prenatal and child postnatal health history

This portion of the survey gathers information about the

mother’s use of prenatal care, alcohol use, smoking, marijuana and cocaine use (beginning in 1988), use of sonograms,

amniocentesis, and dietary supplementation during pregnancy. Also available for each child are data regarding gestation and birth weight, as well as breastfeeding practices,

other infant feeding practices (for selected survey rounds),

illnesses and injuries, and well-baby care in the first year of

life.

3. Child health

Information on this topic includes ongoing physical characteristics (such as height, weight, and left- or right-handedness); type of health conditions affecting school attendance

or childhood activities; use of medicine or medical equipment; and care by a doctor or other healthcare professional.

Details concerning use of the medical system include the

presence, number, and type of accidents, injuries, or illnesses

requiring medical attention; hospitalization history; timing

of last routine health and dental checkups; and coverage by

and type of health insurance. The survey also probes the

need of the child for professional assistance with a behavioral, emotional, or mental problem; visits to a psychiatrist,

psychologist, or counselor; and routine use of medication to

control activity level or behavior. Comparable questions

continue to be asked of the young adults, allowing researchers the opportunity to continue examining health issues into

early adulthood.

4. Child home environment

The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory, administered in four versions for

children of all ages, measures the nature and quality of the

child’s home environment. These data, collected from both

mother reports and interviewer observations during the biennial assessment interviews, provide information on the

overall quality of the home environment, emotional and verbal responsiveness of the mother, maternal acceptance of

and involvement with the child, organization of the environment, presence of materials for learning, and variety of stimulation. For the older age groups, the HOME Inventory also

includes a measure of parental modeling of maturity. All of

the items in the NLSY79 Child HOME Inventory are not necessarily included in the HOME score. In 2000, the HOME

items for younger children were moved from the paper Mother

Supplement to the CAPI format in the Child Supplement. In

2002, all of the mother-reported assessments, including the

HOME, were administered in the Mother Supplement, which

was converted to CAPI. The interviewer observations of the

home environment, part of the HOME scores, remain at the

end of the Child Supplement.

5. Child cognitive development

The following assessments were administered to all children

of selected ages through 1992; since 1994, only children below the age of 15 continue to be assessed. Ages of children

taking each assessment and other sampling information appear in table 4.4 and may vary across survey rounds.

z Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R).

Can be administered to children 3 years of age or older.

Measures the child’s hearing vocabulary of Standard

American English. From 1988–98, the Hispanic-American adaptation of the PPVT-R (Test de Vocabulario en

Imágenes Peabody or TVIP) was used to measure receptive vocabulary of single Spanish words spoken by

an examiner.

z McCarthy Scale of Children’s Abilities: Verbal Memory

Subscale. Typically administered to children ranging

from 3 through 6 years old. Assesses short-term verbal

Figure 4.1. Data elements in the children of the

NLSY79

1 Child demographic and family background

characteristics

2 Prenatal and child postnatal health history

3 Child health

4 Child home environment

5 Child cognitive development

6 Child motor, social, and emotional development

7 Educational experiences

8 Preteen and teen behaviors and attitudes

9 Young adult survey

10 Mother-specific information
60 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

memory. Not administered after 1994.

z Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised

(WISC-R): Digit Span Subscale. Administered to children age 7 and older during the 1986–94 interviews and

to children ages 7 to 11 years beginning with the 1996

interview. Measures short-term memory.

z Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT): Math,

Reading Recognition, and Reading Comprehension

Assessments. Administered to children 5 years of age

and older. Measures ability in mathematics and oral

reading and the ability to derive meaning from printed

words.

z Memory for Location Assessment. Administered to children 8 months through 3 years of age in 1986 and 1988.

Measures a child’s short-term memory.

z Body Parts Assessment. Administered in the 1986 and

1988 rounds to children 1 or 2 years of age. Measures

receptive vocabulary knowledge of orally presented

words.

6. Child motor, social, and emotional development

The following four assessments were administered during

each of the assessment years. (See tables 4.4 and 4.5.) As of

1994, only children below the age of 15 continue to be assessed.

z Behavior Problems Index. Completed by the child’s

mother for children 4 years of age and older. The public

file includes an overall behavior problems score, as well

as an externality and internality scale. Additionally,

subscales rate the child on the following six types of

problem behaviors: Antisocial, anxious or depressed,

hyperactive, headstrong, dependent, and peer conflicts.

z Temperament Scales. Completed by the child’s mother.

These items measure the temperament, or behavioral

style, of children under age 7 (age 2 to 6 in 2002). Three

age-specific versions assess such factors as activity,

predictability, positive affect, fearfulness, compliance,

and insecure attachment. Interviewer assessments of

the child’s shyness, cooperation, interest, and persistence during the interview, as well as attitude about and

rapport with the interviewer, also are collected.

z Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC). A selfadministered scale that measures, for children age 8 and

older (12 to 14 years old beginning with the 1996 survey), the child’s perceived competence in academics and

sense of general self-worth.

z Motor and Social Development Scale. Completed by

the mother. Measures milestones in the areas of motor,

cognitive, communication, and social development for

children under 4 years of age.

7. Educational experiences

A major focus of the Children of the NLSY79 has been education and school experiences. Each survey has collected

information about the child’s preschool and regular school

attendance. Since 1988, the child’s mother has provided information about the child’s schooling, including data such

as grades skipped or repeated, type of school attended, quality of the school, and the child’s performance in class. Since

1988, the Child Self-Administered Supplement has gathered

information from children age 10 and older on the characteristics of their school, the involvement of their parents in their

education, and their educational expectations. Starting in

1996, questions also ask about teaching style and classroom

practices for children age 6 and older. Starting in 1998, the

minimum child age for answering the schooling and teaching

questions was raised to 8. Beginning in 1994, young adults

(age 15 and older) have answered an extensive series of questions covering topics such as school attendance, degrees

and diplomas received, school characteristics, parent involvement with school, college experiences and college

choice.

This information collected from respondents is supplemented by a one-time school survey, conducted in 1995–96.

This survey, administered by mail, on the telephone, or in

person, collected information from school officials at schools

attended by NLSY79 child respondents in grades 1 through

12 during either the 1993–1994 or 1994–1995 school year.

School officials responded to a questionnaire that collected

information about the characteristics of the school. A second questionnaire gathered data on the experiences of each

individual child sample member. Additionally, the data include scores on standardized tests recorded from student

transcripts. See table 4.8 for the specific details collected.

Selected information is available for 3,000 children.

8. Preteen and teen behaviors and attitudes

Each survey except the initial 1986 interview has collected

self-reported information from children age 10 and older (10

to 14 beginning in 1994). Information gathered includes childparent interaction, child home responsibilities, attitudes toward school, time use, employment, religious attendance,

alcohol and drug use, sexual activity (age 13 and older), dating and friendship patterns, and other attitudes and behaviors. Mott and Quinlan (1993) discuss the data in detail and

present summary tabulations from the 1990 round. The content of the child self-administered interview has been expanded gradually since 1988. Many questions asked in the

child self-administered sections have been carried forward

and expanded in the young adult self-report section, allowing researchers to track these behaviors throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 61

9. Young adult survey

Since 1994, a special set of instruments has gathered information from children age 15 and older by the end of each

survey calendar year. In 1998 only, those age 21 and older as

of the interview date were excluded from the sample. Young

adults age 21 years and older were again eligible for interview in 2000.

About 40 percent of children and young adults under

age 21 originally selected in the black/Hispanic oversamples

were not eligible for interview in 2000 due to funding constraints but were eligible for interview again in 2002. Young

adults surveyed through 1998 used a CAPI questionnaire

modeled on the main NLSY79 interview along with a paperand-pencil self-report booklet. Beginning in 2000, surveys

have been conducted primarily by telephone interviews, with

questions from the self-report booklet integrated into the

computerized instrument.

The young adult survey collects information about these

young people’s regular schooling, job history, military experience, training investments, physical well-being, dating and

marital history, fertility, childcare arrangements (through

2002), parenting attitudes and behaviors (beginning in 2000),

household composition, and family income and assets. It

fields a variety of attitude, aspiration, and psychological wellbeing questions, including questions about the young

person’s knowledge of the world of work (through 1998),

attitudes toward women working, expectations about work

(through 1998), feelings of self-esteem, and sense of autonomy. A confidential supplement (incorporated into the

CAPI instrument in 2000) records these young adults’ selfreports on their alcohol use, cigarette smoking, use of prescribed and nonprescribed drugs, participation in delinquent

or criminal activities, arrest records, sexual activity, parentchild conflict, access to computers and computer training,

volunteer activities, expectations for the future, and neighborhood problems. As with the child data, these young adult

data can be readily linked with the complete file of the

mother’s information, as well as with the respondent’s own

child history.

In 2000, the young adult survey was extensively redesigned to accommodate the telephone mode of interviewing

and the increasing age range of the sample. It also integrated

the self-report booklet into the CAPI questionnaire. The

resulting questionnaire still parallels the NLSY79 main questionnaire in some sections.

Several new series on migration, sibling contact, ideal

relationships, parenting behaviors and attitudes, financial

strain, marijuana addiction, and amphetamine usage introduced into the questionnaire in 2000. Additionally, the questionnaire was modified to ensure a more complete history of

key events such as employment, marriages, cohabitations,

and births. It was also streamlined to ensure a reasonable

interview length for administration over the telephone,

thereby causing the elimination or restructuring of questions

from previous rounds into multiple questions. Items retained

from the young adult self-report booklet were modified for

CAPI/telephone administration and either integrated into

existing sections of the CAPI questionnaire or located in a

new section. This new section was interviewer-administered

for telephone interviews and self-administered for in-person

interviews.

10. Mother-specific information

All mother-specific information present on the NLSY79 main

file and on the specially constructed NLSY79 work history

and geocode files can be linked with the child data through

respondent identification codes. Discussions of the types

of information available for NLSY79 mothers can be found in

the NLSY79 User’s Guide (available at www.bls.gov/nls) or

chapter 3 in this Handbook.

The child data set includes a set of created variables

drawn from the main NLSY79 interview that provides information on the mother with respect to the child’s life situation. These constructed variables include items on maternal

family background, maternal household composition at each

interview, educational background of the child’s parents and

other members of the household, and maternal health history. The maternal work history file in the child dataset profiles the mother’s quarterly (13-week periods) employment

activity and job characteristics starting 1 year prior to the

child’s birth and continuing for a period of up to 5 years after

the child’s birth. Also present in the child data are variables

describing the mother’s prenatal practices, each child’s birth

information, and postnatal health.

Data files and documentation

The NLSY79 Child/Young Adult Data 1986–2002 data file

presents the data for all NLSY79 children and young adults.

The complete child and young adult data set is available on

the cross-cohort CD and online at www.bls.gov/nls. The current data release includes data and documentation from the

NLSY79 1986–2002 child and mother questionnaires, all assessment scores, the 1988–2002 supplements for children

age 10 to 14, the 1994–2002 young adult interviews, and other

information collected during each child survey. Users can

easily link the child, young adult, and mother data files because they are all part of the data set; complete mother information is found in the NLSY79 main, geocode, and work

history data files.

Search and extraction software enables users to peruse,

select, and extract variables on both the child and young

adult data sets. Chapter 8 provides more technical information on the NLS data format and extraction software, as well

as descriptions of supplementary documentation items available for the NLSY79 child and NLSY79 main file.

Lists of NLSY79 child and young adult documentation
62 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

items can be found in chapters 8 and 10, under the appropriate heading.

References

Mott, Frank L. and Quinlan, Stephen V. “The Ten-and-Over

Years: Self-Reports from the Children of the NLSY. 1990

Tabulations and Discussion.” Columbus, OH: Center

for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1993.

Selected variables by survey year: Children of

the NLSY79

Tables 4.6 (children, birth to age 14) and 4.7 (young adults

age 15 and older) depict selected variables from the Children

of the NLSY79 data set; table 4.8 provides information about

the content of the child school survey. The top row of the

tables lists the years in which the Children of the NLSY79

have been surveyed; the first column gives some of the variables that have been collected. An asterisk (*) indicates that

information for the designated variable was obtained for the

relevant child or young adult sample in that year. In some

instances, an asterisk also can indicate a created variable.

“R” used in variable descriptions stands for “respondent.”

Users should be aware that, in some instances, the variable

descriptions in the table represent a group of questions, and

not single response items. Question series asked of only a

restricted universe of respondents have the restrictions included in the variable description or in the section heading.

As always, researchers should consult the survey instruments before using any data in analysis.
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 63

Table 4.6. Selected variables by survey year: Children (birth to age 14) of the NLSY79

Variable 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 

CHILD SUPPLEMENT AND MOTHER SUPPLEMENT 

 Child’s date of birth * * * * * * * * * * 

 Child’s age * * * * * * * * * * 

 Date of child interview * * * * * * * * * * 

 Date mother supplement completed * * * * * * * * * * 

 Relationship of person completing supplement to child * * * * * * * * * * 

 Verify child’s age with mother * * * * * * * * * * 

A. Child background 

 Child currently attending or enrolled in regular school (or preschool) * * * * * * * * * * 

 Child ever attended regular school, nursery school, or preschool * * * * * * * * * 

 Current or last school attended * * * 

 Current or last grade attended * * * * * * * * * * 

 Head Start program information * * * * * * * * * 

B. Child health 

 Child’s eye and hair color * 

 Place of child’s birth * * 

 Does health limit school or play * * * * * * * * * * 

Any physical, emotional, or mental condition requiring: Frequent treatment, 

medicine, or special equipment * * * * * * * * * * 

 Type and duration of health conditions * * * * * * * * * * 

 Accidents and injuries needing medical attention in last 12 months; details * * * * * * * * * * 

Accidents and injuries needing hospitalization since last interview or since 

birth; details * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of illnesses requiring medical attention or treatment * * * * * * * * * * 

 Date of last routine health checkup * * * * * * * * * * 

 Sex of child * * * * * * 

 Menstrual period information * * * * * * * * * * 

 Right- or left-handedness * * * * * 

 Date of last dental checkup or dental work * * * * * * * * * * 

 Source of health insurance, if any * * * * * * * * * * 

 Behavioral, emotional, or mental problems; did insurance cover doctor visit * * * * * * * * * * 

Any medicines or prescription drugs taken to help control activity or 

behavior * * * * * * * * * * 

 Height and weight of child * * * * * * * * * * 

Asthma symptoms; frequency; limit activities (also see Section 9, Main 

Youth questionnaire for details on all children under age 15) * 

C. Child assessments (see table 4.4 for age restrictions) 

Parts of the Body: number of body parts child can identify by common 

names 

** 
64 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.6. Selected variables by survey year: Children (birth to age 14) of the NLSY79

Variable 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Memory for Locations: how long child remembers the location of the doll * * 

Verbal Memory test: ability to remember and repeat word sequences *****

SPPC: what child thinks he or she is like, how he or she thinks and feels **********

Memory for Digit Span test (WISC-R): memory for number order **********

 PIAT Math subtest **********

 PIAT Reading: Recognition and Comprehension subtests **********

 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT): vocabulary **********

HOME inventory (in 2000: ages 0 to 3 in Child survey, others in Mother 

Supplement; in 2002: all items but Observations in Mother Supplement) * *********

Temperament Scales (in 2000: ages 0 to 3 in Child survey, others in 

Mother Supplement; in 2002: entirely in CAPI Mother Supplement) **********

 Motor and Social Development Scale (dropped after 2002) *********

 Behavior Problems Index **********

D. Child schooling (see also Child Self-Administered Supplement section for self-reported school information) 

 Time spent on homework, reading for fun * ****

 Style of teaching in English or Language Arts classes * * * * *

 Parent involvement in child’s schooling (19 items) (age 5 and older) * * * * *

E. School and family background (children 10 to 14 years old in 1986–94; 5 to 14 years old in 1996–2002) 

 Type of school child attends * * * ******

 Reason child not attending school *********

 Grades child has repeated *********

 Reason child last repeated a grade *********

 Has child had behavior problems at school; grade this first happened *********

 Number of different schools child has attended * * * * *

 Time child spends on homework each week * * * * *

 Extent of parent involvement in school * * * * *

 Child ever suspended or expelled from school; grade this first happened *********

 Parent ranking of child in class *********

 Does child get remedial help in school *********

 Does child attend advanced classes *********

 Parent rating of child’s school (series) * * * * * * *

 Parent perception of child’s probable educational attainment * * * * * * * *

 Parent perception of difficulty in raising child * * * * * * *

Parent rating of aspects of child’s life: Health, friendships, relationship with 

mother, feelings about self, future prospects, relationships with siblings * ******

 Number of child’s friends the parent knows * * * * * * * *

 How often parent knows who child is with when the child is not at home * * * * * * *

 Frequency of child’s attendance at religious services in the past year * * * * * * * *

 Importance parent puts on child’s religious training * * * * * * * *
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 65

Table 4.6. Selected variables by survey year: Children (birth to age 14) of the NLSY79

Variable 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Interviewer evaluation of testing conditions * * * * * * * * * * 

 Home observations: Interviewer observations of home environment * * * * * * * * * *

CHILD SELF-ADMINISTERED SUPPLEMENT (10 to 14 years old) 

A. Home 

In last month, have R and parents gone to: Movies, shopping, outing, 

church * * * * * * * * * 

 In last week, have R and parents done: Crafts, schoolwork, games together * * * * * * * * * 

 Does R help around house * * * * * * * * * 

Any rules about: Homework, TV, whereabouts, dating, parties * * * * * * * * * 

 How much say R has in making rules * * * * * * * * * 

 How often R argues with parent(s) about the rules * * * * * * * * * 

 How often each parent talks over decisions, listens to R’s side * * * * * * * * * 

Who usually makes the decisions about: Buying clothes, spending money, 

friends, curfew, allowance, TV, religious training * * * * * * * * * 

B. Parents 

 How often each parent knows who R is with when R is not home * * * * * * * 

 Does R think parents spend enough time with him or her * * * * * * * 

 How often each parent misses events or activities important to R * * * * * * * 

 How close R feels to each parent * * * * * * * 

How well R and each parent share ideas and talk about things that matter * * * * * * * 

 In dealing with R, how often R and mother or father agree with each other * * * * * * * 

 Does R live with biological father, stepfather, or neither * * * * * * 

Do biological parents (and mother and stepfather, if applicable) get along, 

agree about rules, argue * * * * * * 

 Does R feel caught in middle; can R talk to each parent about the other * * * * * * 

What R tells parent about activities (TV and movies watched, whereabouts, 

teachers, and so forth) * * * * * 

How often R feels (series): Sad, happy, nervous, bored, lonely, tired, 

excited, too busy, pressured * * * * * * * 

Has R been away from mother or father for at least 2 months, except 

summer camp 

 * * * * * * * * * 

 Where, how old was R the last time away from mother or father * * * * * * * * * 

C. School and activities 

 Current grade attending * * * * * * * * * 

 Characteristics of R’s school (eight items) * * * * * * * * * 

 Level of satisfaction with school * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual activities between school and dinner * * * * * * * * * 

 If R goes home after school, is an adult usually present * * * * * * * * * 

 Level of schooling R anticipates * * * * * * * * * 

 Is R member of any clubs, teams, or school activities in/out of school * * * * * * * * * 
66 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.6. Selected variables by survey year: Children (birth to age 14) of the NLSY79

Variable 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Perceptions of gender roles (six items) * * * * * * 

 Usual activities in summer * * * * * * * 

 Does R feel safe in neighborhood * * * * * * * 

 Usual time spent watching TV on weekdays and on weekends * * * * * * * * 

Number of times in last year R engaged in a series of criminal or delinquent 

acts * * * * * * * * * 

D. Employment 

Work for pay (babysitting, paper route, yard work, and so forth), excluding 

chores around home; type of work * * * * * * * * * 

Usual frequency with which R works; hours worked in usual week in last 3 

months * * * * * * * * * 

 Money earned in a usual week * * * * * * * * * 

 Work expectations at age 35 (14 year olds only) * 

E. Religion 

 Present religion, attendance at religious services in past year * * * * * * * * * 

 Does R attend services with or without parents * * * * * * * * * 

 Do friends attend services; if so, do they attend services at the same place * * * * * * * * * 

F. Friendships and peers 

 Number of close friends of each sex * * * * * * * * * 

 How much R tells own parents about friends and friends’ parents * * * * 

 Are close friends in the same or a different grade or not in school * * * * * * * * * 

How often R is lonely, wants more friends * * * * * * * * * 

Does R feel pressure from friends to (series): Smoke, work hard in school, 

try drugs, drink alcohol, skip school, or commit a crime or do something 

violent 

 * * * * * * * 

 Risk-taking behaviors and attitudes (six items) * * * * * * 

G. Substance use 

 Cigarette use; age first smoked; frequency * * * * * * * * * 

 Alcohol use (more than a sip or two); age at which R first drank; frequency * * * * * * * * * 

Marijuana use; age at which R first used; frequency * * * * * * * * * 

Use of substances (like glue, gas, sprays, fluids) that are “sniffed/huffed”; 

age at which R first used; frequency * * * * * * 

Other drug use (LSD, cocaine, uppers, downers); age at which R first used; 

frequency * * * * * * * * * 

H. Dating and relationships 

Age at which R had first date or went out alone with someone of opposite 

sex 

 * * * * * * * * * 

 How often R usually has a date; is it usually the same person * * * * * * * * * 

Best age and youngest age R can imagine for getting married, having first 

child * * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 67

Table 4.6. Selected variables by survey year: Children (birth to age 14) of the NLSY79

Variable 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 

I. Sex education 

Any courses or time spent in class on sex education; grade, month and 

year 

 * * * * * * * * * 

 Whom in family R talks to about sex * * * * * * * * * 

 When during the menstrual cycle pregnancy is most likely to occur * * * * * * * * * 

J. Computer use 

 Does R have a computer at home * * * * * * 

 What R uses computer for most often * * * * * * 

 Has R ever used computer at school * * * * * * 

 Where and from whom has R learned most about computers * * * * * * 

Has R ever had a class or other training, in school or elsewhere, on: 

Computer use, programming, or word processing * * * * * * 

How often R uses computer to do homework, play games, use e-mail, and 

so forth * * * * * * 
68 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

 A. Current labor force and employment status 

 Survey week labor force and employment status * * * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * 

 Job search activities * * * 

 B. Work experience since January 1 of previous year through 1998 or date of last interview in 2000 and 2002 

 Weeks worked * * * * * * 

 Hours usually worked per week * * * * * * 

 Number of weeks unemployed, out of labor force * * * 

 Spells of unemployment * * * * * * 

Characteristics of last job lasting 2 weeks or more and of first significant job after leaving 

high school * * * * * * 

 C. Characteristics of jobs (more than 10 hours/week, more than 9 weeks in duration) since January 1 of previous year through 

 1998 or date of last interview in 2000 and 2002 

 Occupation and industry (Census code) * * * * * * 

 Class of worker * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * 

 Shift worked * * * * 

 Rate of pay * * * * * * 

Hourly rate of pay * * * * * * 

 Commuting time to job, method of transportation * * * 

 Covered by collective bargaining * * * 

 Is R union member * * * 

 Availability of fringe benefits (CPS job only starting in 2000) * * * * * * 

 Global job satisfaction item * * * * * * 

 Size of employer * * * 

Reason for leaving job * * * 

 Promotion and promotion potential with employer * * * 

 II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences

 Date of birth * * * * * * 

 Ethnic self-identification * * * * * * 

 Number of times R has lived away from mother * * * * * * 

Father’s employment status, occupation, highest grade completed, ethnicity * * * * * * 

Contact with nonresidential parent(s) * * * * * * 

Contact with sibling R feels closest to * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 69

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

Current religion, religious attendance, importance of religion * * * * * * 

 B. Education 

 Current enrollment status, grade * * * * * * 

 Reason stopped attending school * * * * * * 

 Date of last enrollment * * * * * * 

 Periods of nonattendance, grades when occurred, reason why * * * * * * 

 Grades repeated or skipped * * * * * * 

 Highest grade attended, highest grade completed * * * * * * 

 GED or diploma received, date received * * * * * * 

 Is or was the school R attended public, private, or religious * * * * * * 

 High school curriculum * * * * * * 

 Time spent on homework in school, out of school * * * * * 

 Style of teaching in English classes * * * * * 

 Parent involvement with R’s schooling (19 items in 1996–98, 17 items in 2000 and 2002) * * * * * 

 Job or career counseling received in high school * * * * * * 

 Characteristics of R’s school (nine items) * * * * * * 

 Level of satisfaction with school * * * * * * 

 Number of high schools attended * * * * * * 

 Colleges/universities applied to * * * 

 Date of college enrollment * * * * * * 

 College degree received, date received (asked in 2000 and 2002) * * * * * * 

 Type of college attending (2- or 4-year) * * * 

Field of study or specialization in college * * * * * * 

 College tuition * * * * * * 

 Educational loans or financial aid in college * * * * * * 

 Other means of paying college expenses * * * * * * 

 Highest grade R would like or expects to complete * * * * * * 

 Highest grade R’s best friend would like to complete * * * 

 C. Vocational training outside regular school (information on only the most recent program was obtained in 2000) 

 Type(s) of training * * * * * * 

 Services provided by training program * * * * * * 

 Duration of training programs * * * * * * 

 Was training completed * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually spent in training * * * * * * 

 Was training related to specific job or employer, related to a promotion * * * 

 Method of financing training * * * * * * 

 Does R have certificate or journeyman’s card * * * * * * 
70 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 D. Physical and mental health 

 Does health limit work or school activity * * * * * * 

 Type and duration of health limitation * * * * * * 

 Asthma * 

Recent accidents, injuries, illnesses, hospitalization * * * * * * 

 Height, weight * * * * * * 

 Right- or left-handedness * * 

 Menstrual period information * * * * * * 

 Health insurance coverage for R, children * * * * * * 

 CES-Depression Scale (seven items) * * * * * * 

 E. Relationship and fertility history and household characteristics 

Number, ages, and demographic characteristics of all household residents (only information 

on age and relationship was obtained beginning in 2000) * * * * * * 

 Number of close friends of each sex, their ages relative to R’s age * * * 

 Month and year or age at first date * * * * * * 

 Number of people R has dated in the past 12 months * * * * * * 

 How often R usually has a date * * * * * * 

 Marital status * * * * * * 

 Unmarried R’s: Status of current relationship * * * * * * 

 Relationship quality of steady dating relationship * * * 

 Has R ever (since last interview) lived with someone R was not married to * * * * * * 

Month and year or age of spouse or partner when R and spouse or partner began living 

together * * * * * * 

Characteristics of current spouse or partner: Ethnicity, religion, education, employment, 

income * * * * * * 

 Relationship history: Characteristics of previous spouses or partners * * * * * * 

 Relationship quality: Happiness rating, positive activities series, topics of arguments series * * * * * * 

 Relationship plans, expectations * * * * * * 

 Fertility history * * * * * * 

 Use of various birth control methods * * * * * * 

 Parenting attitudes * * * 

 Prenatal care (females) * * * * * * 

 Healthcare and nutrition during pregnancy (females) * * * * * 

 Cigarette and alcohol use during pregnancy (females) * * * * * * 

 Drug use during pregnancy (females) * * * 

Postnatal infant care (females) * * * * * * 

 Expected number of children * * * * * * 

 R’s opinions or beliefs about parenting; actual parenting behaviors * * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 71

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 F. Financial characteristics and program participation 

 Income of R and spouse from farm or own business * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from wages or salary (military income included starting in 2000) * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from unemployment compensation * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from public assistance * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from Food Stamps * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from Social Security, other sources * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from military service (combined with civilian wages starting in 2000) * * * 

Income of R and spouse from child support * * * * * * 

Child support expected versus amount received * * * * * * 

Income of R and spouse from other sources * * * * * * 

Possession of various assets (R and spouse) * * * * * * 

Asset market values (R and spouse) * * * 

Household income * * * 

Financial strain * * * 

Amount of debts * * * * * * 

 G. Military service (current or past) 

 Branch of Armed Forces * * * * * * 

 Months spent in Armed Forces * * * * * * 

 Military occupation(s) * * * * * * 

Activation for reservists; reactivation for regular branches * * 

Participation in VEAP or GI bill * * * * * * 

 Type and amount of military training * * * * * * 

 Formal education received while in service * * * * * * 

 H. Attitudes toward work and self 

 Knowledge of World of Work series * * * 

 Characteristics of job R is willing to take (for Rs who are unemployed or out of labor force) * * * 

 Reaction to hypothetical job offers * * * 

 Pearlin Mastery Scale (seven items) * * * * * * 

 Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg) (10 items) * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward women working * * * * * 

 I. Childcare (youngest child in household in 2000 and 2002) and parenting behavior 

 Childcare arrangements in last month (youngest child only) * * * * * 

 Number of hours per week (youngest child only) * * * * * 

 Parenting behavior towards youngest child * * * 

 Cost per week (all children) * * * * * * 

 Did childcare problems force R to turn down job offer or to lose work * * * * * * 
72 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 J. Looking for work 

 R looking for work or employed when found current or most recent job * * * 

 Methods of job search used * * * 

 Job offers rejected (while looking for each job) * * * 

 Desired characteristics of job sought * * * 

 III. ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS (located in self-report booklet through 1998) 

A. Computer use

 Does R have a computer at home or have access to one elsewhere * * * * * * 

 What R uses computer for most often * * * 

 Has R ever used computer at school or college, or at work * * 

How R has learned about computers * * * 

 Has R ever had a class or training in computer use, programming, or word processing * * * 

 How often R uses computer for various activities * * * * * * 

B. Substance use 

 Extent, frequency of R’s alcohol use; age first used * * * * * * 

Where and with whom was first drink * * 

Alcohol abuse behavior in past year series (had an argument, missed school or work, drove 

a car, and so on) * * * * * * 

 Does R usually drink beer, wine, or liquor * * * 

 Where and with whom R usually drinks * * * 

R’s perception of how many drink at least sometimes (series): Students in R’s grade, people 

R’s age with whom R hangs out, people R’s age in R’s neighborhood * * * * * * 

 Extent, frequency of cigarette use; age first used * * * * * * 

 Extent, frequency of marijuana use; age first used; various details * * * * * * 

 Extent, frequency of amphetamine use * * * 

 Extent, frequency of use of substances (glue, gas, sprays, fluids) that are “sniffed/huffed” * * * * * * 

 Extent, frequency of cocaine use * * * * * * 

 Extent, frequency of “crack” use * * * * * * 

 Age at which R first used each drug * * * 

 Extent, frequency of use of other drugs (LSD, uppers, downers); age at which R first used * * * * 

 Frequency of use of hallucinogens (LSD, PCP, peyote, mescaline) * * * * 

 Frequency of use of sedatives or downers (barbiturates, sleeping pills) * * * * 

Frequency of use of other drugs (stimulants, heroin, steroids, MDMA/“Ecstasy,” crystal 

meth./“Ice”) * * * 

While high, has R ever: Hurt self or someone else; stayed home from school or work; gone 

late to school or work; driven a car * * * 

Due to drug use, have R’s grades suffered; has R ever hurt chances for a raise or for a 

better job * * * 

Has R ever taken sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, painkillers, steroids, heroin, 

hallucinogens, or an injection of any drug without doctor’s orders * * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 73

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

C. Attitudes and expectations 

 Risk-taking behaviors and attitudes (six items) * * * * * * 

 Best age for R to marry; youngest age at which R can imagine getting married * * * 

 Best age and youngest age R can imagine to have first child * * * 

 Aspirations for future (marriage, fertility, employment, relationships) * * * * * * 

D. Sex education and sexual intercourse 

 Any courses or time spent in class on sex education * * * * * * 

 Grade R first had this course * * * * * * 

 Who in family R talks to about sex * * * * * 

 Who outside family R talks to about sex * * 

 Ever had sexual intercourse; age at first intercourse * * * * * * 

Number of partners in last 12 months * * * * * * 

 When last sexual intercourse occurred * * * * * * 

 During last sexual intercourse, did R and partner use birth control and, if so, which method(s) * * * * * * 

 Relationship with and characteristics of partner at last intercourse * * * * 

Has R ever been pregnant, number of times (through 1998) * * * * * * 

 Month and year in which R got pregnant the first time, R’s age at the time * * * * * * 

In the month before the last time R got pregnant, did R or R’s partner use birth control and, if 

so, which method(s) * * * * * * 

Did R or R’s partner use a birth control method on every occasion of sexual intercourse that 

month * * * 

Has R ever had an abortion and, if so, how many * * * 

 Month and year of R’s first abortion, and R’s age at the time * * * 

E. Home and neighborhood environment 

 Does R live with biological father or stepfather * * * * * * 

Do biological parents (and mother and stepfather, if applicable) get along, agree about who 

sets rules, argue * * * * * * 

 Does R feel caught in the middle; can R talk about each parent with the other * * * * * * 

Extent of neighborhood problems (series): Disrespect for laws, incidence of crime or 

violence, incidence of unemployment, and so forth * * * * * * 

 Number of times R has run away from home * * * * * * 

 R’s age the first time R ran away * * * * * * 

F. Criminal activities 

Crimes or delinquent activities R has committed in the last year (got in a fight, stole 

something, and so on) * * * * * * 

Has R ever been convicted on any charges except a minor traffic violation; if so, what was 

R’s age at the time * * * * * * 

Number of times R has been convicted of something * * * * * * 

Date of most recent conviction * * * 

Charges on which R was convicted (for example, assault, robbery, or theft) * * * * * * 
74 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.7. Selected variables by survey year: Young adult children (age 15 and older) of the NLSY79

Variable 94 96 98 00 02 04 

 Has R ever been convicted on charges in adult court * * * 

 Has R ever been on probation; has R been on probation since last interview * * * * * * 

 When did R’s (most recent) probation period end * * * 

 Has R ever been sentenced to spend time in a youth or adult corrections institution * * * * * * 

Date of most recent release from corrections facility * * * 

Number of times R has been referred to a court-related counseling or diversion program by 

police, courts, school, or own parents; if so, age at which this first occurred * * * 

 Date on which (most recent) counseling program ended * * * 

G. Volunteer activities 

 Volunteer work performed in last 2 years or since last interview * * * * * * 

 Was any of the volunteer work: Court ordered, church- or school-sponsored, other * * * * * * 

 Types of organizations R is or was involved with (for example, service, church, youth) * * * * * * 

H. Mental health 

Has R received any help for an emotional, behavioral, or family problem in the last 12 

months * * * * * * 

 Type of problem(s) * * * * * * 

Has R felt or has anyone suggested that R needed help for any behavioral, emotional, or 

mental problem in the past 12 months? * * * 

Does R regularly take any medicine or prescription drug to help control activity level or 

behavior * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79 75

Table 4.8. Content of Child Schooling Questionnaire 

Child Sample Member Data Public Restricted 

Month/year questionnaire was filled out * 

Day questionnaire was filled out * 

Enrollment details (month/year started, month/year ended, reason ended) * 

Day enrollment started, day ended * 

Highest grade attended, highest grade completed * 

Days absent, times suspended during academic year * 

Student’s participation or enrollment in activities/programs (for example, remedial classes, gifted and 

talented, ESL, summer school, school breakfast, pregnancy counseling) *

Highest possible GPA, student’s GPA * 

Competency exams taken, whether passed/failed * 

Ever expelled *

Ever repeated a grade or been held back, which grade * 

Ever skipped a grade, which grade *

About student’s most recent grade level: * 

Enrollment totals (male, female, total) * 

Average class size *

Number of hours in a typical school day * 

Number of students suspended/expelled * 

Percentage of students repeating a grade * 

Percentage of students who will be promoted to the next grade * 

Number of full-time classroom teachers * 

Percentage of teachers with a master’s degree * 

Degree to which blended classrooms were used (with more than one grade together) * 

Degree to which team teaching occurred * 

Whether students typically have access to computers in classroom * 

The degree to which handicapped/special needs children were mainstreamed * 

Approximate amount of daily homework assigned (minutes required) * 

Principal Questionnaire Public Restricted 

Month/year questionnaire was filled out * 

Day questionnaire was filled out * 

School is public or private *

Descriptive characteristics of school (for example, public school of choice, public magnet school, 

Catholic parish, boarding school) *

School is coed, all male, or all female * 

Grade levels included *

Month/year school year began *

Day school year began * 

Enrollment totals at beginning of school year * 

Average daily attendance *
76 CHAPTER 4: CHILDREN OF THE NLSY79

Table 4.8. Content of Child Schooling Questionnaire 

Principal Questionnaire (continued) Public Restricted 

Minimum number of days State requires school to be in session * 

Month/year school year expected to end * 

Day school year expected to end * 

Number of full-time counselors, teachers, teachers with a master’s degree * 

Percent of regular teachers who are female, percent who are new * 

Percent of students, percent of faculty belonging to racial/ethnic groups listed * 

Annual salary for teacher with listed levels of educational experience * 

Percent of student body participating/enrolled in programs (for example, remedial math, ESL, 

summer school, gifted and talented, pregnancy counseling) *

Percent of 12th grade students who participate in various instructional programs (for example, 

college prep, industrial arts, fine arts) *

Percent of 12th grade students last year who graduated * 

Does school have library/media center; number of books, videos, compact discs * 

Instructional materials principal considers most important (for example, computers, textbooks, 

workbooks, and practice sheets) *
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 77

THE NLS ORIGINAL COHORTS:

MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.1. Number of respondents interviewed by cohort and race: Mature and Young Women

Cohort Initial survey 10-year survey 20-year survey 30-year survey Final survey

Mature Women 1967 1977 1987 1997 2003

Total 5,083 3,964 3,241 2,608 2,237

Nonblacks 3,693 2,892 2,383 1,939 1,692

Blacks 1,390 1,072 858 669 544

Young Women 1968 1978 1988 1997 2003

Total 5,159 3,902 3,508 3,049 2,857

Nonblacks 3,700 2,838 2,628 2,287 2,113

Blacks 1,459 1,064 880 762 744

I

nterviews of the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) of

Mature Women and of Young Women were begun in the

mid-1960s because the U.S. Department of Labor was interested in studying the employment patterns of two groups of

women. Respondents to the NLS of Mature Women were in

their 30s and early 40s, and many were reentering the

workforce and balancing the roles of homemaker, mother,

and labor force participant. The NLS of Young Women included women in their teens and early 20s, who were completing school, making initial career and job decisions, and

starting families. The surveys of both cohorts were discontinued after the 2003 interviews.

Chapter organization

This chapter begins with a summary of the NLS Mature

Women and Young Women samples and special features of

the sample design. Users then will find information regarding the interviews, fielding periods, retention rates, and sampling weights for the cohorts. The chapter continues with

descriptions of the topical content of the data sets and information on the specific data files and documentation available for each cohort. Finally, tables provide further detail on

the types of questions asked in the surveys and the survey

years in which the questions were included.

The samples

During 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted two household screenings. Using information about household residents compiled during these screenings, two cohorts of

women were established: 5,393 Mature Women ages 30 to 44

as of March 31, 1967, and 5,533 Young Women ages 14 to 24

as of December 31, 1967. Each sample group represented the

civilian, noninstitutionalized population of women in the age

group residing in the United States at the time the samples

were selected. To meet the requirement of providing statistically reliable estimates for black Americans, blacks were to

be represented in the sample at twice their expected rate in

the population.

During 1967 and 1968, the first interviews were conducted with the NLS of Mature Women and the NLS of Young

Women, respectively. Of the 5,393 Mature Women identified

during the household screenings, 5,083 (94 percent) participated in the 1967 interview. Of the 5,533 Young Women

designated for interview, 5,159 (93 percent) completed the

initial interview in 1968. Table 5.1 presents, by race, the number of respondents in the two NLS cohorts of women interviewed during the initial survey and several subsequent

surveys. Data through the 2003 survey are now available to

researchers.

Multiple-respondent households

Mature and Young Women. The sampling design used by

the U.S. Census Bureau to select respondents for the four
78 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Number

Cohort relationships: Young Women of pairs

Young women-Mature women 1,848

Daughter-mother (same household) 1,540

Daughter-mother (different household) 308

Young Women-Young Men 2,398

Sister-brother (same household) 1,243

Sister-brother (different household) 571

Wife-husband (same household) 574

Wife-husband (different household) 10

Young Women-Older Men 988

Daughter-father (same household) 963

Daughter-father (different household) 25

Young Women-Young Women 949

Sisters (same household) 949

Table 5.2. Number of respondent pairs by cohort and relationship identified during the initial survey

years: Mature and Young Women

Number

Cohort relationships: Mature women of pairs

Mature Women-Older Men 506

Wife-husband (same household) 492

Daughter-father (same household) 11

Sister-brother (same household) 3

Mature Women-Young Women 1,848

Mother-daughter (same household) 1,540

Mother-daughter (different household) 308

Mature Women-Young Men 1,671

Mother-son (same household) 1,620

Mother-son (different household) 51

1960s cohorts made it possible for an NLS household to

include multiple respondents from the same cohort or from

different cohorts. At the time the samples were selected,

one-half of the respondents from the Mature Women cohort

shared their household with at least one other NLS respondent; more than three-quarters of the respondents from the

Young Women cohort shared the same household with at

least one other NLS respondent. A matching process, conducted after interviews had been completed with each of the

1960s cohorts, identified common relationships in these multiple-respondent households during the early survey years.

Variables present in the data files identify each of the respondents belonging to a multiple-respondent household at

the time of the screening.

Table 5.2 presents the number of matched pairs for the

NLS of Mature and Young Women by cohort and relationship. During the initial survey years, 492 Mature Women

respondents shared a household with a husband who was a

respondent in the Older Men cohort, 1,540 Mature Women

lived with a daughter who was a member of the Young Women

cohort, and 1,620 Mature Women resided in the same household as a son who was a respondent in the Young Men

cohort. Originally, 574 Young Women respondents shared a

household with a husband who was a respondent in the

Young Men cohort, and 963 Young Women resided in the

same household as a father who was a respondent in the

Older Men cohort. In addition, some of the Young Women

lived with siblings participating in the surveys: 949 shared a

household with a sister who was also a respondent in the

Young Women cohort, and 1,243 Young Women lived with a

brother who was a member of the Young Men cohort. Attrition and mortality of one or more members have reduced the

number of pairs for whom data are available across survey

years.

These pairs offer unique samples for a number of research topics. However, the original cohorts do not contain

nationally representative samples of spouses and siblings

of all ages and living arrangements. For example, sibling

pairs represent only those who were fairly close in age and

both in the sampled age range at the time of the initial survey.

Users should be aware of these statistical sampling issues

when using NLS data to study siblings and spouses.

Interviews and fielding periods

Mature Women. Respondents in the Mature Women cohort

participated in 21 interviews from 1967 to 2003. Interviewers

from the U.S. Census Bureau conducted all of the surveys.

Interviewers administered 14 of these surveys primarily in

person, 6 by telephone, and 1 (the 1968 survey) by mail.

Users should note that, in years during which the survey

was conducted primarily in person, some interviews were

administered by telephone when the interviewer decided this

alternative method was necessary. Interviews of Mature

Women took place during a 3-month period in the spring

and summer, with only the 1992 survey conducted during

the fall. Table 5.3 lists the mode of interview (in person or by

telephone) and completion rates for each survey of the Mature Women cohort.

Young Women. The Young Women cohort completed 22

interviews from 1968 to 2003. Interviewers from the U.S.

Census Bureau conducted all surveys. Interviewers administered 16 of these surveys primarily in person and 6 by tele-
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 79

Table 5.3. Mature Women interview schedule

1

The years with available mode of interview data are listed.

Missing years do not have this information recorded.

NOTE: Respondents who conducted part of an interview in

person and part over the telephone are included in the telephone

category.

phone. Users should note that, in years during which the

survey was conducted primarily in person, some interviews

were administered by telephone when an interviewer considered this alternative method necessary. The majority of

the earlier interviews with Young Women respondents occurred from January through March; fielding of post-1987

interviews shifted to the summer, with only the 1993 interview taking place in the fall. Table 5.4 lists the mode of

interview (in person or by telephone) and completion rates

for each survey of the Young Women cohort.

CAPI surveys. The 1995 survey marked the departure from a

paper-and-pencil instrument (PAPI) to a computer-assisted

personal interview (CAPI). In 1995, the Mature Women and

Young Women cohorts responded to the same survey instrument during the same fielding period; the data for the

two cohorts are still presented separately on the cross-cohort CD and are separate downloadable files on the

www.bls.gov/nls Web site.

Attrition

Mature Women. In 2003, 2,237 respondents (44.0 percent)

of the original 5,083 Mature Women continued to participate

in the survey. The retention rate is the percentage of baseyear respondents (including those who have subsequently

died or become institutionalized) interviewed in any given

year; table 5.5 presents the total number of respondents interviewed in each survey round and the survey’s retention

rate at that point. Because many of the Mature Women died,

the participation measure was the percentage of respondents

interviewed out of all respondents known to be alive. With a

base that excluded deceased respondents but included institutionalized respondents, 62.2 percent of the Mature

Women continued to participate in 2003. Users should note

that institutionalized respondents were excluded from interviewing during all surveys except 2003; in 2003, institutionalized respondents were asked to participate if they were

capable of being interviewed. Until the mid-1980s, the U.S.

Census Bureau enforced a policy of excluding from continued interviewing respondents who refused to be interviewed

or were not interviewed for any reason for 2 consecutive

years; the agency changed the rules and attempted to interview some of these respondents beginning in 1986. By the

time of the 2003 survey, the major groups not interviewed

included 1,036 respondents who refused an interview, 1,485

respondents whom the Census Bureau reported as deceased,

and 147 women who were dropped after 2 consecutive years

of noninterview and not included in the expanded 1986

sample.

Year1 Personal Telephone Not available Interviewed Not interviewed

1974 917 21.2% 3,326 77.0% 79 1.8% 4,322 761 15.0%

1976 612 14.7 3,560 85.3 0 __ 4,172 911 17.9

1979 472 12.4 3,328 87.3 12 0.3 3,812 1,271 25.0

1981 383 10.4 3,294 89.6 0 __ 3,677 1,406 27.7

1984 354 10.3 3,063 89.5 5 0.1 3,422 1,661 32.7

1986 366 11.0 2,948 88.4 21 0.6 3,335 1,748 34.4

1989 2,567 83.0 513 16.6 14 0.5 3,094 1,989 39.1

1992 2,298 77.8 602 20.4 53 1.8 2,953 2,130 41.9

1995 2,144 79.1 536 19.8 31 1.1 2,711 2,372 46.7

1999 1,523 61.7 813 33.0 131 5.3 2,467 2,616 51.5

2001 1,376 59.4 883 38.1 59 2.5 2,318 2,765 54.4

2003 1,299 58.1 836 37.4 101 4.5 2,237 2,847 56.0
80 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.4. Young Women interview schedule

1

The years with available mode of interview data are listed.

Missing years do not have this information recorded. 2

Less than 0.05%.

Young Women. In 2003, 2,857 respondents (55.4 percent) of

the original 5,159 Young Women continued to participate in

the survey. Table 5.5 presents the total number of respondents interviewed in each survey round and the survey’s

retention rate at that point. Although fewer Young Women

than Mature Women have died, a better participation measure looks at the percentage of respondents interviewed out

of all respondents who are known to be alive. With a base

that excludes deceased respondents but includes institutionalized respondents, 59 percent of the Young Women continued to participate in 2003. Until the mid-1980s, the Census

Bureau enforced a policy of excluding from continued interviewing respondents who refused to be interviewed or were

not interviewed for any reason for 2 consecutive years; the

agency attempted to interview most of these respondents

beginning in 1985. By the time of the 2003 survey, the major

groups not interviewed included 1,382 respondents who refused an interview, 176 respondents who could not be located, 315 respondents whom the Census Bureau reported

as deceased, and 248 women who were dropped from the

sample after 2 consecutive years of noninterview and not

included in the expanded 1985 sample. As with the Mature

Women cohort, respondents institutionalized in jail or longterm care facilities were not interviewed, except in 2003 when

respondents in care facilities were interviewed if possible.

Sampling weights

Mature and Young Women. The Census Bureau created

sampling weights for each cohort after the initial interview;

the Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR) at The

Ohio State University has adjusted them after each subsequent interview. These weights account for the

overrepresentation of blacks in the initial sample and for persons who were not interviewed. Analysis of each of the

cohorts indicates that the weighting scheme used to compensate for nonresponse has allowed the samples to remain

representative (Rhoton, 1984; Rhoton and Nagi, 1991;

Zagorsky and Rhoton, 1998). In 2003, a series of revised

reason for noninterview variables and revised sampling

weights were released based on new information on dates of

death provided by the Social Security Administration.

Major data elements

The surveys of the women collected three basic types of

information: (1) Core data on each respondent’s labor market experiences, training investments, schooling, family income and assets, physical well-being, and geographic

residence; (2) background information on the respondent’s

family and household composition and on her marital and

fertility history; and (3) supplementary data specific to the

NOTE: Respondents who conducted part of an interview in

person and part over the telephone are included in the telephone

category.

Year1 Personal Telephone Not available Interviewed Not interviewed

1975 887 20.9% 3,329 78.4% 27 0.6% 4,243 916 17.8%

1977 660 16.1 3,434 83.6 14 0.3 4,108 1,051 20.4

1980 333 8.8 3,468 91.2 0 __ 3,801 1,358 26.3

1982 376 10.3 3,273 89.7 1 2 3,650 1,509 29.2

1985 369 9.9 3,343 89.9 8 0.2 3,720 1,439 27.9

1987 344 9.5 3,273 89.9 22 0.6 3,639 1,520 29.5

1991 2,502 73.6 860 25.3 38 1.1 3,400 1,759 34.1

1993 2,071 65.0 1,082 34.0 34 1.1 3,187 1,972 38.2

1995 2,144 71.0 844 28.0 31 1.0 3,019 2,140 41.5

1999 1,505 51.9 1,238 42.7 157 5.4 2,900 2,259 43.8

2001 1,388 49.5 1,319 47.0 99 3.5 2,806 2,353 45.6

2003 1,392 48.7 1,326 46.4 139 4.9 2,857 2,302 44.6
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 81

Table 5.5. Interview schedules and retention rates: Mature and Young Women

2Retention rate is defined as the percentage of base-year respondents who were interviewed in any given survey year. Included in the calculations are deceased and institutionalized

respondents, as well as those serving in the military.

1

Even in years during which the survey was conducted in

person, some interviews were administered by telephone when

an interviewer determined that method to be the most appropriate

for completing a case.

age, stage of life, or labor market attachment of the cohort

(for example, household responsibilities, childcare arrangements, retirement plans, volunteer work).

This section provides brief summaries of the major data

elements available for respondents in the NLS of Mature and

Young Women. Certain data elements were collected longitudinally, while others are available only for particular survey years; not all data elements will be present for all

respondents. Because the descriptions below are not comprehensive, readers interested in additional information

should review the topical descriptions of variables found in

the Mature Women User’s Guide and the Young Women

User’s Guide (available at www.bls.gov/nls), examine the detailed variable tables provided at the end of this chapter,

acquire copies of the survey instruments, and browse the

documentation files present in the separate Mature Women

and Young Women data sets.

Data elements for the NLS of Mature and Young Women

are discussed in the order presented in figure 5.1.

Mature Women Young Women

Primary Response rate, Primary Response rate,

type of Total Retention living type of Total Retention living

Year interview1 interviewed rate2 respondents only interview1 interviewed rate2 respondents only

1967 Personal 5,083 100.0 100.0 — — — —

1968 Mail 4,910 96.6 97.0 Personal 5,159 100.0 100.0

1969 Personal 4,712 92.7 93.3 Personal 4,930 95.6 95.6

1970 — — — — Personal 4,766 92.4 92.5

1971 Personal 4,575 90.0 91.1 Personal 4,714 91.4 91.6

1972 Personal 4,471 88.0 89.2 Personal 4,625 89.6 90.0

1973 — — — — Personal 4,424 85.8 86.1

1974 Telephone 4,322 85.0 86.8 — — — —

1975 — — — — Telephone 4,243 82.2 82.7

1976 Telephone 4,172 82.1 84.2 — — — —

1977 Personal 3,964 78.0 80.2 Telephone 4,108 79.6 80.1

1978 — — — — Personal 3,902 75.6 76.1

1979 Telephone 3,812 75.0 77.7 — — — —

1980 — — — — Telephone 3,801 73.7 74.2

1981 Telephone 3,677 72.3 75.5 — — — —

1982 Personal 3,542 69.7 73.1 Telephone 3,650 70.8 71.4

1983 — — — — Personal 3,547 68.7 69.4

1984 Telephone 3,422 67.3 71.3 — — — —

1985 — — — — Telephone 3,720 72.1 72.9

1986 Telephone 3,335 65.6 70.3 — — — —

1987 Personal 3,241 63.7 68.7 Telephone 3,639 70.5 71.5

1988 — — — — Personal 3,508 68.0 69.0

1989 Personal 3,094 60.9 66.5 — — — —

1991 — — — — Personal 3,400 65.9 67.1

1992 Personal 2,953 58.1 65.1 — — — —

1993 — — — — Personal 3,187 61.8 63.1

1995 Personal 2,711 53.3 61.3 Personal 3,019 58.5 60.0

1997 Personal 2,608 51.3 61.0 Personal 3,049 59.1 61.1

1999 Personal 2,467 48.5 59.2 Personal 2,900 56.2 58.4

2001 Personal 2,318 45.6 57.9 Personal 2,806 54.4 57.0

2003 Personal 2,237 44.0 62.2 Personal 2,857 55.4 59.0
82 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Figure 5.1. Data elements in the NLS of Mature and Young Women

1 Labor market experiences

2 Work-related discrimination

3 Training investments

4 Schooling information (school records, aptitude, IQ)

5 Retirement status and plans, pensions

6 Volunteer work and leisure-time activities

7 Income and assets

8 Physical well-being, health care, and health insurance

9 Alcohol and cigarette use

10 Attitudes, aspirations, and psychological well-being

11 Geographic and environmental data

12 Demographics, family background, and household

composition

13 Marital and fertility histories

14 Child care arrangements

15 Care of ill and disabled persons

16 Household chores

17 Transfers

1. Labor market experiences

Mature and Young Women. Each survey collected information on the respondent’s labor force status during the survey week. Although the data are similar, users should note

that the questions in this section were changed beginning

with the 1995 survey to reflect the redesign of the Current

Population Survey. Employed respondents gave details

about their occupation, class of worker, rate of pay, hours

worked per week, and job satisfaction. Additional questions

asked during selected surveys collected information about

the respondent’s job or job-related activities, such as shift

worked, union membership, tenure, and types of fringe benefits.

Each survey asked about the number of weeks the respondent worked in the past year or since her last interview.

Respondents who reported being unemployed or out of the

labor force provided data about their activities. Included is

information on method(s) that respondents used to seek

employment, the number of weeks they spent looking for

work, their reasons for not looking for work, and the number

of weeks they spent out of the labor force.

Selected surveys collected detailed job information for

intervening jobs. Specific information includes the start and

stop dates for each job, the number of hours that the respondent worked, the occupation and industry of each job, the

respondent’s class of worker, her rate of pay, and her reason

for leaving the job.

2. Work-related discrimination

Mature and Young Women. Mature Women respondents

answered questions on work-related discrimination during

the 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1989, 1995, and 2001 surveys;

Young Women responded to these questions during the 1972,

1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1988, 1995, and 2001 interviews. In

general, each series of questions asked whether the respondent had experienced a particular type of discrimination (age,

race, religion, nationality, sex, marital status, or health-related) for a specified amount of time. In 1995 and 2001, this

list also included discrimination based on weight, sexual orientation, or AIDS status. A follow-up question gathered

information on the way in which the discrimination was experienced (not hired, not promoted, paid less for equal work,

fired, and so forth). The 1988 Young Women survey included an expanded series that asked about steps taken to

resolve the problem and the results of this action.

3. Training investments

Mature Women. The initial survey collected information on

the training experiences of each respondent during high

school and after her regular schooling ended. Questions

included: (1) Whether the respondent had enrolled in a vocational or commercial training program while in high school;

(2) the type of high school specialty (for example, typing or

bookkeeping); (3) the number of years in which she had enrolled in typing or shorthand classes; and (4) whether she

had enrolled in other training programs.

Details recorded about each training program included

the type of training, the time spent by the respondent in

training, and whether she used the skills acquired in the program on her current job. Interviewers also asked about certifications that the respondent had earned to practice a

profession or a trade and about her plans to enroll in educational courses or training programs in the future. Subsequent surveys updated both the respondent’s training and

certification records.

Post-1977 surveys of this cohort gathered information

about the respondent’s participation in on-the-job training

programs and other vocational programs. Data collected

about each program include its overall length, the number of

hours the respondent spent in the program each week, and

whether she completed the program.

Young Women. The initial 1968 survey collected information

on the training plans and experiences of respondents since

they had stopped attending regular school. For each train-
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 83

ing program, detailed information includes the type of training, the length of the training program, the number of hours

the respondent was enrolled per week, whether she completed the program, and whether she used the skills acquired

in the program on her current or last job. Subsequent surveys have updated information about training experiences

and certifications.

Beginning in 1980, the survey fielded two series of questions, one dealing with the respondent’s participation in onthe-job training (OJT), and the other with other training

courses or educational programs. The OJT series included

questions about the duration and intensity of the training

and whether the respondent was still attending or had completed the program. The second training series collected

data on the respondent’s participation in any other training

program, including whether the program was an apprenticeship.

4. Schooling information (school records, aptitude, IQ)

Mature Women. Selected surveys gathered information on

the educational status and attainment of respondents in the

Mature Women cohort. The initial survey asked about the

highest grade of regular school the respondent attended,

whether that grade was completed, the type of curriculum

(such as vocational, commercial, or college preparatory) she

followed, and whether she completed any additional

coursework since earning a diploma. Interviewers updated

school attainment information during the 1977, 1987, 1989,

and 1995–2003 surveys.

Various interviews gathered information on whether the

respondent attended high school and whether or when she

received a diploma or a GED. College attendance information—including type of degree received, field of study, and

the number of weeks and hours per week spent on college

education—also was collected during selected surveys. Finally, data on current school enrollment status, the highest

grade of school attended, and whether that grade was completed are available in early survey years for each family

member living in the respondent’s household.

Young Women. A primary focus of the Young Women surveys was on schooling and the transition from school to

work. Therefore, the interviews of this cohort regularly collected information regarding both the respondent’s enrollment in regular schooling and her subsequent educational

attainment. In addition, a separate 1968 survey of high

schools attended by respondents in this cohort provided

details on school characteristics and respondent test scores.

The following types of school-related information

are available for respondents in this cohort: The

respondent’s school enrollment status, the grade she was

attending at the interview date, the highest grade completed,

the date she received a diploma or equivalent, whether she

attended college, the type of college degree she earned, the

type of curriculum she followed in high school and college,

her college field of study, the types of financial assistance

she received, the amount of college tuition paid, and the

type of school (public or private) that she attended.

During 1968, a special set of questions gathered information from the respondent on her high school and college

experiences. These questions asked for details on her participation in high school extracurricular activities, the amount

of time she spent on homework, and the high school subjects she liked and disliked.

In several survey years, Young Women were asked about

their educational aspirations and expectations. Information

gathered includes the years of education the respondent

desired, the college degree she wanted, the years of education she expected to get, and, if she planned on attending

college, the type of college she expected to attend and her

specific field of study.

A special school survey mailed directly to each school

in 1968 collected information on secondary schools attended

by respondents in this cohort. Data included characteristics

of the school (such as type of school, student enrollment by

grade, expenditure per pupil, and number of books in the

library) and characteristics of the school’s teachers and counselors (for example, number of teachers and counselors and

the amounts of their salaries). A set of constructed variables

summarized characteristics, such as the ratio of students to

teachers, and provides an index of overall school quality.

The school survey also recorded respondents’ grade

point averages and individual test scores from instruments

such as the Otis/Beta/Gamma, California Test of Mental

Maturity, Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test, and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (available for selected respondents). An

“IQ score” created from these data is available for more than

3,300 of the Young Women respondents. Finally, the school

survey collected information about respondents’ school behavior with regard to absenteeism, disciplinary actions, and

so forth.

5. Retirement status and plans, pensions

Mature Women. All but two surveys since 1977 sought

information on respondents’ retirement plans, expectations,

and eligibility for various pension plans. Questions fielded

from 1979–86 asked the age at which the respondent expected to stop working, her eligibility to receive Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits, and the number of years

for which she has been employed in jobs covered by Social

Security. These surveys also recorded the age at which she

would be eligible for full rather than reduced benefits, the

number of years for which she worked for each employer,

and the type of provider for her pension plan. In addition,
84 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

each respondent reported the sources of income she expected

during retirement, and, if she did not expect to receive pension benefits, the reason.

The 1989 survey collected the above information separately for both respondents and their spouses. In addition,

this survey included a very large section devoted to pension

questions. This series determined the most important pension plan for the respondent, the most important pension

plan for her spouse, and any other pension or survivor’s

benefits for which she was eligible through her spouse’s (or

former spouse’s) employment or military service. This section also asked for the characteristics of each pension provider, the characteristics of each plan, and locator information

used for the pension-matching project described below.

With this information, the Institute for Social Research

at the University of Michigan conducted a special pensionmatching project in conjunction with the Census Bureau.

The locator information enabled the Census Bureau to obtain pension plan summary descriptions from respondents’

employers. These plans were then coded using a protocol

developed for the Survey of Consumer Finances. A total of

1,329 respondents (out of 1,900 households reporting pension eligibility) participated in at least 1 of 815 different pension plans. Users can find these data on the cross-cohort

CD that includes the Mature and Young Women data sets.

Each survey of the Mature Women since 1992 included

questions that gathered details on pension plans, updating

the 1989 information. In addition, the income-asset section

of the questionnaire examined the retirement income received

by the respondent and her spouse from various sources

(such as Social Security, pensions, and disability benefits)

during most survey years.

Young Women. The most recent surveys of the Young

Women (1) added “retired” as a reason why the respondent

was not in the labor force during the survey week, (2) recorded whether a retirement pension program is available

through the respondent’s employer, and (3) determined

amounts of income received by the respondent and her

spouse during the past calendar year from retirement-related

sources such as Social Security.

The 1991 and 1995–2003 surveys included questions on

pension coverage and vesting rights for respondents who

indicated that their employer provided a retirement pension

program. Respondents enrolled in an employer’s pension

program gave information on the method used to determine

their benefit amount (either defined benefit or defined contribution) and whether they were vested in the pension plan.

Those not vested answered questions about the number of

years until vesting and what would happen if they left the

employer before that time. Specific sources of pension income during the past 12 months for the respondent and her

spouse were determined during the 1993–2003 surveys.

6. Volunteer work and leisure-time activities

Mature and Young Women. Respondents gave information

in selected surveys on the number of weeks and number of

hours per week they spent during the past year in unpaid

volunteer work. Respondents also were asked about the

type(s) of organization(s) in which they volunteered. Occasional questions further asked why the respondent engaged

in volunteer work, whether she held an office or position

within the volunteer organization(s), and whether she participated in volunteer work to change social conditions. In

1967 (Mature Women) or 1983 (Young Women), respondents

answered a single question about how they spent their time

when not engaged in housework or working for pay.

7. Income and assets

Mature and Young Women. The survey regularly asked

about the total income received by each respondent’s family

during the past year; it also covered the amount of income

received by the respondent herself and by her spouse from

various sources during that period. Sources included wages

and salary, business or farm income, unemployment compensation, rental income, interest and dividends, child support, alimony, Social Security, disability payments, public

assistance, Food Stamps, and pension benefits.

In 1995–2003, special sections addressed to women who

had been widowed since their last interview determined the

type and amount of benefits or other assistance that the

widow had received in connection with her husband’s death.

Sources of income recorded include insurance, Social Security, pensions, and family members.

A series of questions on family assets and debts collected details on (1) whether the respondent and her spouse

owned their own home, other types of real estate, or automobiles and, if so, the total market value and amount owed on

each; (2) the value of other assets such as savings accounts,

U.S. Savings Bonds, stocks or bonds, and personal loans;

and (3) whether there were other personal debts, such as

money owed to stores, physicians, hospitals, or banks. In

selected years, the respondent stated whether she believed

that her overall financial position was better, worse, or about

the same as it was a few years earlier. In recent survey years,

respondents were asked about the income and assets of partners. In 2003, a series of questions recorded the respondent’s

perception of how adequate her or her family’s income was

to meet basic needs.

8. Physical well-being, healthcare, and health

insurance

Mature and Young Women. A comprehensive set of healthrelated variables is available for respondents. This informa-
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 85

tion includes the respondent’s health status, perceived

changes in her health over time, specific health conditions

she has experienced, types of health-related problems, and

data on her health insurance coverage. For all interviews,

the life status of respondents in both cohorts at the time of

the interview is indicated by the presence or absence of “deceased” as a reason for noninterview.

Various surveys asked respondents to rate their health.

Periodic questions asked if the respondent considered her

health to have changed over time. Self-reported height and

weight measurements are available for Mature Women interviewed in 1992 and 1997–2001 and for Young Women interviewed in 1991, with another weight measurement obtained

for both cohorts in 1995. In 2003, self-reports on weight were

collected for both cohorts, and interviewers measured respondent height whenever possible or asked for self-reports.

Respondents provided information about specific diseases

that limited or prevented them from working during the post1989 surveys of the Mature Women and the 1973 and 1991–

2003 surveys of the Young Women.

During multiple surveys, interviewers asked respondents whether they experienced health-related problems such

as pain, tiring easily, weakness, aches, or swelling. A second

series, fielded during the same surveys, asked the respondent whether she ever had difficulty performing a predetermined set of activities, such as walking, using stairs, or

standing for long periods.

The survey collected information on occupation-related

health problems at multiple survey points. Respondents identified specific workplace conditions that would hamper their

ability to work, such as places that were hot or damp or

places that had fumes or noise. The 1980 survey of Young

Women included a series of questions asking the respondent to rate conditions at her current job. In 1991, Young

Women stated whether they had ever been refused employment or been unable to hold a job or stay in school because

of health issues.

The 1991 and 1993 Young Women surveys gathered information about the number of times the respondent had had

an overnight hospital stay during the past 12 months and

how often the respondent had been treated at clinics or by

physicians during the past 5 years. In the 2003 survey, both

the Mature and Young Women were asked more detailed

questions concerning any hospital stays. The data set also

includes health insurance information, collected during the

1981, 1986, and post-1989 surveys of Mature Women and

the post-1988 surveys of young women. The 1995–2003

surveys of both cohorts included questions about respondents’ menopausal status and hormone use during menopause. Finally, the 1995 survey of both cohorts of women

and the 1997–2003 Mature Women surveys asked respondents whether they had driven a motor vehicle in the past 12

months, the distance they drove, whether they drove at

night, and why they stopped driving, if applicable.

9. Alcohol and cigarette use

Mature and Young Women. The 1989 and 1995–2003 Mature Women surveys and the 1991–2003 Young Women surveys included several questions for respondents who

reported drinking alcoholic beverages. Though the details

vary by year, questions typically focused on the frequency

and intensity of alcohol use in the past month and since the

last interview. In 1991, Young Women respondents also were

asked two questions concerning alcohol use over their lifetime.

Several recent surveys gathered cigarette use data from

these cohorts. The 1989 Mature Women survey and the

1991 Young Women survey first asked whether respondents

currently smoked. Those who smoked reported the age at

which they started smoking regularly and the number of cigarettes or packs they smoked per day. Respondents who

reported smoking in the past but not at the time of the interview were asked for the number of cigarettes or packs smoked

per day, the age at which they last smoked regularly, and the

age at which they first started smoking. The 1993 Young

Women survey asked whether respondents currently smoked

and, for those who did, the number of cigarettes or packs

they smoked per day. The 1995–2003 surveys of both cohorts determined only whether respondents smoked at the

time of the interview.

10. Attitudes, aspirations, and psychological

well-being

Mature and Young Women. A collection of attitude, aspiration, and psychological well-being variables is available for

respondents in each cohort. Selected surveys administered

the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CESD) Scale (Radloff, 1977) and the Internal-External Locus of

Control Scale (Rotter, 1966). Periodic questions investigated

the respondent’s occupational aspirations; her attitudes toward life in general, women working, her current job, and

retirement; and her general knowledge of the world of work

(Young Women only).

11. Geographic and environmental data

Mature and Young Women. Three sets of variables provide

information on the respondent’s residence at the interview

date. The first set broadly defines the geographic area in

which the respondent resided. This definition includes the

name of the census division (New England, Middle Atlantic,

Pacific, and so on), whether the respondent’s region of residence was located in the South or in a non-South region of

the United States, and whether her residence was in a metro-
86 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

politan statistical area.

The second set of variables compares the State or metropolitan statistical area of the respondent’s residence at the

interview date with those of her previous residence and job

at the interview date. Users can find information on the

characteristics of the respondent’s environment in a third

set of variables detailing the size of the labor force and the

unemployment rate for the labor market of the respondent’s

residence at the time of the interview. However, beginning in

the early 1990s, most of the variables in the last two sets

were eliminated.

Other geographic variables available for these cohorts

include a set of geographic mobility questions fielded during 1982, 1989, 1992, and 1997 for Mature Women and during

1983, 1988–93, and 1997 for Young Women. These questions provide information about the date on which the respondent moved to her residence at the interview date, the

location of her previous residence, the number of years she

had lived there, and the reason why she moved. Additionally, the 1992 and 1995 surveys of Mature Women and the

1983, 1988, 1991, and 1995 surveys of Young Women collected information about a second residence of the respondent, including which months the respondent lived in this

second residence, the year in which she began spending

time there, and a comparison of the second residence’s location with that of the primary residence.

Beginning with the 1995 survey of both cohorts, the

data include an interviewer-recorded observation of the type

of area (farm, city, suburb, and so on) and the type of residence (detached house, apartment, trailer, and so forth) in

which the respondent lived.

Research Data Centers. Geographic information collected

during interviews with the Mature Women and Young

Women is now available for research use at the Census

Bureau’s Research Data Centers. The cohort-specific files

contain the respondent identification number, survey year,

and State code. Researchers may match these files to the

NLS data sets. Currently, the Research Data Centers have

available, by survey year, the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) State codes, which represent the State

of residence for each interviewed respondent. Having the

State variables allows researchers to determine the census

regions and divisions. Variables also are available at the

Research Data Centers on county, metropolitan statistical

area, ZIP Code, census tract and block, and latitude and longitude of residence. Selected environmental variables are

available about the counties and metropolitan statistical areas in which the women resided, and information also is available on the names of the colleges and universities that the

women attended.

The Census Bureau developed the Research Data Centers to give researchers access to valuable data in a setting

designed to safeguard respondent confidentiality. Researchers interested in more detailed information on the procedures

to follow in applying for access to a Research Data Center

should see the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls.

12. Demographics, family background, and household

composition

Mature and Young Women. The surveys collected data

regarding each respondent’s race, nationality, origin, or descent; date of birth; and age. They also determined whether

the respondent’s residence at age 15 (Mature Women) or

age 14 (Young Women) was in an urban or rural area. Information on family background includes the birthplace of the

respondent’s parents and grandparents, the relationship of

the respondent to the person(s) with whom she lived at age

15 (Mature Women) or age 14 (Young Women), the occupation of and highest grade completed by her mother and father, and the life status of both the respondent’s parents and

in-laws. Mature Women also provided information on the

place of residence and health of their parents and in-laws.

The 1993 survey of Young Women recorded the sex, age,

educational attainment, and fertility of the respondent’s biological siblings (living or deceased).

Every interview except the 1968 mail survey of Mature

Women collected detailed information on the composition of

the household in which the respondent lived. For as many

as 20 family members (during the early survey years) or household members (later survey years) living in the respondent’s

household during the survey, the following information is

available: The relationship of each member to the respondent, the household member’s age or date of birth, and the

number of weeks and hours worked in the previous year.

Selected surveys also asked about each household member’s

occupation, school enrollment status at the interview date,

highest grade of school attended, whether that grade was

completed, and the years of education the respondent predicted that person would complete.

13. Marital and fertility histories

Mature Women. Every interview except the 1968 mail survey asked about the respondent’s marital status at the interview date. Selected interviews collected information

regarding timing of marital transitions (such as the month

and year of the respondent’s marriage(s) and whether the

marriage(s) ended in divorce or widowhood). A series of

variables constructed in the early survey years provides a

profile of the respondent’s marital and family status at various interview points, indicating whether she was married

and if she resided with her spouse and her children at the

time of the survey. For the early years, created variables also

describe the timing of the respondent’s marriage in relation-
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 87

ship to work, school, and the birth of her first child.

Regularly collected information about each child living

in the respondent’s household at the time of the interview

includes that child’s age, date of birth, and sex. Post-1976

surveys specified whether a nonbiological child was an

adopted son or daughter, or an adopted son or daughter by

marriage. For both biological and nonbiological children,

these surveys also collected more detailed information, such

as the child’s life status, residency status, enrollment status,

and highest grade completed. Selected surveys contain information about the total number of children of specific ages

who live at home. Most surveys asked about the number

and relationship of the respondent’s dependents. The marital and fertility histories of up to four living children were

collected during the 1986 interview. Finally, the 1987–97 and

2001–03 surveys asked for the number of the respondent’s

children enrolled in college at the interview date and the

amount of financial support provided by the respondent and

her husband. Similar information about children in college

was collected in 1999 and 2003 as part of the children and

transfers section of the survey.

Young Women. Every survey collected marital status at the

interview date; respondents reported timing of marital transitions (see above) during selected interviews. A set of variables tracks transitions between various marital states from

1968–73. It also provides information regarding the timing of

the respondent’s marriage in relation to work, school, and

the birth of her first child.

Regularly collected information about each child living

in the respondent’s household at the time of the interview

includes that child’s age, date of birth, and sex. Most surveys collected information about the number of dependents

the respondent had and her relationship to dependents living outside the household. Beginning in 1973, more detailed

information on biological and nonbiological children was

collected, including the child’s life status, residency status,

school enrollment status, and highest grade completed.

Post-1982 surveys specified whether a nonbiological child

was an adopted son or daughter, or an adopted son or daughter by marriage. Finally, the 1991–97 and 2001–03 surveys

recorded the number of the respondent’s children currently

enrolled in college and the amount of financial support provided to them by the respondent and her husband. Similar

information about children in college was collected in 1999

and 2003 as part of the children and transfers section of the

survey.

An expanded series of questions in the 1985 survey

asked about children living outside of the household. This

series determined the date on which the respondent last lived

with the child, the frequency of contact and duration of visits, where and how far from the respondent the child lived,

and the amount of financial support the respondent had provided to the child over the previous 12 months. Children

who lived together outside of the respondent’s household

were identified.

Additional information gathered during the 1971, 1973,

1978, and 1982–91 interviews includes fertility expectations;

the respondent stated the number of children she considered ideal, the number she expected to have during the next

5 years, and the date by which she expected to have her next

child. Finally, the 1970, 1972, and 1973 questionnaires included a series of questions detailing how a child’s birth had

changed the respondent’s labor force status.

14. Childcare arrangements

Mature and Young Women. Five of the early interviews of

the Mature Women cohort collected information on the types

and locations of childcare arrangements; all but seven of the

Young Women surveys obtained similar information. The

information collected includes details regarding costs, the

number of hours during which childcare was required, the

type of childcare arrangements the respondent used, her attitude toward childcare or daycare centers, and the impact of

childcare availability on her job search behavior. The 1971

survey of each cohort included an expanded series of questions identifying the types of childcare arrangements for the

respondent’s children and her preferred care arrangements.

Information on the extent of the respondent’s responsibility

for various household tasks, including childcare, was collected during seven Mature Women surveys between 1974

and 1989 and five Young Women interviews from 1975 to

1985.

The 1993 and 1995 surveys of Young Women and the

1995 survey of Mature Women examined whether the respondents were responsible for the care of their own children under age 18 and living in the household. If the

respondent was responsible for care, follow-up questions

determined care arrangements, the total cost of care, and the

effect of this responsibility on the respondent’s employment.

15. Care of ill and disabled persons

Mature Women. In most years, respondents stated whether

the health of a spouse or family member affected their employment opportunities. The respondent’s care of ill and

disabled persons was explored in more detail in each survey

since 1982, except for the 1986 survey. In 1982, 1984, and

1987–2003, the survey asked respondents whether they regularly spent time caring for a relative or friend outside of their

household and, if applicable, the number of hours allocated

to this task each week. The 1984, 1987, and 1989 surveys

included questions about care of household members as part

of the household chores series. Details were collected on

whether the respondent cared for an ill or disabled person in
88 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

the household, her relationship to that person, and the total

hours spent on all chores (including this caregiving). Although the household chores series was discontinued in

1992, the surveys continued to ask similar questions about

caring for ill or disabled household members. Respondents

reporting such activity stated their relationship to each person and the total hours per week spent caring for all ill or

disabled household members.

The parental transfers section of the 1997 and 2001 questionnaires included a series of questions on whether transfers of time for activities such as “caretaking” had taken

place over the preceding 12 months. The child transfers

section of the 1999 and 2003 surveys included similar questions about the respondent’s children.

In 1995–2003, respondents who had been widowed since

their last interview answered an additional set of questions

about their husband’s needs during the last year of his life,

including whether the respondent provided special nursing

care for her husband, the number of hours per day such care

was required, and how this affected the respondent’s employment opportunities. The 1990 Older Men survey asked

similar questions of widowed women whose spouses had

been members of that cohort.

Young Women. As part of the household chores series, the

1987 survey sought information about whether the respondent provided care to household members who were ill or

disabled. Beginning with the 1991 survey, additional questions determined whether the respondent regularly spent time

helping or caring for household members who were chronically ill or disabled or for friends or relatives who did not

reside in the respondent’s household. Follow-up questions

established the number of hours per week the respondent

spent providing care.

The parental transfers section of the 1993, 1997, and

2001 questionnaires included a series of questions about

whether transfers of time for activities such as “caretaking”

had taken place over the past 12 months. The child transfers

section included similar questions about the respondent’s

children in the 1999 and 2003 surveys. Like the Mature

Women surveys, the 1995–2003 Young Women surveys

asked respondents who identified themselves as widowed

since the last interview about their role in caring for their

husband in the year before his death.

16. Household chores

Mature and Young Women. A comprehensive set of questions, asked of the Mature Women eight times starting in

1974 and of the Young Women five times beginning in 1975,

collected information on the amount of time the respondent

spent on all household tasks and her responsibility for

specific household chores. The core set of household chores

about which information was gathered included tasks such

as grocery shopping, childcare, cooking, cleaning the house,

and yard work. The early to mid-1980s interviews added the

tasks of family bill paying and care of chronically ill or disabled household members.

Although some variation occurred across survey years,

the basic series determined how responsible the respondent

felt for each household chore, whether she performed each

task with another family member or with hired help, and, if

she shared a task, the amount of time she contributed to the

task. Respondents also reported the total number of hours

per week they usually spent on these tasks.

In response to a separate question, women in both cohorts also have periodically stated their attitude toward doing housework in their own home.

17. Transfers

Mature and Young Women: Parents and transfers. Prior to

the 1993 survey of Young Women, a limited amount of data

was collected about parents and transfers. Both the Mature

Women and Young Women cohorts periodically reported

the life status of their and their husband’s parents; the 1992

survey of Mature Women and the 1993 survey of Young

Women also recorded the parents’ cause of death, if applicable. The income section in some recent surveys included

a question about any inheritance the respondent has received.

In 1993, the Young Women responded to a detailed series of questions about transfers of time and money to and

from their parents and their husbands’ parents; both cohorts

answered these questions in 1997 and 2001. Stepparents

were included in the collection if they are currently married

to a biological parent. In each year, this section began with

the collection of biographical and health information for the

respondent’s and her husband’s parents. If any parent was

deceased, the 1997 and 2001 survey rounds asked questions

concerning that parent’s estate (for example, if it was settled,

if she received any amount, if it was equally distributed).

Information was then gathered about the parents’ residences,

income, assets, and debts. Finally, questions examined the

nature and extent of transfers of time and money from respondents to their parents. Transfers mentioned include

gifts, loans, financial support, personal care, and household

chores or errands. In 1993 and 2001, these questions also

asked about transfers from the parents to the respondents.

The 2003 survey retained the estate questions asked in 1997

and 2001, but all other 2003 transfers information refers to

transfers between respondents and their children.

In 1997, the Mature Women survey included questions

about transfers of time and money that respondents had

received from their daughters who were in the Young Women

cohort. Although the sample does not represent all mothers
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 89

and daughters, researchers can use these data to compare

mothers’ and daughters’ perceptions about the transfers

daughters have made to their mothers.

Mature and Young Women: Children and transfers. The

1999 and 2003 surveys asked both Mature and Young Women

about transfers involving the respondent’s children. Included in the data collection was information on biological,

adopted, and stepchildren of both the respondent and her

husband. The transfers section initially collected demographic data and residence information for all children not

residing in the household (these data were collected in the

household roster for coresident children). The respondent

then answered questions about the assets and debts of each

child age 19 or older, as well as each child ages 14 to 18 who

were married or had children. The section also included a

series of questions regarding shared living arrangements of

the respondent and her children, if the children met these

same age requirements.

After collecting this preliminary information, the survey

asked the respondent to report transfers of time and money

to and from up to five children meeting the universe requirements described above. Included were questions regarding

loans, gifts, and other financial assistance, as well as time

transferred for childcare, personal care, chores, and errands.

The 1999 Young Women survey included a set of questions for respondents who had a mother in the Mature Women

cohort. These Young Women described transfers of time

and money to and from their mothers, providing researchers

with an opportunity to assess the quality of the transfers

data.

Data files and documentation

Data for the NLS of Mature Women (1967–2003) and the NLS

of Young Women (1968–2003) are released on the cross-cohort CD and also are available as separate downloadable

files from the www.bls.gov/nls Web site. These files contain

the longitudinal record of each respondent, as well as information from the 1968 Young Women school survey and the

1989 Mature Women pension-matching project. Included in

the data are: (1) Raw responses to the set of questions administered during the 1967–2003 surveys of Mature Women

and 1968–2003 surveys of Young Women; (2) a series of

edited and created variables based on these raw responses;

(3) selected demographic, household, and residential data

provided by the Census Bureau from its administrative

records; (4) respondent- and school-specific information

gathered during the separately administered 1968 survey of

the high schools attended by respondents in the Young

Women cohort; and, on the cross-cohort CD, (5) the 1989

pension plan characteristic data for Mature Women (as an

ASCII file).

Each data set includes documentation files and is accompanied by search and extraction software that enables

users to easily peruse, select, and extract variables. Chapter

8 provides more technical information on the NLS data format and extraction software, as well as descriptions of supplementary documentation items available for the NLS of Mature

and Young Women.

References

Radloff, Lenore Sawyer. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report

Depression Scale for Research in the General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1,3 (Summer 1977): 385–401.

Rhoton, Patricia. “Attrition and The National Longitudinal

Surveys of Labor Market Experience: Avoidance, Control and Correction.” Columbus, OH: Center for Human

Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1984.

Rhoton, Patricia and Nagi, Karima. “Attrition by Wealth in

the Original NLS Cohorts.” Columbus, OH: Center for

Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University,

1991.

Rotter, Julian B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs.

External Control of Reinforcements.” Psychological

Monographs 80,1 (1966): 1–28.

Zagorsky, Jay and Rhoton, Patricia. “Attrition and the National Longitudinal Surveys’ Mature Women Cohort.”

Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research,

The Ohio State University, 1998.

Zagorsky, Jay and Rhoton, Patricia. “Attrition and the National Longitudinal Surveys’ Young Women Cohort.”

Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research,

The Ohio State University, 1998.

Selected variables by cohort and year: Mature

and Young Women

Tables 5.6 and 5.7 depict selected variables from the main

data files of the NLS of Mature and Young Women. The top

row of the tables lists the years in which the women have

been surveyed; the first column gives some of the variables

that have been collected. An asterisk (*) indicates that information for the designated variable was obtained for the cohort in the year indicated. “R” used in variable descriptions

stands for “respondent”; “H” stands for “husband” of the

respondent. Researchers should be aware that, in some instances, the variable descriptions in the tables represent a

group of questions and not single response items.
90 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

A. Current labor force and employment status 

 Survey week labor force and employment status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks worked (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual hours worked during weeks worked * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks unemployed (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Spells of unemployment in past year * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks out of labor force (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics of current or last job 

 Occupation, industry, class of worker * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hourly rate of pay * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Commuting time, costs * * * * * * * * 

 Covered by collective bargaining, union member * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Work for employer at home * * * * * * * 

 Firm size * * * * * * * 

 Shift worked * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Fringe benefits available * * * * * * * * * 

 Displaced worker * * * * * * * 

 Supervises others * * * * * * * * 

C. Work experience prior to initial survey 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, start date, 

stop date, and reason for leaving (series): 

 First job after leaving school (never-married R’s) * 

Longest job since leaving school (never-married 

R’s) * 

 Longest job between school and marriage * 

 Longest job between marriage and first birth * 

 Longest job since first birth * 

Number of years since leaving school in which R 

worked 6 months or more * 

D. Work experience since previous survey 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, hours per 

week, start date, stop date, and reason for leaving 

intervening jobs (through 1987) or employers 

(beginning in 1989) (details vary) 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Interfirm mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Promotions (any, effects) * * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 91

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences 

 Age or date of birth * * * * * * * * * 

 Nationality or ethnicity * * * * 

 Type of residence at age 15 * 

 Person(s) R lived with at age 15 * 

 Occupation of head of household when R was 15 * 

 Highest grade completed by father and mother * 

 Occupation of mother when R was 15 * 

B. Migration 

 Years at current residence * 

 Comparison of birthplace to current residence * 

 Geographic mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * 

C. Education 

 Current enrollment status * * * * * * * * 

 Highest grade completed * * * * * * * * * 

 High school curriculum * 

 Year of high school diploma or GED * * * * * * * 

 Math courses taken in high school * 

College (attended, duration, hours per week 

attended, field of study, highest degree received) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

D. Training 

On-the-job training (did R take, duration, hours per 

week, did R complete) * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Additional or other training or educational program 

(type, sponsor, duration, hours per week attended, 

reason took, did R complete, certificate, use on 

job) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

E. Health and physical condition 

 Self-rating of health * * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of R’s condition with past * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does health limit work or housework * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Duration of health limitations * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Problematic activities (stooping, kneeling, and so 

forth) * * * * * * * * * 

Problematic working conditions (noise, smoke, and 

so forth) * * * * * * 

 Alcohol and cigarette use * * * * * * 

 Height and weight (details vary) * * * * * * 
92 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

Menopausal status and hormone use during 

menopause 

 * * * * * 

 Extent R drives an automobile * * * * * 

Types of health conditions (cancer, diabetes, and 

so forth) * * * * * 

 Insurance coverage (R’s, other family members’) * * * * * * * * 

 Does others’ health limit work (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Accidents (on-the-job, how, when) * * * * 

Is R able to go outdoors, use public transportation, 

or perform personal care without help * * * * * 

Is R able to go shopping, manage money, do light 

housework, do heavy housework * 

F. Marital and family characteristics 

 Marital status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Marital history (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Husband’s attitude toward R’s working * * * * * 

 Life status of R’s and R’s husband’s parents * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of dependents * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

New information or update on all children born or 

adopted * * * * 

 Number and ages of children in household * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Childcare arrangements (type, cost, preferences, 

attitude toward, hypothetical use, effect on work) 

(details vary) 

* * * * * * 

 Childcare (extent of responsibility) * * * * * 

Any children in college last 12 months; amount of 

support from R and spouse * * * * * * * 

Family or household (starting in 1989) members: 

age, sex, relationship to R, education, employment 

status (details vary) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Unrelated household members (relationship to R, 

sex, age) * * * * 

Household activities (responsibility for, attitude 

toward, hours per week spent on) (details vary) * * * * * * * * * 

 Responsibility for care of chronically ill or disabled * * * * * * * * * 

 Frequency of contact with family and friends * 

G. Characteristics of R’s husband; characteristics of R’s partner, beginning in 1995 

 Current labor force status * * * * * * * 

 Usual weeks worked * 

 Firm size * 

 Covered by Social Security or Railroad Retirement * 

 Covered by collective bargaining or union contract * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 93

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

 Is spouse or partner union member * * * * * * 

 Job search activity in past month * * * * * 

 Retirement plans, expectations, status * * * * * * 

 Weeks and hours worked 1982–86 * 

Detailed information on employers since 1987 or 

since last interview (occupation, industry, class of 

worker, rate of pay, start and stop date, hours 

worked, shift worked) 

 * * * * * * 

 Unemployment of husband (weeks) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does husband’s health limit his work * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Duration of husband’s limitations * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

H. Questions asked of widows 

 Husband’s medical care in 12 months before death * * * * * 

 How medical costs were paid * * * * * 

 R’s care of husband * * * * * 

Death benefits paid to R (amount, source, lump 

sum or periodic payment) * * * * * 

 Financial assistance to R from family members * * * * * 

I. Financial characteristics 

 Total net family assets * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Total family income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from farm or business * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Wage or salary income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment compensation income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Supplemental unemployment benefits income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from public assistance * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Social Security income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Pension income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Disability income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Rental income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Interest or dividend income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Total market value of Food Stamps received * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from AFDC/TANF * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Alimony payments * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Child support payments * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Amount of financial assistance received from 

others * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from other sources * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

J. Transfers (“H” refers to “husband” of the respondent) 

 Life status of R’s parents, age * * * * * * * * * * * 
94 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

 Cause of death of R’s parents * 

 Life status of H’s parents, age * * * * * * * * * 

 Health status of R’s and H’s parents * * 

 Do R’s or H’s parents live in nursing home * * 

 Marital status of R’s and H’s parents * * 

 Distance R’s and H’s parents live from R * * * * * 

 Yearly income of R’s and H’s parents * 

 Do R’s and H’s parents own home; value * 

 Amount of R’s and H’s parents’ assets and debts * * 

 Transfers of time to R’s and H’s parents * * 

 Transfers of money to R’s and H’s parents * * 

 Transfers of time from R’s and H’s parents * 

 Transfers of money from R’s and H’s parents * 

 Did R’s parents have will * * * 

 Amount of parents’ estate * * * 

If R has a daughter in the Young Women cohort: 

 Transfers of time from daughter to R or H * 

 Transfers of money from daughter to R or H * 

Sex, age and date of birth, highest grade 

completed of R’s and H’s children * * 

 Relationship of child(ren) to R * * 

 Residence of child(ren) and distance from R * * 

Do child(ren) and child(ren)’s spouse own home; 

value * * 

 Amount of child(ren)’s assets and debts * * 

 Transfers of time to and from child(ren) * * 

Transfers of money to and from child(ren) * * 

 Does R have will; who are beneficiaries * * 

K. Attitudes and perspectives 

 How R feels about job * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 What does R like best and least about job * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Would R continue to work if had enough money to 

live on * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Which is more important: high wages or liking work * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward women working * * * * * 

Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control score 

(shortened version in 2001) * * * * 

 CES-Depression Scale * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward women and retirement * * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 95

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

 Way R is feeling these days * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Discrimination (R ever experienced, type, ways 

experienced, practiced by employers) (details vary) * * * * * * * 

Has R progressed, held own, or moved backward * * 

Have job pressures increased, decreased, or 

remained the same * * 

 Job requirements, satisfaction, importance of work * 

L. Retirement 

 Expected age at retirement * * * * * 

Will R be eligible for Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement benefits * * * * 

Characteristics of current employer’s pension plan * * * * * * * * * * 

 R’s knowledge of employer’s pension plan * * * * * * * 

Years employed in jobs covered by Social Security 

or Railroad Retirement * * * * 

Eligible for other pensions, type, number of years 

worked on jobs * * * * * 

 Eligible for spouse’s benefits, type * * * * * * * * 

Expected age at retirement (spouse) * * * * * 

Spouse eligible for Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement benefits * * * * * 

Spouse eligible for other retirement benefits, type 

(details vary) * * * * * * 

R and spouse have personal retirement plan 

(details vary) * * * * 

 Sources of retirement income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Retirement health insurance coverage * * * * * * 

 Detailed pension plan coverage * * * * * * 

 Pension plan characteristics data (SCF) * 

M. Hypothetical job offer 

 Would R accept * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week would work * * * * * * * * * 

 Rate of pay required * * * * * * * * * 

 Kind of work desired * * * * * 

N. Volunteer work 

 Did any unpaid volunteer work * * * * * * 

 Hours per week worked, organization * * * * * * 

 Why volunteered * * * 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

A. Residence 

 Region of residence (South or non-South) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
96 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.6. Selected Mature Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 30 to 44 in 1967 

Variable 67 68 69 71 72 74 76 77 79 81 82 84 86 87 89 92 95 97 99 01 03 

 Does R live in metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Mover or nonmover status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Comparison of State, county, metropolitan 

statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of State, county * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics 

 Size of local area labor force * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Local area unemployment rate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Index of demand for female labor * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 97

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

A. Current labor force and employment status 

Survey week labor force and employment 

status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks worked (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual hours worked during weeks worked * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks unemployed (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Spells of unemployment in past year * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks out of labor force (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics of current or last job 

 Occupation, industry, class of worker * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Work schedule (worked and preferred) * * * 

 Shift worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Fringe benefits available * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Detailed fringe benefit series * * * * * * 

 Hourly rate of pay * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Work at home for employer * * * * * * * * 

 Promotions (any, effects) * * * * * * * * 

 Firm size * * * * * * * * 

 Supervises others * * * * * * * * 

 Displaced worker * * * * * * * * 

 Commuting time, costs * * * * * 

 Type of training for this job * 

 Covered by collective bargaining * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Is R union member * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Did R ever hold unionized job * 

C. Work experience prior to initial survey 

Occupation and industry of job held during last 

year of high school * 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, start 

date, stop date, and reason for leaving first job 

after school 

* 

D. Work experience since previous survey 

 Interfirm mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * 
98 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, hours per 

week, start date, stop date, and reason for 

leaving intervening jobs (through 1983) or 

employers (beginning in 1988) (details vary) 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences 

 Age or date of birth * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Nationality or ethnicity * * * * * 

 Type of residence at age 14 and age 18 * 

 Person(s) R lived with at age 14 * * 

 Occupation of household head when R was 14 * 

 Highest grade completed by father * * 

 Highest grade completed by mother * 

Were magazines, newspapers, and library 

cards available in home at age 14 * 

Parental encouragement to continue education 

past high school * * 

B. Migration 

 Years at current residence * 

 Geographic mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of birthplace to current residence * 

C. Education 

 Current enrollment status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Highest grade completed * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason stopped attending high school * * * * * * 

 Is current school public * * * * * * * 

 High school curriculum * * * * * * 

 High school subjects enjoyed most and least * 

 High school activities * 

 Index of high school quality * 

 Index of college quality * * 

College attended, highest degree received, 

field of study * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 College tuition (full-time amount) * * * * * * * 

 College financial aid types, amount * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason R left college * * * * * 

 Reason R’s college plans have changed * * * * * 

 Math courses in high school * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 99

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

D. Training outside regular school 

Any training or educational program (did R 

take, did R complete, type, sponsor, reason 

took, duration, hours per week, reason not 

completed) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Other training or educational program (did R 

take, did R complete, type, apprenticeship 

program, sponsor, reason took, duration, hours 

per week) 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

On-the-job training (did R take, did R complete, 

duration, hours per week attended) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Program enrolled in at last interview (type, did 

R complete, duration) * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Training used on current job (universes vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

E. Health and physical condition 

 Comparison of R’s condition with past * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does health limit work * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does health limit school activity * * * * 

 Does health limit housework * * * * * * * 

 Duration of health limitations * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Problematic activities (stooping, kneeling, and 

so forth) * * * * * * * 

Problematic working conditions (noise, heat, 

and so forth) * * * * 

 Accidents (on-the-job, how, when) * 

Does health permit going outdoors, using public 

transportation, or personal care * * * * 

 Does others’ health limit R’s work * * * * * * * * * 

 Insurance coverage of R and family members * * * * * * * * 

 Cigarette; alcohol use * * * * * * * 

 Height and weight (details vary) * * * 

 Menopausal status and hormone use * * * * * 

 Extent to which R drives an automobile * 

Types of health conditions (cancer, diabetes, 

and so forth) * * * * * * 

F. Marital and family characteristics 

 Marital status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Husband’s attitude toward R working * * * * 

 Marital history * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

New information or update on all children born 

or adopted * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of dependents * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Parents (weeks worked, full-time, occupation) * * * * * * 
100 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

 Number and ages of children in household * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Any children in college last 12 months; amount 

of support from R and spouse * * * * * * 

Childcare arrangements (type, cost) (universes 

and details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Number of children R expects and number R 

considers ideal * * * * * * * * * 

Family or household (starting in 1988) members: 

Relationship to R, sex, age, education, 

employment status 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Unrelated household members: Relationship to 

R, age, sex * * * * * 

Household activities: Responsibility, hours per 

week spent * * * * * 

 Did R’s husband ever have a unionized job * * 

 Did R’s father ever have a unionized job * 

Responsibility for care of chronically ill or 

disabled * * * * * * * * 

G. Characteristics of R’s husband; characteristics of R’s partner, beginning in 1995 

 Current labor force status * * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual weeks worked * 

 Firm size * 

Covered by Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement * * 

Covered by collective bargaining or union 

contract * * * * * * 

 Is spouse or partner union member * * * * * * 

 Job search activity in past month * * * * * 

 Retirement plans, expectations, status * * * * * * 

 Weeks and hours worked 1990–92 * 

Detailed data on employers since 1987 or last 

interview (occupation, industry, class of worker, 

rate of pay, start and stop date, hours worked, 

shift worked) 

 * * * * * * 

 Unemployment of husband (weeks) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Husband’s health limits work, limitations * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

H. Questions asked of widows 

Husband’s medical care in 12 months before 

death * * * * * 

 How medical costs were paid * * * * * 

 R’s care of husband * * * * * 

 Financial assistance to R from family members * * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 101

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

Death benefits paid to R (amount, source, lump 

sum or periodic payment) * * * * * 

I. Financial characteristics 

 Total net family assets * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Total family income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from farm or business * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Wage or salary income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment compensation income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Supplemental unemployment benefits income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Disability income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Rental income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Interest and dividend income * * * * * * * * * * 

 Total market value of Food Stamps received * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from AFDC/TANF * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income received from public assistance * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Income from Social Security or Railroad 

Retirement * * * * * * * * * 

 Pension income * * * * * * 

 Alimony payments * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Child support payments * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Financial assistance received from others * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from other sources * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

J. Transfers (“H” refers to “husband” of the respondent) 

 Life status of R’s parents, age * * * * * * * 

Cause of death of R’s parents * 

 Life status of H’s parents, age * * * * 

Health status of R’s and H’s parents * * * 

 Do R’s or H’s parents live in nursing home * * * 

 Marital status of R’s and H’s parents * * * 

 Distance R’s and H’s parents live from R * * * 

 Yearly income of R’s and H’s parents * * 

 Do R’s and H’s parents own home; value * * 

Amount of R’s and H’s parents’ assets and 

debts * * * 

 Transfers of time to R’s and H’s parents * * * 

 Transfers of money to R’s and H’s parents * * * 

 Transfers of time from R’s and H’s parents * 

 Transfers of money from R’s and H’s parents * 

 Did R’s parents have will * * 
102 CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

 Amount of parents’ estate * * * 

Sex, age and date of birth, highest grade 

completed of R’s and H’s children * * 

 Relationship of child(ren) to R * * 

 Residence of child(ren) and distance from R * * 

Do child(ren) and child(ren)’s spouse own 

home; value * * 

 Amount of child(ren)’s assets and debts * * 

 Transfers of time to and from child(ren) * * 

 Transfers of money to and from child(ren) * * 

 Does R have will; who are beneficiaries * * 

 If R has a mother in the Mature Women cohort: 

 Mother’s marital status * 

Amount of mother’s and mother’s husband’s 

assets and debts * 

 Transfers of time to and from R and mother * 

 Transfers of money to and from R and mother * 

K. Attitudes and perspectives 

 How R feels about job * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 What R likes best and least about job * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward homemaking * * * * 

Would R continue to work if had enough money 

to live on * * * * * 

Which is more important: high wages or liking 

work * * * 

 Attitude toward women working * * * * * 

 Facet-Specific Job Satisfaction Index * 

 Would R like more education or training * * * * * * * 

 Educational goal * * * * * * * 

What would R like to be doing when 35 years 

old * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

What would R like to be doing when 50 years 

old and 5 years from now * * * * 

 Knowledge of World of Work score * 

Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control score 

(shortened version in 2001) * * * * * * 

 CES-Depression Scale * * * * * * 

 Way feeling these days * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 IQ score * 

Discrimination ever experienced, type 

(expanded in 1988) * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 5: NLS OF MATURE AND YOUNG WOMEN 103

Table 5.7. Selected Young Women variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1968 

Variable 68 69 70 71 72 73 75 77 78 80 82 83 85 87 88 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 

 Has R progressed, held own, moved backward * * * 

 Attitudes toward retirement * * * * * 

L. Hypothetical job offer 

 Would R accept * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week would work * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Rate of pay, kind of work required * * * * * * * * * * * 

M. Volunteer work 

 Did any unpaid volunteer work * * * * * 

 Hours per week worked, organization * * * * * 

 Why volunteered * * * 

N. Retirement 

 Expected age at retirement * 

Characteristics of current employer’s pension 

plan * * * * * * 

 R’s knowledge of employer’s pension plan * * * * * 

Eligible for other pensions, type, number of 

years worked on jobs * 

 Eligible for spouse’s benefits * * * * * 

Spouse eligible for other retirement benefits, 

type * 

 R and spouse have personal retirement plan * * * * * 

 Sources of retirement income * 

 Retirement health insurance coverage * * * * * 

 Detailed pension plan coverage * * * * * 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

A. Residence 

 Region of residence (South or non-South) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Did R live in metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Mover or nonmover status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Comparison of State, county, metropolitan 

statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of State, county * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics 

 Size of local area labor force * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Local area unemployment rate * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Index of demand for female labor * * * * * * 

 Accredited college in local area * * * 
104 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

THE NLS ORIGINAL COHORTS:

OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

The NLS of Older Men and the NLS of Young Men beganin the mid-1960s because the U.S. Department of Labor

was interested in studying the employment patterns of two

groups of men. Respondents to the NLS of Older Men were

a group of men in their 40s and 50s who were making decisions about the timing and extent of their labor force withdrawal and were planning for retirement. The NLS of Young

Men comprised men in their teens and early 20s, who were

completing school and making decisions about pursuing

additional training or schooling, entering the workforce, or

joining the military. Although surveys have been discontinued with these cohorts, the data are included on the crosscohort CD or can be downloaded from the NLS Web site at

www.bls.gov/nls.

Chapter organization

This chapter begins with a summary of the NLS men’s

samples and special features of the sampling design. Next,

users will find information on the interviews, fielding periods, retention rates, and sampling weights for the cohorts.

The chapter continues with descriptions of the topical content of the data sets and information on the specific data files

and documentation available for each cohort. Finally, tables

provide further detail on the types of questions asked during the men’s surveys and the survey years in which they

were included.

The samples

The U.S. Census Bureau established the two cohorts of men

through two household screenings. From the first household screening in early 1966, 5,518 Older Men ages 45 to 59

as of April 1, 1966, were designated for interview. Following

a second screening in September 1966, 5,713 Young Men

ages 14 to 24 as of April 1, 1966, were selected for interview.

Each sample group served to represent the civilian,

noninstitutionalized population of men in the same age group

residing in the United States at the time the samples were

selected. To meet the survey requirement of providing separate, statistically reliable estimates for black Americans, blacks

were to be represented in the sample at twice their expected

rate in the population.

Both of the men’s cohorts were first interviewed during

1966. Of the 5,518 Older Men identified during the household screenings, 5,020 (91 percent) participated in the 1966

survey. Of the 5,713 Young Men designated for interview,

5,225 (91 percent) completed the initial interview in 1966. Table

6.1 presents, by race, the numbers of respondents in the two

NLS men’s cohorts interviewed during the initial survey and

two subsequent surveys.

Multiple-respondent households

Older and Young Men. The sampling design used by the

Census Bureau to select respondents for the four 1960s cohorts made it possible for any given NLS household to include a mix of respondents from the same cohort or different

cohorts. At the time the samples were drawn, one-third of

the Older Men shared their household with at least one other

NLS respondent; more than three-quarters of the Young Men

1

Interviews were also conducted with 2,206 widows or

other family members of deceased respondents; these

interviews collected information about both the original

member of the cohort and his widow.

Table 6.1. Number of respondents interviewed by

cohort and race: Older and Young Men

Initial 10-year Final

Cohort survey survey survey

Older Men 1966 1976 1990

Total 5,020 3,487 12,092

Nonblack 3,600 2,521 1,603

Blacks 1,420 966 489

Young Men 1966 1976 1981

Total 5,225 3,695 3,398

Nonblack 3,787 2,848 2,622

Blacks 1,438 847 776
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 105

resided with at least one other NLS respondent. A matching

process, conducted after interviews were completed with

each of the 1960s cohorts, identified common relationships

in these multiple-respondent households during the early

survey years. Variables in the data files identify each of the

respondents belonging to a multiple-respondent household

at the time of the screening.

Table 6.2 presents the numbers of matched respondent

pairs for the NLS of Older and Young Men by cohort and

relationship. During the initial survey years, 492 Older Men

respondents shared a household with a wife who was a respondent in the Mature Women cohort, 963 Older Men lived

with a daughter who was a member of the Young Women

cohort, and 1,039 Older Men resided with a son who was a

respondent in the Young Men cohort. Originally, 574 Young

Men respondents shared a household with a wife who was a

respondent in the Young Women cohort and 1,620 Young

Men lived with a mother who was a member of the Mature

Women cohort. In addition, some of the original Young Men

lived with siblings participating in the surveys: 902 shared a

household with a brother who also was a respondent in the

Young Men cohort and 1,243 Young Men lived with a sister

who was a member of the Young Women cohort. Attrition

and mortality of one or more members have reduced the number of pairs for whom data are available across survey years.

These pairs offer unique samples for a number of research topics. However, the original cohorts do not contain

nationally representative samples of spouses and siblings

of all ages and living arrangements. For example, sibling

pairs represent only those who were fairly close in age and

both in the sampled age range at the time of the initial survey.

Researchers should be aware of these statistical sampling

issues when using NLS data to study siblings and spouses.

Interviews and fielding periods

Older Men. Respondents in the Older Men cohort completed 12 interviews from 1966 through 1983 and an additional interview sponsored by the National Institute on Aging

in 1990. Interviewers from the Census Bureau conducted all

of the surveys. Interviewers administered seven of these

surveys personally and conducted five by telephone; the

third survey of this cohort, in 1968, was mailed to the respondents. While the first several interviews took place during

the spring, the fielding of most surveys occurred from July

through September. The 1990 interviews of living respondents and widows or other family members of deceased respondents took place from October through December.

Paper-and-pencil instruments (PAPI) were used exclusively

during the 1966–90 interviews of this cohort. Interviews

with the Older Men have ceased.

Young Men. The Young Men cohort participated in 12 surveys from 1966 through 1981. Interviewers from the Census

Bureau conducted all of the surveys. Interviewers administered eight surveys in person and conducted four by telephone. The fielding period typically lasted from October

through December. PAPI instruments were used exclusively

for all interviews with this cohort. The last interviews with

the Young Men were conducted in 1981.

Number

Cohort relationships: Young Men of pairs

Young Men-Older Men 1,099

Son-father (same household) 1,039

Son-father (different household) 60

Young Men-Young Women 2,398

Brother-sister (same household) 1,243

Brother-sister (different household) 571

Husband-wife (same household) 574

Husband-wife (different household) 10

Young Men-Mature Women 1,671

Son-mother (same household) 1,620

Son-mother (different household) 51

Young Men-Young Men 902

Brothers (same household) 902

Table 6.2. Number of respondent pairs by cohort and relationship identified during the initial survey

years: Older and Young Men

Number

Cohort relationships: Older Men of pairs

Older Men-Mature Women 506

Husband-wife (same household) 492

Father-daughter (same household) 11

Brother-sister (same household) 3

Older Men-Young Women 988

Father-daughter (same household) 963

Father-daughter (different household) 25

Older Men-Young Men 1,099

Father-son (same household) 1,039

Father-son (different household) 60
106 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Attrition

Older Men. Attrition from the Older Men sample remained

relatively low through the late 1960s; 87 percent of the original 5,020 respondents were still participating in 1969. In the

1970s and early 1980s, several factors, including respondent

mortality, contributed to the gradual rise in attrition. At the

time of the last interview in 1990, the retention rate, calculated as the percentage of base-year respondents interviewed

in a given year, was approximately 42 percent. Table 6.3

presents the total number of respondents interviewed during each survey and the corresponding retention rate.

With the exception of the 1990 resurvey, respondents

institutionalized in jail or long-term care facilities were not

interviewed. Through 1983, the Census Bureau enforced a

policy of not interviewing those respondents who refused

to be interviewed or were not interviewed for any reason for

2 consecutive years. As of the 1983 survey, the major groups

not interviewed included 1,498 respondents reported as deceased by the Census Bureau, 686 respondents who refused

an interview, and 159 who were dropped from the sample

after 2 consecutive years of noninterview. The Census Bureau attempted to include nearly all dropped respondents (or

a surviving family member of deceased respondents) in the

1990 resurvey.

The 1990 resurvey of the NLS of Older Men was unique

in that interviewers surveyed two respondent groups. Participants included 2,092 cohort members, or more than 41

percent of the original sample, and 2,206 widows or other

family members of deceased respondents. Because the survey obtained information from this second sample group

about the life experiences of the deceased sample member,

the 1990 survey had a total data collection completion rate of

86 percent of the original sample. Of the eligible respondents, only 235 living Older Men were not interviewed in

1990; 154 of these refused an interview. No widow or other

family member was interviewed for 487 deceased respondents.

Young Men. When surveys ceased for the Young Men cohort in 1981, 3,398 (almost 65 percent) of the original 5,225

respondents were interviewed. Table 6.3 presents the total

number of respondents interviewed at each survey point

and the corresponding retention rates. By the time of the

1981 survey, the major groups not interviewed included 866

respondents who refused an interview, 545 respondents

dropped from the sample after 2 consecutive years of

noninterview, 139 respondents reported as deceased by the

1

Retention rate is defined as the percentage of base-year respondents who were interviewed in any given survey year. Included in the calculations are deceased and institutionalized

respondents, as well as those serving in the military. 2

In addition to the 2,092 surviving members of the original

sample interviewed during 1990, interviews were also completed

with 1,341 widows and 865 other family members who supplied

data about deceased respondents. 3 “Reason for Noninterview” variables are available for 1990,

but because coding categories differ substantially from those

used in the 1967 through 1983 survey years, the retention rate in

1990 for living respondents only is omitted from this table.

Older Men Young Men

Primary Response rate, Primary Response rate,

type of Total Retention living type of Total Retention living

Year interview interviewed rate1 respondents only interview interviewed rate1 respondents only

1966 Personal 5,020 100.0 100.0 Personal 5,225 100.0 100.0

1967 Personal 4,744 94.5 95.6 Personal 4,790 91.7 91.9

1968 Mail 4,648 92.6 95.1 Personal 4,318 82.6 83.0

1969 Personal 4,381 87.3 91.5 Personal 4,033 77.2 77.7

1970 — — — — Personal 3,993 76.4 77.1

1971 Personal 4,175 83.2 90.3 Personal 3,987 76.3 77.2

1973 Telephone 3,951 78.7 88.7 Telephone 4,014 76.8 78.0

1975 Telephone 3,732 74.3 87.2 Telephone 3,977 76.1 77.4

1976 Personal 3,487 69.5 83.4 Personal 3,695 70.7 72.0

1978 Telephone 3,219 64.1 80.2 Telephone 3,538 67.7 69.3

1980 Telephone 3,001 59.8 78.7 Telephone 3,438 65.8 67.5

1981 Personal 2,832 56.4 76.3 Personal 3,398 65.0 66.8

1983 Telephone 2,633 52.5 74.8 — — — —

1990 Personal 22,092 41.5 3— — —— —

Table 6.3. Interview schedules and retention rates: Older and Young Men
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 107

Census Bureau, and 111 respondents who were in the Armed

Forces and thus not eligible for interview. As with the Older

Men cohort, institutionalized respondents were not interviewed.

Sampling weights

Older and Young Men. The Center for Human Resource

Research (CHRR) at The Ohio State University created sampling weights for each cohort after the initial interview and

adjusted them after each subsequent interview. These

weights account for the overrepresentation of blacks in the

initial sample and for persons who were not interviewed.

Analysis of each of the cohorts indicates that the reweighting

scheme used to compensate for nonresponse has allowed

the samples to remain representative (Parnes, 1992; Rhoton,

1984).

Major data elements

Surveys of the men’s cohorts have collected two basic types

of information: (1) Core data on each respondent’s labor

market experiences, education and training, family income,

household composition, marital status, and health, and (2)

supplementary data specific to the age, sex, and stage of life

or labor market attachment of the cohort (for example, military service information, retirement plans and experiences,

leisure-time activities, and volunteer work).

This section provides brief summaries of the major data

elements available for respondents in the NLS of Older and

Young Men. Certain data elements were collected longitudinally, while others are available only for selected survey

years; not all data elements are present for all respondents.

Readers should keep in mind that some categories are

cohort-specific and may not be applicable to respondents in

both cohorts. For example, the Older Men surveys focused

on collecting information about retirement planning, health

conditions, insurance coverage, and the ways in which respondents spent their leisure time. The surveys of the

younger cohort traced in detail the respondents’ educational

experiences, occupational aspirations, training investments,

and career choices. The descriptions of the data elements

note differences in data collection between the male cohorts.

Because the descriptions below are not comprehensive,

readers interested in additional information should review

the topical descriptions of variables found in the Older and

Young Men User’s Guide, examine the detailed variable tables

provided at the end of this chapter, acquire copies of the

survey instruments, and browse the documentation files

contained in the Older Men and Young Men data set available online. The Older and Young Men User’s Guide can be

downloaded from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Web

site at www.bls.gov/nls.

Data elements for the NLS of Older and Young Men are

discussed in the order presented in figure 6.1.

1. Labor market experiences

Older and Young Men. Each survey collected information

regarding the labor force status of respondents during the

survey week. Employed respondents provided details about

their occupation, class of worker, rate of pay, hours worked

per week, and attitude toward their current job. Employed

respondents also reported the number of weeks they were

employed; reference periods varied by survey. Additional

questions asked during selected surveys collected information about the respondent’s job or job-related activities (such

as the shift worked, union membership, commuting time, tenure, types of fringe benefits, and eligibility for retirement

benefits).

Respondents who reported being unemployed or out of

the labor force provided data about their activities. Included

is information on methods the respondent used to seek employment, the number of weeks he spent looking for work,

his plans to seek employment, the number of weeks he spent

out of the labor force, and his reasons for not seeking work.

Selected surveys collected detailed information for up

to seven intervening jobs. Specific data include start and

stop dates for each job, the number of hours worked, the

occupation and industry, the respondent’s class of worker,

his rate of pay, and his reason for leaving the job.

1 Labor market experiences

2 Work-related discrimination

3 Training investments

4 Schooling information (school records, aptitude, IQ)

5 Military experiences

6 Retirement plans and experiences

7 Volunteer work and leisure-time activities

8 Income and assets

9 Physical well-being, health care, and health insurance

10 Alcohol and cigarette use

11 Attitudes, aspirations, and psychological well-being

12 Geographic and environmental data

13 Demographics, family background, and household

composition

14 Marital history, children, and dependents

15 Household chores

Figure 6.1. Data elements in the NLS of Older

and Young Men
108 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

2. Work-related discrimination

Older and Young Men. Older Men answered questions on

work-related discrimination during the 1971, 1976, and 1980

interviews; the Young Men responded to these questions in

1971 and 1976. In general, each series of questions asked the

respondent whether he had experienced a particular type of

discrimination because of age, race, religion, or sex during a

specified period. A follow-up question asked for information

on the type(s) of discrimination experienced.

3. Training investments

Older Men. Every personal interview of the Older Men (except the 1990 survey) collected information on the training

experiences of the respondents. The initial survey asked: (1)

Whether the respondent had been enrolled in a vocational

or commercial training program while in high school and (2)

whether he had ever been enrolled in a business or technical

training program, a program offered by a company training

school, an Armed Forces training program, or another type

of apprenticeship or vocational training program since he

had stopped his regular schooling. If he had, the questionnaire collected details about each training program.

Subsequent surveys updated this information with data

on additional training courses or educational programs in

which the respondent had enrolled either on the job or elsewhere. Core information was gathered on type, length, sponsor, completion status, and use on current job, as well as

hours per week spent in the training, the reason the respondent did not complete it, and the reason for enrollment in

additional training. The 1971 survey collected details on the

plans of the respondent to take additional training courses.

A special set of questions fielded during 1981 gathered information on respondents’ participation in retirement training programs and the usefulness of those programs in their

plans for various aspects of retirement living.

Young Men. The 1966 survey gathered information about

the respondent’s plans for additional education or training

and asked whether he had ever been enrolled in a business

or technical training program, a program offered by a company training school, or another vocational or apprenticeship training program since he had stopped his regular

schooling. If he had, the interviewer collected details about

each training program. These details included the type of

training; number of months and hours per week spent in

training; whether the program was completed and, if not, the

reason; and use of the skills acquired in the training program

on the respondent’s current or last job.

Subsequent surveys updated this training record by

collecting the same details about programs in which the respondent had enrolled since the date of his last interview. In

addition, the 1970 and 1975 surveys collected retrospective

data on any training or educational courses taken prior to

October 1967 and asked about the respondent’s plans to

enroll in training courses in the future. Beginning with the

1973 interview, the surveys included questions about

whether the respondent had participated in an apprenticeship program; the 1975 survey fielded a retrospective set of

questions on apprenticeships. The military service series

included questions on the types of training the respondent

had taken while in the Armed Forces and the length of each

training program. This series also asked whether the respondent used skills acquired in the training program on his

current or last job.

4. Schooling information (school records, aptitude, IQ)

Older Men. Respondents in the Older Men cohort provided

information on their educational status and attainment at

selected survey points. The initial survey collected information on the highest grade the respondent had attended and

completed and asked whether he had been enrolled in a vocational or commercial curriculum during high school. The

1976 interview gathered information on the highest grade

completed by the respondent, the year of his high school

graduation, the year he last attended college, whether he

had earned a college degree, and, if so, the highest college

degree he attained.

Some surveys include information on current school

enrollment, highest grade attended, and highest grade completed for each family member living in the respondent’s

household at the time of the interview.

Young Men. A primary focus of the Young Men surveys was

on schooling and the transition from school to work. Therefore, the interviews of this cohort regularly collected information on both the respondent’s enrollment in regular

schooling and his educational attainment. In addition, a separate 1968 survey of high schools attended by respondents in

this cohort provides details on school characteristics and

testing information for the respondent.

Each respondent has provided the following types of

school-related information: His current school enrollment

status, the grade he currently attends, the highest grade he

has completed, the date he received a high school diploma or

equivalent, whether he had ever attended college, the type

of college degree he earned, the type of his high school and

college curricula, his college field of study, the type(s) of

financial assistance he received, college tuition amounts he

paid, the type of school (public or private) he attended, and

the geographic location of each school he attended.

During 1968, a special set of questions gathered information from the respondent about his experiences in high

school and college. Details include his participation in high
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 109

school extracurricular activities, the amount of time he spent

on homework, the high school subjects he liked and disliked,

and his overall attitude toward his high school years. Those

who had attended college answered questions on the college fields of study they liked and disliked, their attitude

toward their college years, and their educational aspirations.

Multiple surveys collected data on the educational aspirations and expectations of the Young Men. Available information includes the number of years of education the

respondent desired; the college degree he desired; the years

of education he expected; and, for each respondent who

planned on attending college, the type of college he expected

to attend, his intended field of study, and his expected responsibility for expenses.

A separate school survey mailed directly to each school

in 1968 collected information on the secondary schools attended by respondents in this cohort. Data included characteristics of the school (for example, type of school, student

enrollment by grade, expenditures per pupil, number of books

in the library) and characteristics of the school’s teachers

and counselors (number of teachers and counselors, salaries, and so forth). A set of constructed variables summarizes attributes, such as the ratio of students to teachers, and

provides an index of overall school quality.

The school survey also recorded respondents’ grade

point averages and individual test scores from instruments

such as the Otis/Beta/Gamma, California Test of Mental

Maturity, Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test, and the Scholastic Aptitude Test (available for select respondents). An

“IQ score” created from these data is available for more than

3,300 Young Men respondents. Finally, the school survey

collected information about respondents’ behaviors in school

in regard to absenteeism, disciplinary actions, and so on.

5. Military experiences

Older Men. The data set makes available a limited amount of

information on respondents’ military service. The 1967 and

1976 surveys asked whether a respondent had ever served

in the Armed Forces. Those who had served provided information on the general period(s) of service (for example, during World War II, peacetime before 1950) in the 1967 survey;

the 1976 survey gathered start and stop dates for up to two

periods of active duty. The initial survey collected information on the respondent’s participation in vocational training

while in the Armed Forces. The final four surveys of the

Older Men asked about income from Armed Forces pensions.

Young Men. Multiple surveys sought information on the

military experiences of respondents in this cohort. The survey first asked whether the respondent had ever served in

the Armed Forces. If he had, follow-up questions determined the branch in which he served, the rank he held,

whether he had enlisted or been drafted, and the number of

months he spent on active duty. Training questions asked

about the kinds of training he received, the length of his

training, and whether the skills he acquired were used in a

recent job. The military occupation he held for the longest

time, whether he felt that his military service helped or hurt

his career, and the date he separated from active duty also

were determined. In addition, the 1967–71 surveys asked all

age-eligible respondents for their current draft classification

and, if applicable, the reason for their 1-Y or 4-F rejection.

6. Retirement plans and experiences

Older Men. The retirement plans, expectations, and experiences of the Older Men constituted an important part of

each interview’s data collection. Surveys regularly asked

about each respondent’s retirement plans and expectations,

including the age at which he expected to stop working,

whether a compulsory retirement plan would require him to

stop working at a given age, what that age was, and whether

he would work longer if he could. The respondent also provided information about the types of activities he expected

to engage in after retirement, his attitudes toward work and

retirement, his eligibility for Social Security or other pension

benefits, the specific characteristics of the employer pension plan for which he was eligible, and the total income he

expected during retirement.

Details on the respondent’s retirement experiences include information on whether he had ever retired voluntarily

or involuntarily from a regular job, the date and reason, any

ways in which the respondent’s employer encouraged the

retirement decision, and whether the respondent would have

continued to work either full or part time had the employer

allowed. The surveys also determined the respondent’s attitude toward and satisfaction with his retirement and asked

about the specific retirement or leisure activities in which he

had engaged over the previous 12 months. Finally, this section of the survey covered the respondent’s residential moves

since retirement; the proximity of and assistance received

from his network of friends, relatives, and area community

service agencies; and household income received from pensions, Social Security or Railroad Retirement, and disability.

Every survey of this cohort has included “retired” as a reason for not being in the labor force during the survey week.

7. Volunteer work and leisure-time activities

Older Men. Certain surveys of the Older Men collected

information on how the respondent had spent his leisure

time during the previous year. These surveys recorded

whether the respondent had participated in leisure-time activities such as sports, reading books, pursuing hobbies,

visiting friends or relatives, maintaining a home, attending
110 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

the theater, performing volunteer work, or taking trips. They

also determined the extent of his participation in these activities.

8. Income and assets

Older and Young Men. The surveys regularly asked about

the total income received by the respondent’s family during

the past year and about the amount of income received from

various sources during that period by the respondent himself, his spouse, or other family members. Income sources

include wages and salary, business and farm income, unemployment compensation, rental income, interest and dividends, Social Security, disability payments, public assistance,

Food Stamps, pension benefits (Older Men), and child support and alimony (Young Men).

A series of questions on family assets and debts collected details on: (1) Whether the respondent and his spouse

owned their own home, other types of real estate, or automobiles and, if so, the total market value and amount owed on

each; (2) the value of other assets, such as savings accounts,

U.S. Savings Bonds, stocks or bonds, and personal loans;

and (3) whether there were other personal debts such as

money owed to stores, physicians, hospitals, or banks. In

1967, 1969, 1971, and 1990, the Older Men stated whether

they believed that their overall financial position was better,

worse, or about the same as it was a few years earlier; respondents in the Young Men cohort answered the same

question in 1967 through 1971.

9. Physical well-being, healthcare, and health

insurance

Older Men. A comprehensive set of health-related variables

is available for respondents in the Older Men cohort. This

data collection includes information on the respondent’s

health status, perceived changes in his health over time, types

of health-related problems and specific health conditions he

has experienced, hospitalizations or medical care he has received, and characteristics of his health insurance coverage.

Respondents also stated whether their health limited or prohibited working and whether any health problems were the

result of work-related accidents. Respondents surveyed in

1973 and 1990 also reported their height and weight.

Two separate series of questions have asked Older Men

respondents to evaluate their health. The first, fielded during seven surveys, asked each respondent to rate his health

as excellent, good, fair, or poor when compared to the health

of his male peers. The second, included in six surveys, determined the respondent’s general satisfaction with his health

condition.

During 1971, 1976, 1981, and 1990, respondents stated

whether they had experienced certain health-related problems such as pain, fatigue, weakness, fainting spells or dizziness, anxiety or depression, or shortness of breath. A second series of questions, fielded during the same surveys,

asked the respondent whether he ever had any difficulty

performing a predetermined set of activities, such as walking, using stairs, or standing for long periods of time.

Each survey (except 1968) collected information on the

respondent’s health limitations and their impact on the kind

or amount of work that he could do. A supplemental series of

questions, fielded during 1966, 1969, 1976, 1981, and 1990,

asked the respondent whether his health had prevented him

from working altogether. The 1976 survey determined

whether any of the respondent’s reported health problems

were the result of an accidental injury and whether the most

serious injury had occurred on the job.

In the 1990 survey, respondents reported specific health

conditions they had experienced during the 12-month period

before the interview. This survey gathered information on

whether the respondent needed help with activities such as

bathing, dressing, walking, shopping for personal items, or

managing money; it also asked who helped him complete

each activity.

Two surveys collected details on the respondent’s use

of the medical system. The 1981 survey included a series of

questions on the respondent’s use of emergency medical

assistance. The 1990 survey asked respondents and widows of deceased respondents for information regarding hospitalizations, care by a physician, and residency in a nursing

or convalescent home during the past 12 months or during

the 12 months before the respondent’s death.

The 1981 and 1990 surveys asked whether the respondent and his spouse were covered by health insurance. Further questions recorded the types of insurance (for example,

Medicare, veterans’ benefits) for which each was eligible.

For all interviews except the 1990 survey, the life status

of respondents at the time of the interview is indicated by

the designation “deceased” as the reason for noninterview.

In the 1990 survey, age at death and cause of death are available for sample members whom the Census Bureau believed

to be deceased. For these sample members, the Census Bureau obtained death certificates from State vital records departments and recorded information on up to four

contributing causes of death. These administrative data

supplement the cause of death information on 2,166 deceased

respondents that was collected directly from the widows or

other family members surveyed in 1990.

Young Men. Data include information on perceived changes

in the respondent’s health status over time, the types of

health-related problems he experienced, whether any of his

health problems was the result of a work-related accident,

and whether he worked in an unhealthy or dangerous environment.
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 111

At three survey points, respondents stated whether they

considered their health to have changed over the past few

years. Height and weight measurements of respondents interviewed during 1973 also are available. The 1971, 1976, and

1981 surveys asked whether the respondent had experienced

certain health-related problems such as pain, tiring easily,

weakness, or shortness of breath. A second series, fielded in

the same surveys, asked the respondent whether he ever

had any difficulty performing a predetermined set of activities such as walking, using stairs, standing for long periods,

stooping, lifting heavy weights, or reaching. Multiple surveys asked whether the respondent’s health condition limited his work or prevented him from working and, if it did,

how long he had experienced that restriction. The 1976 survey determined whether any of the reported health problems

was the result of an accidental injury and whether the most

serious injury had occurred on the job.

Both the regularly fielded health series and selected

administrations of a set of job satisfaction questions have

addressed other health issues related to the respondent’s

job and general working conditions. At multiple survey

points, respondents identified one or more specific characteristics of their workplace that they would have trouble

working around because of their health. The 1978 and 1981

surveys included a series of descriptive statements about

the working conditions associated with the respondent’s

current job.

For all interviews, the life status of respondents at the

time of the interview is indicated by a designation of “deceased” as the reason for noninterview.

10. Alcohol and cigarette use

Older Men. The 1990 survey collected information on the

frequency and quantity of respondents’ alcohol consumption in the past 12 months. If the respondent had consumed

at least 12 drinks during adulthood, he provided data on his

lifetime consumption of alcohol. Similar information was

supplied by the widows or other family members of those

respondents who were deceased.

The 1990 survey also collected information from both

respondents and widows on the respondent’s current and

past use of cigarettes. This series included data on the age

at which the respondent had started smoking regularly, the

age at which he had last smoked regularly, and the number of

cigarettes he smoked on an average day.

11. Attitudes, aspirations, and psychological

well-being

Older Men. A collection of attitude, aspiration, and psychological well-being variables is available for this cohort. The

Older Men responded to selected administrations of the

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D)

Scale (Radloff, 1977), the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), the Short Portable Mental Status

Questionnaire (Pfeiffer, 1975), and the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969). Periodic questions also investigated the respondent’s attitude toward his current job,

women working, various life events, and life in general.

Young Men. Members of this cohort also responded to a

variety of attitude, aspiration, and psychological well-being

questions. Information from the Internal-External Locus of

Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) is available for the Young Men,

as are answers to periodic questions gathering information

about the respondent’s general knowledge of the world of

work; his educational and occupational aspirations; and his

attitudes toward his current job, women working, and life in

general.

12. Geographic and environmental data

Older and Young Men. Three sets of variables provide information on the respondent’s current residence. The first

set broadly defines the geographic area in which the respondent resided at the time of the interview. This definition

includes the name of the census division (New England,

Middle Atlantic, Pacific, and so forth), whether the

respondent’s region of residence was located in the South or

a non-South region of the United States, and whether his

residence was in a metropolitan statistical area. In addition,

the 1990 survey of the Older Men collected information about

a second residence of the respondent.

The second set of variables compares the respondent’s

current State or metropolitan statistical area with those of his

previous residence, the location of his current job, and his

birthplace. A third series of variables details characteristics

of the respondent’s environment, including the size of the

labor force and the unemployment rate for the labor market

of the respondent’s current residence.

Research Data Centers. Geographic information collected

during interviews with the Older Men and Young Men is

available for research use at the Census Bureau’s Research

Data Centers. The cohort-specific files contain the respondent identification number, survey year, and State code.

Researchers may match these files with the NLS data sets.

The Research Data Centers have available, by survey year,

the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) State

codes, which represent the State of residence for each interviewed respondent. Having the State variables allows researchers to determine the census regions and divisions.

Variables also are available on the county of residence.

The Census Bureau developed the Research Data Centers to give researchers access to valuable data in a setting
112 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

designed to safeguard respondent confidentiality. Researchers interested in more detailed information on the procedures

to follow in applying for access to a Research Data Center

should see the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls.

13. Demographics, family background, and household

composition

Older and Young Men. The surveys have collected data

regarding each respondent’s race, nationality, date of birth,

age, and residential community at age 15 (Older Men) or age

14 (Young Men). Background information on the families of

respondents includes the birthplace of the respondent’s parents and grandparents, the relationship of the respondent to

the person(s) with whom he lived at age 14 or 15, the occupation and highest grade completed by his father or the head of

his household, and the life status of both the respondent’s

parents and his wife’s parents.

Each interview collected detailed information on the

composition of the respondent’s household. For as many as

20 family members (during the early survey years) or household members (later survey years) who were living in the

respondent’s household at the time of the survey, data include the individual’s relationship to the respondent, age or

date of birth, occupation, current school enrollment status,

highest grade of school attended, whether that grade was

completed, and the number of weeks and hours per week the

individual worked in the past year.

14. Marital history, children, and dependents

Older and Young Men. Every survey except the 1968 mail

survey for the Older Men asked about the respondent’s current marital status. Selected interviews collected information on the timing of marital transitions.

The 1981 survey of Young Men included a series of

questions on the type and timing of up to four marital changes

the respondent had experienced since he was last interviewed. During the 1990 interview of Older Men, widows of

deceased respondents provided information on their current

marital status; their marital status at the time of the

respondent’s death; the date of their marriage to the respondent; and the date of their most recent marriage, divorce, or

widowhood.

Data on the children or dependents of Older and Young

Men include the respondent’s total number of children; the

number of his children (under age 18) who lived in the household; and, for each child living in the household at the survey date, the child’s age, date of birth, and whether the child

was the respondent’s son or daughter. Surveys after 1978

for the Older Men and after 1976 for the Young Men asked

whether the child was an adopted, step-, or foster child. Selected surveys also determined the respondent’s relationship to each child living outside of the household.

On a regular basis, the interviews gathered information

on the number of the respondent’s dependents, excluding

his wife. Selected surveys provided details on the number

and relationship of dependents who lived outside the

respondent’s household. Questions in the 1981 survey of

Older Men asked for information about whether the

respondent’s children were currently dependent upon him

or likely to become dependent upon him in the future.

The 1990 survey of Older Men updated this information

on the respondent’s children and dependents. Details include the number of living children of the respondent, the

number of dependent sons and daughters, the number of

children residing with the respondent, and the number of

living children not residing in the respondent’s household.

In 1981, the Young Men answered a set of questions on

the number of children the respondent considered ideal, the

number he wanted to have, and when he expected his next

child to be born.

15. Household chores

Young Men. The 1981 survey collected information on the

total number of hours per week the respondent usually spent

performing household chores and the frequency with which

he performed specific tasks such as cooking, washing laundry, grocery shopping, or caring for young children.

Data files and documentation

The NLS of Older Men (1966–90) and the NLS of Young Men

(1966–81) data set contains the longitudinal record of each

respondent, as well as information from the 1968 school survey. Included are: (1) Raw responses to the questions administered during the 1966–90 surveys of Older Men and the

1966–81 surveys of Young Men; (2) a series of edited and

created variables based on these raw responses; (3) selected

demographic, household, and residential data provided by

the Census Bureau from its administrative records; (4) death

certificate data obtained in 1990 from State vital records departments (Older Men only); and (5) respondent- and schoolspecific information gathered during the separately

administered 1968 survey of the high schools attended by

respondents in the Young Men cohort.

Like those for the other NLS cohorts, the Older and

Young Men data set is available for download at the

www.bls.gov/nls Web site. The files include documentation

and are accompanied by search and extraction software that

enables users to easily peruse, select, and extract variables.

Chapter 8 provides more technical information on the NLS

data format and extraction software, as well as descriptions

of supplementary documentation items available for the NLS

of Older and Young Men.
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 113

References

Bradburn, Norman M. The Structure of Psychological WellBeing. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969.

Parnes, Herbert S., ed. “The NLS Older Male Sample Revisited: A Unique Data Base for Gerontological Research.

A Description of the Data Base and Illustrative Tables.”

Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research,

The Ohio State University, 1992.

Pfeiffer, Eric, M.D. “A Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire for the Assessment of Organic Brain Deficit in

Elderly Patients.” Journal of the American Geriatrics

Society 23,10 (October 1975): 433–41.

Radloff, Lenore Sawyer. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report

Depression Scale for Research in the General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1,3 (Summer 1977): 385–401.

Rhoton, Patricia. “Attrition and The National Longitudinal

Surveys of Labor Market Experience: Avoidance, Control and Correction.” Columbus, OH: Center for Human

Resource Research, The Ohio State University, 1984.

Rotter, Julian B. “Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs.

External Control of Reinforcements.” Psychological

Monographs 80,1 (1966): 1–28.

Selected variables by cohort and year: Older

and Young Men

Tables 6.4 and 6.5 depict selected variables from the main

data files of the NLS of Older and Young Men. The top row

of the tables lists the years in which the men have been

surveyed; the first column gives some of the variables that

have been collected. An asterisk (*) indicates that information for the designated variable was obtained for the cohort

in the year indicated. “R” used in variable descriptions stands

for “respondent.” Users should be aware that, in some instances, the variable descriptions in the tables represent a

group of questions and not single response items. In 1990,

the interviews of widows of the original Older Men respondents included questions about the respondent and also

about the situation of the widow; both sets of questions are

reflected in the table.
114 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Table 6.4. Selected Older Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 45 to 59 in 1966 

Variable 66 67 68 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 90 90

widow 

90 widow 

report on 

spouse 

I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

A. Current labor force and employment status 

 Survey week labor force and employment status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks worked (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual hours worked during weeks worked * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks unemployed (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Spells of unemployment in past year * * * * 

 Weeks out of labor force (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics of current or last job 

 Occupation, industry, class of worker * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hourly rate of pay * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Commuting time, costs * * 

 Covered by collective bargaining, union member * * * * 

 Job satisfaction * 

Years, weeks, or hours widow worked between 

R’s last interview and R’s death, since R’s death * 

C. Work experience prior to initial survey 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, hours per 

week, start date, stop date, and reason for 

leaving both first job and longest job since 

leaving school 

* 

D. Work experience since previous survey 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, hours per 

week, start date, stop date, and reason for 

leaving intervening jobs (details vary) 

 * * * * * * * * 

 Interfirm mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * 

II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences 

 Nationality * 

 Type of residence at age 15 * 

Person(s) R lived with at age 15 * 

Occupation of head of household when R was 15 * 

Highest grade completed by father * 

If R lived with mother at age 15, did she work for 

pay

 * 

Foreign language spoken in R’s home at age 15 * 
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 115

Table 6.4. Selected Older Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 45 to 59 in 1966 

Variable 66 67 68 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 90 90

widow 

90 widow 

report on 

spouse 

B. Migration 

 Years at current residence * * 

 Comparison of birthplace to current residence * 

 Geographic mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * 

 Part-year residence * 

C. Education 

 Highest grade completed * * 

 High school curriculum * 

College (year last attended, earned degree, 

highest degree received) * 

D. Training outside regular school 

 Has R taken, type * * * * * * 

 Sponsor of training * * * * * 

 Duration * * * * * * 

 Hours per week attended * * * * * 

 Did R complete * * * * * * 

 Reason decided to take * * * * * 

 Does R use training on current job * * * * * * 

E. Health and physical condition 

 Self-rating of health * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of R’s condition with past * * * * * * * 

 Attitude toward health condition * * * * * * 

 Does health limit work * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Duration of health limitations * * * * * * 

Uses glasses, hearing aid, other special 

equipment * 

Problematic activities and working conditions * * * * 

Types of special health problems in past 12 

months * 

 Medical care (eligibility for insurance benefits) * 

Type and cost of health insurance coverage for R 

and for his wife * 

Accidents (on-the-job, how, when) * 

Are R and his wife able to go outdoors, use 

public transportation, or do personal care without 

help 

 * * * * 

Assistance needed by R and his wife in daily 

living * 

Height, weight * * 
116 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Table 6.4. Selected Older Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 45 to 59 in 1966 

Variable 66 67 68 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 90 90

widow 

90 widow 

report on 

spouse 

 Does wife’s health limit her work * * * * * * * 

 Can wife go outdoors without help * 

 Duration of wife’s limitations * * * * * * 

 Does health of family members limit R’s work * 

 Does health of wife limit R’s work * * * * 

R ever smoked cigarettes, age at first and last 

use, quantity smoked per day * * 

Frequency and quantity of alcohol consumed by 

R during last 12 months of life and during adult 

life 

 * * 

Use and frequency of use of medical care 

(hospitalization, nursing home, or doctors’ care) 

during past 12 months (or prior to death) 

 * * 

 R ill before death and, if so, length of illness * 

Widow provided nursing care for R, time 

required, impact on widow’s employment status * 

 Parties responsible for R’s medical expenses * 

Total cost of medical expenses in year before 

death * 

 Evaluation of health cost burdens in past year * 

 Main cause of R’s death * 

F. Marital and family characteristics 

 Marital status * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Marital history (details vary) * * * * 

 Number of dependents * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Life status of R’s and R’s wife’s parents * * * * * * 

Number and ages of children in household * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Last household composition (relationship to R 

and his widow, age, highest grade attended, 

weeks worked, hours per week worked, 

occupation) 

 * * 

Family members in household (relationship to R, 

sex, age, enrollment status, employment status) * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Unrelated household members (relationship to R, 

sex, age, enrollment status, employment status, 

reason living together) 

 * * * * 

 Frequency of contact with children * * 

Wife’s work experience (longest job, retirement 

expectations and plans) * 

G. Financial characteristics 

 Total net family assets * * * * * * * 

 Total family income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 117

Table 6.4. Selected Older Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 45 to 59 in 1966 

Variable 66 67 68 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 90 90

widow 

90 widow 

report on 

spouse 

 Income from farm or business * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Wage or salary income * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment compensation income * * * * * * * * * 

Income from supplemental unemployment 

benefits * * * * 

 Income from rent, interest, or dividends * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Public assistance income * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Disability income * * * * * * * * 

 SSI income * * * * * * * 

 Total market value of Food Stamps received * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Social Security income, pension income * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Insurance income * 

Amount of financial assistance received from 

others * * * * * * 

 Income from other sources * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Sources and amounts of widow’s death benefits * 

 Evaluation of overall financial situation * * 

H. Military service 

 Dates of service * 

I. Attitudes/perspectives 

 How does R feel about job * * * * * * * * * * 

Evaluation of total work career * 

 What R likes best and least about job * * * * 

Would R continue to work if had enough money 

to live on * * 

What is more important:, high wages or liking 

work * 

 Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control score * * * * 

Attitude toward women working * * 

 Attitude toward R’s marriage * 

 Attitudes toward selected aspects of life * * * * * * 

 Pfeiffer cognitive functioning scale * * 

 CES-Depression Scale * 

 Bradburn Affect Balance Scale * * * 

Discrimination (R ever experienced, type, way in 

which experienced) * * * 

Has R progressed, held own, or moved 

backward * * 

Have job pressures increased, decreased, or 

remained the same * * 
118 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Table 6.4. Selected Older Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 45 to 59 in 1966 

Variable 66 67 68 69 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 83 90 90

widow 

90 widow 

report on 

spouse 

J. Retirement 

 Leisure activities * * * 

 Expected age of retirement * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 R’s plans after retirement * * * * * * * * 

 Compulsory retirement plan * * * * * * * * * 

Timing of retirement (reason retired, did 

employer encourage, would R continue to work if 

allowed) 

 * * * * * * 

 R ever retired and, if so, year retired * * 

 Attitudes toward retirement * * * * * * * 

 Wife’s, friends’ attitude toward R’s retirement * 

Characteristics of current employer’s pension 

plan * * 

 Amount of expected retirement income * * * 

 Use of various community services in past year * 

Type and frequency of contact and geographic 

proximity of R to children, other relatives, friends * 

 Automobile usage of R and spouse * 

To whom R would turn for financial or other help * 

 Geographic mobility since retirement * * 

 Retirement preparation course taken * 

K. Hypothetical job offer 

 Would R accept * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week would work * * * * * * * 

Rate of pay, kind of work required to accept * * * * * * * * * * 

L. Volunteer work 

 Has R done any volunteer work * * 

 Number of weeks and hours per week performed * * 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

A. Residence 

 South or non-South * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does R live in metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Mover or nonmover status * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Comparison of State, county, metropolitan 

statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics 

 Size of local area labor force * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Local area unemployment rate * * * * * * * * * * * * 
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 119

Table 6.5. Selected Young Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1966

Variable 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 

I. LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE VARIABLES 

A. Current labor force and employment status 

 Survey week labor force and employment status * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours worked in survey week * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks worked (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Usual hours worked during weeks worked * * * * * * * * 

 Weeks unemployed, out of labor force (time frames vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Spells of unemployment in past year * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics of current or last job 

 Occupation, industry, class of worker * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Start date and stop date * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week usually worked * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hourly rate of pay * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Commuting time, costs * * * * * 

 Covered by collective bargaining * * * * * * * 

 Is R union member * * * * * * * 

 Job Characteristics Inventory * 

 Fringe benefits available * * 

 Shift worked * * * * 

C. Work experience prior to initial survey 

 Occupation and industry of job held during last year in high school * 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, start date, stop date, and reason 

for leaving first job after leaving school (details vary) * 

D. Work experience since previous survey 

Occupation, industry, class of worker, hours per week, start date, stop 

date, and reason for leaving intervening jobs (details vary) * * * * * * * 

 Interfirm mobility (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * 

II. HUMAN CAPITAL AND OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES 

A. Early formative influences 

 Nationality * 

 Type of residence at age 14 and age 18 * 

 Person(s) R lived with at age 14 * 

 Occupation of head of household when R was 14 * 

 Highest grade completed by father and mother * 

Were magazines, newspapers, library cards available in home when R was

age 14 * 

 Parental encouragement to continue education past high school * * * 

B. Migration 

 Years at current residence * 
120 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Table 6.5. Selected Young Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1966

Variable 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 

 Comparison of birthplace to current residence * 

 Geographic mobility * * * * * * * * 

C. Education 

 Current enrollment status * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Highest grade completed * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason stopped attending high school * * * * * * 

 Is current school public * * * * * * * * 

 High school curriculum * * * * * * * 

 High school subjects enjoyed most and least * 

 High school activities * 

 Index of high school quality * 

 Index of college quality * * 

 College (attended, highest degree received, field of study) * * * * * * 

 College tuition (full-time amount) * * * * * * * 

 Financial aid in college (types and amount) * * * * * * * * * 

 Reason R left college * * * * * 

 Reason R’s college plans have changed * * * * * 

D. Training outside regular school 

Any training or educational program (did R take, current enrollment 

status, type, sponsor, duration, hours per week attended) (details vary) * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does R use additional training on current job * * * * * * * 

E. Health and physical condition 

 Does health limit work * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does health limit school activity * * * * * * 

 Duration of health limitations * * * * * * 

 Problematic activities and working conditions * * * 

 Accidents (on-the-job, how, when) * 

 Comparison of R’s condition with past * * * 

Is R able to go outdoors, use public transportation, or do personal care 

without help * * * 

 Does wife’s health limit her work; duration of wife’s limitations * * * * * * 

Does others’ health limit R’s work * * * 

F. Marital and family characteristics 

 Marital status * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Marital history * * * * 

Number of dependents * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Parents: Life status, weeks worked, full-time, occupation * * * * 

 Number and ages of children in household * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Number of children R expects to have, and number he considers ideal * 
CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN 121

Table 6.5. Selected Young Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1966

Variable 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 

Family members: Relationship to R, age, sex, education, employment 

status * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unrelated household members: Relationship to R, sex, age * * * 

 Household activities (responsibility for, hours per week spent on) * 

G. Financial characteristics 

 Total net family assets * * * * * 

 Total family income * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from farm or business * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Wages or salary income * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Unemployment compensation income * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from supplemental unemployment benefits * * 

 Disability income * 

 Rental income * 

 Interest income * 

 Total market value of Food Stamps received * * * 

 Income from AFDC/TANF * 

 Income from public assistance * * * 

 Amount of financial assistance received from others * * * * * * * * * * 

 Income from other sources * * * * * * * * * * * * 

H. Military service 

 Ever served in * * * * * * * * 

 Branch of Armed Forces served in * * * * * 

 Months spent in Armed Forces * * * * * 

 Military occupation held longest * * * * * 

 How entered Armed Forces * * * * * 

 Did military service help/hurt career * * * 

 Rank held in Armed Forces * * * * 

Primary training received (did R complete, duration, type, used on job) * * * * * 

GI (VA) benefits (ever used, type) * * 

 Draft (classification, reason rejected) * * * * * 

 Disability (discharged for, service-connected, compensation rating) * * 

I. Attitudes/perspectives 

 How does R feel about job * * * * * * * * * 

What R likes best and least about job * * * * * * * * * 

 Facet-Specific Job Satisfaction Index * * 

 Would R continue to work if he had enough money to live on * * * 

 What is more important:, high wages or liking work * 

 Would R like to receive more education or training * * * * * * * 
122 CHAPTER 6: NLS OF OLDER AND YOUNG MEN

Table 6.5. Selected Young Men variables by survey year: Respondents ages 14 to 24 in 1966

Variable 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 75 76 78 80 81 

 Educational goal and expected education * * * * * 

 What kind of work would R like to be doing at age 30 * * * * * * * * * 

 Knowledge of World of Work score * 

 Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control score * * * 

 IQ score * 

 Attitude toward women working * * * 

 Discrimination (ever experienced, type) * * 

 Has R progressed, held his own, or moved backward * * 

 Have job pressures increased, decreased, or remained the same * 

J. Hypothetical job offer 

 Would R accept * * * * * * * * * * 

 Kind of work required to accept * * * * * * * * * * 

 Hours per week would work * * * * * * * * * * 

 Rate of pay required to accept * * * * * * * * * * 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES 

A. Residence 

 South or non-South * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Does R live in metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Mover or nonmover status * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Comparison of State, county, metropolitan statistical area * * * * * * * * * * * * 

B. Characteristics 

 Size of local labor force * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Local area unemployment rate * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 Accredited college in local area * * * 
CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH 123

A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

Since the late 1960s, the National Longitudinal Surveys

(NLS) have served as a rich source of data for researchers in a broad range of disciplines. The first journal article

using NLS data appeared in the November 1969 issue of the

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Monthly Labor Review. Coauthored by Herbert S. Parnes and Ruth S. Spitz, the study

examined labor mobility among respondents in the NLS Older

Men and Young Men cohorts.

Since that time, nearly 400 different professional journals have reviewed and published some 1,700 NLS-based

research papers. In addition, more than 2,000 working papers, government reports, monographs, dissertations, and

presentations have used NLS data, making the NLS a frequently used source of data for both academic and policyoriented research.

Although most of the academic research articles have

appeared in economics and sociology journals, NLS data

also are used by researchers in other disciplines such as

medicine, psychology, education, law, political science, and

geography. NLS-based research also appears in special-interest journals that focus on topics such as aging, children

and adolescents, the family, careers and occupations, substance use, and criminology.

This chapter presents a sampler of NLS-based journal

articles published over the past 5 years, grouped by field of

study. The range of categories reflects the breadth of research domains currently using NLS data. A bibliography of

annotated citations for all known NLS research is available

on the Internet at www.nlsbibliography.org. Finally, bibliographies of research based on NLSY79 fertility, childcare, and

child development data are detailed in chapter 10.

AGING

Gustman, Alan L. and Steinmeier, Thomas L. “Retirement in

Dual-Career Families: A Structural Model.” Journal of

Labor Economics 18,3 (July 2000): 503–45.

Long, J. Scott and Pavalko, Eliza K. “The Life Course of

Activity Limitations: Exploring Indicators of Functional

Limitations over Time.” Journal of Aging and Health

16,4 (August 2004): 490-517.

ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG USE

Buster, Maury A. and Rodgers, Joseph Lee. “Genetic and

Environmental Influences on Alcohol Use: DF Analysis

of NLSY Kinship Data.” Journal of Biosocial Science

32,2 (April 2000):

Glied, Sherry. “Youth Tobacco Control: Reconciling Theory

and Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Health Economics

21,1 (January 2002): 117–35.

Harford, Thomas C. and Muthen, Bengt O. “Adolescent and

Young Adult Antisocial Behavior and Adult Alcohol Use

Disorders: A Fourteen-Year Prospective Follow-Up in a

National Survey.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 61,4

(July 2000): 524–28.

Jennison, Karen. “The Short-Term Effects and Unintended

Long-Term Consequences of Binge Drinking in College:

A 10-Year Follow-Up Study.” American Journal of Drug

and Alcohol Abuse 30,3 (August 2004): 659-675.

Kaestner, Robert. “A Note on the Effect of Minimum Drinking Age Laws on Youth Alcohol Consumption.” Contemporary Economic Policy 18,3 (July 2000): 315–25.

Kawaguchi, Daiji. “Peer Effects on Substance Use Among

American Teenagers.” Journal of Population Economics 17,2 (2004): 351-368.

Koch, Steven F. and Ribar, David C. “A Siblings Analysis of

the Effects of Alcohol Consumption Onset on Educational Attainment.” Contemporary Economic Policy

19,2 (April 2001): 162–74.

McCarty, Carolyn A.; Ebel, Beth E.; Garrison, Michelle M.;

Digiuseppe, David L.; Christakis, Dimitri A.; and Rivara,

Frederick P. “Continuity of Binge and Harmful Drinking

From Late Adolescence to Early Adulthood.” Pediatrics 114,3 (September 2004): 714-720.

Muthen, Bengt O. and Muthen, Linda K. “The Development

of Heavy Drinking and Alcohol-Related Problems from
124 CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

Ages 18 to 37 in a U. S. National Sample.” Journal of

Studies on Alcohol 61,2 (March 2000): 290–300.

Rashad, Inas and Kaestner, Robert. “Teenage Sex, Drugs

and Alcohol Use: Problems Identifying the Cause of

Risky Behaviors.” Journal of Health Economics 23,3

(May 2004): 493-504.

Reardon, David C.; Coleman, Priscilla K.; and Cougle, Jesse

R. “Substance Use Associated With Unintended Pregnancy Outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey

Of Youth.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol

Abuse 30,2 (2004): 369-383.

Veazie, Mark A. and Smith, Gordon S. “Heavy Drinking, Alcohol Dependence, and Injuries at Work among Young

Workers in the United States Labor Force.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 24,12 (December 2000): 1811–19.

CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

Aizer, Anna. “Home Alone: Supervision After School and

Child Behavior.” Journal of Public Economics 88,9-10

(August 2004): 1835-1848.

Anderson, Patricia M.; Butcher, Kristin F.; and Levine, Phillip

B. “Maternal Employment and Overweight Children.”

Journal of Health Economics 22,3 (May 2003): 477-505.

Aughinbaugh, Alison Aileen. “The Impact of Attrition on

the Children of the NLSY79.” Journal of Human Resources 39,2 (Spring 2004 ): 536-563.

Averett, Susan L.; Gennetian, Lisa Anoush; and Peters, H.

Elizabeth. “Patterns and Determinants of Paternal Child

Care during a Child’s First Three Years of Life.” Marriage and Family Review 29,2-3 (2000): 115–36.

Berger, Lawrence Marc. “Income, Family Structure, and Child

Maltreatment Risk.” Children and Youth Services Review 26,8 (August 2004): 725-799.

Beron, Kurt and Farkas, George. “The Detailed Age Trajectory of Oral Vocabulary Knowledge: Differences by Class

and Race.” Social Science Research 33,3 (September

2004): 464-497.

Berry, E. Helen; Shillington, Audrey M.; Peak, Terry; and

Hohman, Melinda M. “Multi-Ethnic Comparison of Risk

and Protective Factors for Adolescent Pregnancy.”

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 17,2 (April

2000): 79–96.

Cleveland, Hobart Harrington; Jacobson, Kristen C.; Lipinski,

John J.; and Rowe, David C. “Genetic and Shared Environmental Contributions to the Relationship between

the Home Environment and Child and Adolescent

Achievement.” Intelligence 28, 1 (2000): 69–86.

Fischhoff, Baruch; Parker, Andrew M.; Bruine De Bruin,

Wändi; Downs, Julie; Palmgren, Claire; Dawes, Robyn;

and Manski, Charles F. “Teen Expectations for Significant Life Events.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64,2 (Summer 2000): 189–205.

Fuligni, Allison Sidle; Han, Wen-Jui; and Brooks-Gunn,

Jeanne. “The Infant-Toddler HOME in the 2nd and 3rd

Years of Life.” Parenting: Science and Practice 4, 2-3

(April-September 2004): 139-159.

Gittleman, Maury and Aughinbaugh, Alison Aileen. “Does

Money Matter? A Comparison of the Effect of Income

on Child Development in the United States and Great

Britain.” The Journal of Human Resources 32,2 (Spring

2003): 416-440.

Griesler, Pamela C.; Kandel, Denise B.; and Davies, Mark.

“Ethnic Differences in Predictors of Initiation and Persistence of Adolescent Cigarette Smoking in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.” Nicotine and

Tobacco Research 4, 1 (February 2002): 79-93.

Grogan-Kaylor, Andrew. “The Effect of Corporal Punishment on Antisocial Behavior in Children.” Social Work

Research 28,3 (September 2004): 153-163.

Hao, Lingxin; Astone, Nan M; and Cherlin, Andrew J. “Adolescents’ Formal Employment and School Enrollment:

Effects of State Welfare Policies.” Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management 23,4 (Fall 2004): 697-721.

Harper, Cynthia Channing and McLanahan, Sara S. “Father

Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Journal of Research

on Adolescence 14,3 (September 2004): 369-398.

Hayward, Mark D. and Gorman, Bridget K. “The Long Arm

of Childhood: The Influence of Early-Life Social Conditions on Men’s Mortality.” Demography 41,1 (February

2004): 87-108.

Hockaday, Catheryn Michele; Crase, Sedahlia Jasper; Shelley,

Mack C.; and Stockdale, Dahlia F. “A Prospective Study

of Adolescent Pregnancy.” Journal of Adolescence 23,4

(August 2000): 423–38.

Hofferth, Sandra L. and Reid, Lori Lynn. “Early Childbearing
CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH 125

and Children’s Achievement Over Time.” Perspectives

on Sexual and Reproductive Health 34, 1 (January/February 2002): 41–49.

Holloway, Steven R. and Mulherin, Stephen. “The Effect of

Adolescent Neighborhood Poverty on Adult Employment.” Journal of Urban Affairs 26,4 (October 2004):

427-455.

Kruse, Douglas L. and Mahony, Douglas. “Illegal Child Labor in the United States: Prevalence and Characteristics.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54,1

(October 2000): 17–40.

Levine, Phillip B. and Zimmerman, David J. “Children’s Welfare Exposure and Subsequent Development.” Human

Resources Abstracts 35, 4 (December 2000).

Mehmet-Radji, Ozlem. “Early Television Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children.” Child: Care,

Health & Development 30,5 (September 2004): 559-561.

Michael, Robert T. “Children’s cognitive skill development

in Britain and the United States.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 27, 5 (September 2003):

396-409.

Mott, Frank L. “The Utility of the HOME-SF Scale for Child

Development Research in a Large National Longitudinal Survey: The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

1979 Cohort.” Parenting: Science and Practice 4, 2-3

(April-September 2004): 259-270.

McCulloch, Andrew; Wiggins, Richard D.; Joshi, Heather;

and Sachdev, Darshan. “Internalizing and Externalizing

Children’s Behaviour Problems in Britain and the US:

Relationships to Family Resources.” Children & Society 14 (2000): 368–83.

McLoyd, Vonnie C. and Smith, Julia. “Physical Discipline

and Behavior Problems in African American, European

American, and Hispanic Children: Emotional Support as

a Moderator.” Journal of Marriage and the Family

64,1 (February 2002): 40–53.

Padilla, Yolanda Chavez; Boardman, Jason D.; Hummer, Robert A.; and Espitia, Marilyn. “Is the Mexican American

‘Epidemiologic Paradox’ Advantage at Birth Maintained

through Early Childhood?” Social Forces 80,3 (March

2002): 1101–23.

Persico, Nicola; Postlewaite, Andrew; and Silverman, Daniel

Susman. “The Effect of Adolescent Experience on Labor Market Outcomes: The Case of Height.” Journal of

Political Economy 112,5 (October 2004): 1019-1053.

Plotnick, Robert D.; Garfinkel, Irwin; McLanahan, Sara S.;

and Ku, Inhoe. “Better Child Support Enforcement: Can

It Reduce Teenage Premarital Childbearing?” Journal

of Family Issues 25,5 (July 2004): 634-658.

Ruhm, Christopher J. “Parental Employment and Child Cognitive Development.” Journal of Human Resources 39,1

(Winter 2004): 155-192.

Slade, Eric Phillip. “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Parent Perception of Child Need for Mental Health Care Following

School Disciplinary Events.” Mental Health Services

Research 6, 2 (June 2004): 75-92.

Slade, Eric Phillip and Wissow, Lawrence S. “Spanking in

Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers.” Pediatrics 113, 5 (May 2004): 1321-1330.

Strauss, Richard S. “Childhood Obesity and Self-Esteem.”

Pediatrics 105,1 (January 2000): N1–N5.

Waldfogel, Jane. “Child Welfare Research: How Adequate

Are the Data?” Children and Youth Services Review

22,9-10 (2000), 705–41.

Williams, Donald R. “Youth Self Employment: Its Nature and

Consequences.” Small Business Economics 23,4 (November 2004): 323-3.

CRIMINOLOGY

Gius, Mark. “The Economics of the Criminal Behavior of

Young Adults: Estimation of an Economic Model of Crime

with a Correction for Aggregate Market and Public Policy

Variables - Statistical Data Included.” The American

Journal of Economics and Sociology 58, 4 (1999): 947-

957.

Gould, Eric D.; Weinberg, Bruce A.; and Mustard, David B.

“Crime Rates and Local Labor Market Opportunities in

the United States: 1979–1997.” Review of Economics

and Statistics 84,1 (February 2002): 45–61.

Kowaleski-Jones, Lori. “Staying Out of Trouble: Community Resources and Problem Behavior among High-Risk

Adolescents.” Journal of Marriage and the Family

62,2 (May 2000): 449–64.

Lochner, Lance John. “Education, Work, and Crime: A Hu-
126 CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

man Capital Approach.” International Economic Review 45,3 (August 2004): 811-844.

Lochner, Lance John and Moretti, Enrico. “The Effect of

Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports.” American Economic Review

94,1 (March 2004): 155-189.

McGloin, Jean Marie; Pratt, Travis C.; and Maahs, Jeff. “Rethinking the IQ-Delinquency Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis of Multiple Theoretical Models.” Justice

Quarterly 21,3 (September 2004): 603-636.

Pratt, Travis C.; Turney, Michael G.; and Piquero, Alex R.

“Parental Socialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Structural Sources of Low SelfControl.” Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 41,3 (August 2004): 219-244.

Vander Ven, Thomas Michael and Cullen, Francis T. “The

Impact of Maternal Employment on Serious Youth Crime:

Does the Quality of Working Conditions Matter?” Crime

and Delinquency 50,2 (April 2004): 272-292.

ECONOMICS

Aassve, Arnstein. “The Impact of Economic Resources on

Premarital Childbearing and Subsequent Marriage

among Young American Women.” Demography 40,1

(February 2003): 105-126.

Ahituv, Avner and Tienda, Marta. “Employment, Motherhood, and School Continuation Decisions of Young

White, Black, and Hispanic Women.” Journal of Labor

Economics 22,1 (January 2004): 115-158.

Alon, Sigal; Donahoe, Debra; and Tienda, Marta. “The Effects of Early Work Experience on Young Women’s Labor Force Attachment.” Social Forces 79,3 (March 2001):

1005–34.

Altonji, Joseph G. and Dunn, Thomas Albert. “An

Intergenerational Model of Wages, Hours, and Earnings.” Journal of Human Resources 35,2 (Spring 2000):

221–58.

Cancian, Maria and Meyer, Daniel R. “Work After Welfare:

Women’s Work Effort, Occupation, and Economic WellBeing.” Social Work Research 24,2 (June 2000): 69–86.

Centeno, Mario. “The Match Quality Gains from Unemployment Insurance.” Journal of Human Resources 39,3

(Summer 2004): 839-63.

Dunn, Thomas and Holtz-Eakin, Douglas. “Financial Capital, Human Capital, and the Transition to Self-Employment: Evidence from Intergenerational Links.” Journal

of Labor Economics 18,2 (April 2000): 282–305.

Engelhardt, Gary V. “Nominal Loss Aversion, Housing Equity Constraints, and Household Mobility: Evidence

from the United States.” Journal of Urban Economics

53,1 (January 2003): 171-195.

Fairlie, Robert W. “Earnings Growth Among Young LessEducated Business Owners.” Industrial Relations 43,3

(July 2004): 634-660.

Gabriel, Paul E. “Differences in Earnings, Skills and Labour

Market Experience Among Young Black and White

Men.” Applied Economics Letters 11,6 (May 15, 2004):

337-342.

Ganzach, Yoav and Pazy, Asya. “Within-Occupation Sources

of Variance in Incumbent Perception of Job Complexity.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74,1 (March 2001): 95–108.

Goldsmith, Arthur H.; Veum, Jonathan R.; and Darity Jr., William. “Working Hard for the Money? Efficiency Wages

and Worker Effort.” Journal of Economic Psychology

21,4 (August 2000): 351–85.

Grossberg, Adam J. “The Effect of Formal Training on Employment Duration.” Industrial Relations 39,4 (October 2000): 578–99.

Grossberg, Adam J. and Sicilian, Paul. “Legal Minimum

Wages and Employment Duration.” Southern Economic

Journal 70,3 (January 2004): 631-646.

Hamermesh, Daniel S. “The Changing Distribution of Job

Satisfaction.” Journal of Human Resources 36,1 (Winter 2001): 1–30.

Handcock, Mark S.; Morris, Martina; and Bernhardt, Annette.

“Comparing Earnings Inequality Using Two Major Surveys.” Monthly Labor Review 123,3 (March 2000): 48–

61.

Hess, Gregory D. “Marriage and Consumption Insurance:

What’s Love Got to Do with It?” Journal of Political

Economy 112,2 (April 2004): 290-318.

Hill, Elizabeth T. “Post-School-Age Training among Women:

Training Methods and Labor Market Outcomes at Older

Ages.” Economics of Education Review 20,2 (April
CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH 127

2001): 181–91.

Johnson, William R.; Kitamura, Yuichi; and Neal, Derek A.

“Evaluating a Simple Method for Estimating Black-White

Gaps in Median Wages.” The American Economic Review 90,2 (May 2000): 339–43.

Keane, Michael P. and Wolpin, Kenneth I. “Eliminating Race

Differences in School Attainment and Labor Market

Success.” Journal of Labor Economics 18,4 (October

2000): 614–52.

Krashinsky, Harry. “Do Marital Status and Computer Usage

Really Change the Wage Structure?” Journal of Human Resources 39,3 (Summer 2004): 774-91.

Kugler, Adriana D. and Saint-Paul, Gilles. “How Do Firing

Costs Affect Worker Flows in a World with Adverse

Selection?” Journal of Labor Economics 22,3 (July

2004): 553-585.

Latimer, Melissa. “A Contextual Analysis of the Effects of

Gender and Place on Workers’ Incomes.” Sociological

Spectrum 20,3 (July-September 2000): 345–56.

Lewis, Danielle and Terrell, Dek. “Experience, Tenure, and

the Perceptions of Employers.” Southern Economic

Journal 67,3 (January 2001): 578–97.

Light, Audrey L. and Omori, Yoshiaki. “Unemployment Insurance and Job Quits.” Journal of Labor Economics

22,1 (January 2004):159-189.

Loeb, Susanna and Corcoran, Mary. “Welfare, Work Experience, and Economic Self-Sufficiency.” Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management 20,1 (Winter 2001): 1–20.

Mitra, Aparna. “Cognitive Skills and Black-White Wages in

the United States Labor Market.” Journal of SocioEconomics 29,4 (2000): 389–401.

Mohanty, Madhu S. “Determination of Participation Decision, Hiring Decision, and Wages in a Double Selection

Framework: Male-Female Wage Differential in the U.S.

Labor Market Revisited.” Contemporary Economic

Policy 19,2 (April 2001): 197–212.

Munasinghe, Lalith and Sigman, Karl. “A Hobo Syndrome?

Mobility, Wages, and Job Turnover.” Labour Economics 11,2 (April 2004): 191-219.

Oettinger, Gerald S. “Seasonal and Sectoral Patterns in

Youth Employment.” Monthly Labor Review 123,4

(April 2000): 6–12.

Parent, Daniel. “Incentives? The Effect of Profit Sharing

Plans Offered by Previous Employers on Current Wages.”

Economics Letters 83,1 (April 2004): 37-43.

Rosenzweig, Mark R. and Wolpin, Kenneth I. “Natural ‘Natural Experiments’ in Economics.” Journal of Economic

Literature 38,4 (December 2000): 827–74.

Rothstein, Donna S. “Supervisory Status and Upper-Level

Supervisory Responsibilities: Evidence from the

NLSY79.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54,3

(April 2001): 663–80.

Sen, Bisakha. “How Important Is Anticipation of Divorce in

Married Women’s Labor Supply Decisions? An

Intercohort Comparison Using NLS Data.” Economics

Letters 67,2 (May 2000): 209–16.

EDUCATION

Barron, John M.; Ewing, Bradley T.; and Waddell, Glen R.

“The Effects of High School Athletic Participation on

Education and Labor Market Outcomes.” The Review

of Economics and Statistics 82,3 (August 2000): 409–

21.

Black, Dan A. and Smith, Jeffrey A. “How Robust Is the

Evidence on the Effects of College Quality? Evidence

from Matching.” Journal of Econometrics 121, 1-2 (July/

August 2004): 99-125.

Blackburn, McKinley L. “The Role of Test Scores in Explaining Race and Gender Differences in Wages.” Economics of Education Review 23,6 (December 2004): 555-577.

Bratsberg, Bernt and Ragan, James F. Jr. “The Impact of

Host-Country Schooling on Earnings: A Study of Male

Immigrants in the United States.” Journal of Human

Resources 37,1 (Winter 2002): 63–105.

Cameron, Stephen V. and Heckman, James J. “The Dynamics

of Educational Attainment for Black, Hispanic, and White

Males.” Journal of Political Economy 109,3 (June

2001): 455–99.

Cameron, Stephen V. and Taber, Christopher Robert. “Estimation of Educational Borrowing Constraints Using

Returns to Schooling.” Journal of Political Economy

112,1, Part 1 (February 2004): 132-182.

Caputo, Richard K. “Head Start and School-to-Work Pro-
128 CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

gram Participation.” Journal of Poverty 8,2 (2004): 25-

42.

Das, Mitali. “Identification and Sequential Estimation of

Panel Data Models with Insufficient Exclusion Restrictions.” Journal of Econometrics 114,2 (June 2003): 297-

329.

Eamon, Mary Keegan. “Effects of Poverty on Mathematics

and Reading Achievement of Young Adolescents.”

Journal of Early Adolescence 22,1 (February 2002): 49–

74.

Eamon, Mary Keegan and Altshuler, Sandra J. “Can We

Predict Disruptive School Behavior?” Children and

Schools 26,1 (January 2004): 23-37.

Ganzach,Yoav. “Parents’ Education, Cognitive Ability, Educational Expectations and Educational Attainment: Interactive Effects.” British Journal of Educational

Psychology 70,3 (September 2000): 419–41.

Ginther, Donna K. “Alternative Estimates of the Effect of

Schooling on Earnings.” Review of Economics and Statistics 82,1 (February 2000): 103–16.

Gratsberg, Bernt and Ragan, James F. “The Impact of HostCountry Schooling on Earnings.” Journal of Human

Resources 37,1 (Winter 2002): 63–105.

Han, Wen-Jui; Leventhal, Tama; and Linver, Miriam R. “The

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment

(HOME) in Middle Childhood: A Study of Three LargeScale Data Sets.” Parenting: Science and Practice 4, 2-

3 (April-September 2004): 189-210.

Heckman, James J. and Vytlacil, Edward. “Identifying the

Role of Cognitive Ability in Explaining the Level of and

Change in the Return to Schooling.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83,1 (February 2001): 1–12.

Hoxby, Caroline M. “Does Competition among Public

Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?” American

Economic Review 90,5 (December 2000): 1209–38.

Leigh, Duane E. and Gill, Andrew Matthew. “The Effect of

Community Colleges on Changing Students’ Educational

Aspirations.” Economics of Education Review 23,1

(February 2004): 95-103.

Light, Audrey L. and Strayer, Wayne Earle. “Who Receives

the College Wage Premium?” Journal of Human Resources 39,3 (Summer 2004): 746-774.

Linver, Miriam R.; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne; and Cabrera,

Natasha. “The Home Observation for Measurement of

the Environment (HOME) Inventory: The Derivation of

Conceptually Designed Subscales.” Parenting: Science

and Practice 4, 2-3 (April-September 2004): 99-114.

Manski, Charles F. and Pepper, John V. “Monotone Instrumental Variables: With an Application to the Returns to

Schooling.” Econometrica 68,4 (July 2000): 997–1010.

Monks, James. “The Returns to Individual and College Characteristics: Evidence from the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth.” Economics of Education Review 19,3

(June 2000): 279–89.

Murnane, Richard J.; Willett, John B.; and Tyler, John H.

“Who Benefits from Obtaining a GED? Evidence from

High School and Beyond.” Review of Economics and

Statistics 82,1 (February 2000): 23–37.

Parcel, Toby L. and Dufur, Mikaela J. “Capital at Home and at

School: Effects on Student Achievement.” Social

Forces 79,3 (March 2001): 881–911.

Tobias, Justin L. and Li, Mingliang. “Returns to Schooling

and Bayesian Model Averaging: A Union of Two Literatures.” Journal of Economic Surveys 18,2 (April 2004):

153-181.

FAMILY STUDIES

Anderson, Deborah J.; Binder, Melissa; and Krause, Kate.

“The Motherhood Wage Penalty Revisited: Experience,

Heterogeneity, Work Effort, and Work-Schedule Flexibility.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review 56,2 (January 2003): 273-295.

Argys, Laura M.; Averett, Susan L.; and Rees, Daniel I.

“Welfare Generosity, Pregnancies, and Abortions

among Unmarried Recipients.” Journal of Population

Economics 13,4 (2000): 569–94.

Argys, Laura M.; Peters, H. Elizabeth; and Waldman, Donald

M. “Can the Family Support Act Put Some Life Back

into Deadbeat Dads?” Journal of Human Resources

36,2 (Spring 2001): 226–52.

Arnstein, Assave. “The Impact of Economic Resources on

Premarital Childbearing and Subsequent Marriage

among Young American Women.” Demography 40,1

(February 2003): 105-126.

Baird, Chardie L. and Reynolds, John R. “Employee Aware-
CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH 129

ness of Family Leave Benefits: The Effects of Family,

Work, and Gender.” Sociological Quarterly 45,2 (Spring

2004): 325-353.

Berger, Lawrence Marc and Waldfogel, Jane. “Maternity

Leave and the Employment of New Mothers in the United

States.” Journal of Population Economics 17,2 (2004):

331-350.

Cheng, Tyrone. “Impact of Family Stability on Children’s

Delinquency: An Implication for Family Preservation.”

Journal of Family Social Work 8, 1 (2004): 47-60.

Christakis, Dimitri A.; Zimmerman, Frederick J.; Digiuseppe,

David L.; and McCarty, Carolyn A. “Early Television

Exposure and Subsequent Attentional Problems in Children.” Pediatrics 113, 4 (April 2004): 708-713.

Davis, Shannon N. and Greenstein, Theodore N. “Interactive Effects of Gender Ideology and Age at First Marriage on Women’s Marital Disruption.” Journal of

Family Issues 25,5 (July 2004): 658-683.

Han, Wen-Jui; Waldfogel, Jane; and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne.

“The Effects of Early Maternal Employment on Later

Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 2 (May 2001): 336–54.

Kowaleski-Jones, Lori and Dunifon, Rachel. “Children’s

Home Environments: Understanding the Role of Family

Structure Changes.” Journal of Family Issues 25,1 (January 2004): 3-29.

Lang, Kevin and Zagorsky, Jay L. “Does Growing Up with a

Parent Absent Really Hurt?” Journal of Human Resources 36,2 (Spring 2001): 253–73.

Lerman, Robert I. and Sorensen, Elaine. “Father Involvement with Their Nonmarital Children: Patterns, Determinants, and Effects on Their Earnings.” Marriage and

Family Review Special Issue: Fatherhood: Research,

Interventions and Policies 29,2-3, Part I (2000): 137–58.

Leventhal, Tama; Martin, Anne; and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne.

“The EC-HOME Across Five National Data Sets in the

3rd to 5th Year of Life.” Parenting: Science and Practice 4, 2-3 (April-September 2004): 161-188.

Levine, Judith A.; Pollack, Harold; and Comfort, Maureen E.

“Academic and Behavioral Outcomes among the Children of Young Mothers.” Journal of Marriage and

Family 63,2 (May 2001): 355–69.

Lichter, Daniel T.; Batson, Christie D; and Brown, J. Brian.

“Welfare Reform and Marriage Promotion: The Marital

Expectations and Desires of Single and Cohabiting

Mothers.” Social Service Review 78,1 (2004): 2-25.

Light, Audrey L. “Gender Differences in the Marriage and

Cohabitation Income Premium.” Demography 41,2 (May

2004): 263-275.

Macmillan, Ross; McMorris, Barbara J.; and Kruttschnitt,

Candace. “Linked Lives: Stability and Change in Maternal Circumstances and Trajectories of Antisocial Behavior in Children.” Child Development 75,1 (January/

February 2004): 205-220.

Menaghan, Elizabeth G.; Mott, Frank L.; Cooksey, Elizabeth

C.; and Jekielek, Susan M. “Work and Family Patterns:

Effects across Generations.” Journal of Socio-Economics 29,6 (2000): 587–90.

Morrison, Donna Ruane and Ritualo, Amy R. “Routes to

Children’s Economic Recovery after Divorce: Are Cohabitation and Remarriage Equivalent?” American Sociological Review 65,4 (August 2000): 560–80.

O’Neill, June E. “Has Welfare Reform Changed Teenage

Behaviors?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22,2 (Spring 2003): 225-248.

Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincaid. “Cohabiting and Marriage

During Young Men’s Career Development Process.”

Demography 40,1 (February 2003): 127-149.

Rodgers, Joseph Lee; Cleveland, Hobart Harrington; Van Den

Oord, Edwin; and Rowe, David C. “Resolving the Debate Over Birth Order, Family Size, and Intelligence.”

American Psychologist 55, 6 (June 2000): 599–612.

Stewart, Jennifer. “Mommy Track: The Consequences of

Gender Ideology and Aspirations on Age At First Motherhood.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 30,2

(June 2003): 3-30.

Sweeney, Megan M. and Cancian, Maria. “The Changing

Importance of White Women’s Economic Prospects for

Assortative Mating.” Journal of Marriage and Family

66,4 (November 2004): 1015-1029.

Turley, Ruth N. Lopez. “Are Children of Young Mothers

Disadvantaged Because of Their Mother’s Age or Family Background?” Child Development 74, 2 (2003): 1-10.
130 CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

GEOGRAPHY

Glaeser, Edward L. and Mare, David C. “Cities and Skills.”

Journal of Labor Economics 19,2 (April 2001): 316–42.

Reagan, Patricia and Olsen, Randall J. “You Can Go Home

Again: Evidence from Longitudinal Data.” Demography 37,3 (August 2000): 339–50.

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SCIENCES

Anderson, Steven G. and Eamon, Mary Keegan. “Health

Coverage Instability for Mothers in Working Families.”

Social Work 49,3 (July 2004): 395-406.

Cawley, John. “The Impact of Obesity on Wages.” Journal

of Human Resources 39,2 (Spring 2004): 451-474.

Currie, Janet and Hotz, V. Joseph. “Accidents Will Happen?:

Unintentional Childhood Injuries and the Effects of Child

Care Regulations.” Journal of Health Economics 23,1

(January 2004): 25-60.

Dembe, Allard E.; Erickson, J. Bianca; and Delbos, Rachel.

“Predictors of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses: National Survey Findings.” Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Hygiene 1,8 (August 2004): 542-550.

Fu, Haishan and Goldman, Noreen. “The Association between Health-Related Behaviours and the Risk of Divorce in the USA.” Journal of Biosocial Science 32,1

(January 2000): 63–88.

Gibson, Diane. “Long-Term Food Stamp Program Participation is Differentially Related to Overweight in Young

Girls and Boys.” Journal of Nutrition 134,2 (February

2004): 372-380.

Gilleskie, Donna B. and Lutz, Byron F. “The Impact of Employer-Provided Health Insurance on Dynamic Employment Transitions.” Journal of Human Resources 37,1

(Winter 2002): 129–62.

Kenkel, Donald S.; Lillard, Dean R.; and Mathios, Alan D.

“Accounting for Misclassification Error in Retrospective Smoking Data.” Health Economics 13,10 (October

2004): 1031-1044.

Li, Kai and Poirier, Dale. “An Econometric Model of Birth

Inputs and Outputs for Native Americans.” Journal of

Econometrics 113,2 (April 2003): 337-361.

Maranto, Cheryl L. and Stenoien, Ann Fraedrich. “Weight

Discrimination: A Multidisciplinary Analysis.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 12,1 (March

2000): 9–24.

Pavalko, Eliza K. and Woodbury, Shari. “Social Roles as

Process: Caregiving Careers and Women’s Health.”

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41,1 (March

2000): 91–105.

Reardon, David C. and Cougle, Jesse R. “Depression and

Unintended Pregnancy in the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth: A Cohort Study.” British Medical

Journal 324,7330 (January 2002): 151–52.

Reville, Robert T.; Bhattacharya, Jayanta; and Weinstein,

Lauren R. Sager. “New Methods and Data Sources for

Measuring Economic Consequences of Workplace Injuries.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40,4

(September 2004): 452 – 463.

Van Den Oord, Edwin and Rowe, David C. “Racial Differences in Birth Health Risk: A Quantitative Genetic Approach.” Demography 37,3 (August 2000): 285–98.

Yazici, Esel Y. and Kaestner, Robert. “Medicaid Expansions

and the Crowding Out of Private Health.” Inquiry 37, 1

(2000): 23-32.

Zagorsky, Jay L. “Is Obesity as Dangerous to Your Wealth

as to Your Health?” Research on Aging 26,1 (January

2004): 130-152.

PSYCHOLOGY

Corwyn, Robert Flynn. “The Factor Structure of Global SelfEsteem among Adolescents and Adults.” Journal of

Research in Personality 34,4 (December 2000): 357–79.

Frey, Meredith C. and Detterman, Douglas K. “Scholastic

Assessment or g?” Psychological Science 15,6 (September 2004): 373-379.

SOCIOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHY

Antecol, Heather and Bedard, Kelly. “The Racial Wage Gap:

The Importance of Labor Force Attachment Differences

across Black, Mexican and White Men.” Journal of

Human Resources 39,2 (Spring 2004): 564-583.

Donohue, Susan M. and Heywood, John S. “Job Satisfaction and Gender: An Expanded Specification from the
CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH 131

NLSY.” International Journal of Manpower 25,2 (2004):

211-235.

Eckstein, Zvi and Wolpin, Kenneth I. “Estimating the Effect

of Racial Discrimination on First Job Wage Offers.”

Review of Economics and Statistics 81,3 (August 1999):

384–92.

Gordon, Rachel A. and Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay. “Availability of Child Care in the United States: A Description

and Analysis of Data Sources.” Demography 38, 2 (May

2001): 299–316.

Hakim, Catherine. “Lifestyle Preferences versus Patriarchal

Values: Causal and Non-Causal Attitudes.” Advances

in Life Course Research 8 (2004): 69-91.

Joyce, Theodore J.; Kaestner, Robert; and Korenman, Sanders D. “On the Validity of Retrospective Assessments

of Pregnancy Intention.” Demography 39,1 (February

2002): 199–213.

Klawitter, Marieka Marjorie; Plotnick, Robert D.; and

Edwards, Mark Evan. “Determinants of Initial Entry onto

Welfare by Young Women.” Journal of Policy Analysis

and Management 19,4 (Fall 2000): 527–46.

Lewis, Susan Kay and Oppenheimer, Valerie K. “Educational

Assortative Mating across Marriage Markets: Non-Hispanic Whites in the United States.” Demography 37,1

(February 2000): 29–40.

McLeod, Jane D. and Nonnemaker, James M. “Poverty and

Child Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Racial/Ethnic Differences in Processes and Effects.” Journal of

Health and Social Behavior 41,2 (June 2000): 137–61.

Mizell, Charles Andre. “Racial and Gender Variations in the

Process Shaping Earnings’ Potential: The Consequences of Poverty in Early Adulthood.” Journal of

Sociology and Social Welfare 27,2 (June 2000): 113–38.

Neal, Derek A. “The Measured Black-White Wage Gap

Among Women Is Too Small.” Journal of Political

Economy 112,1, Part 2 (February 2004): S1-S28.

Pettit, Becky and Western, Bruce. “Mass Imprisonment and

the Life Course: Race and Class Inequality in U.S. Incarceration.” American Sociological Review 69 (2004): 151-

69.

Powers, Rebecca S. and Wojtkiewicz, Roger A. “Occupational Aspirations, Gender, and Educational Attainment.”

Sociological Spectrum 24,5 (September/October 2004):

601-623.

Roscigno, Vincent J. “Family/School Inequality and African-American/Hispanic Achievement.” Social Problems 47,2 (May 2000): 266–90.

Rotolo, Thomas and Wilson, John. “What Happened to the

“Long Civic Generation”? Explaining Cohort Differences

in Volunteerism.” Social Forces 82,3 (March 2004): 1091-

1121.

Smith, Judith R.; Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne; Klebanov, Pamela

K.; and Lee, Kyunghee. “Welfare and Work: Complementary Strategies for Low-Income Women?” Journal

of Marriage and the Family 62,3 (August 2000): 808–

21.

Steen, Todd P. “Religion and Earnings: Evidence from the

NLS Youth Cohort.” International Journal of Social

Economics 23,1 (1996): 47-58.

Stern, David; Song, Yinquong; and O’Brien, Bridget. “Company training in the United States 1970-2000: what have

been the trends over time?” International Journal of

Training and Development 8, 3 (2004): 191-209.

Tittle, Charles R. and Rotolo, Thomas. “IQ and Stratification: An Empirical Evaluation of Herrnstein and Murray’s

Social Change Argument.” Social Forces 79,1 (September 2000): 1–28.

Tsang, Chiu-Wai Rita and Dietz, Tracy L. “The Unrelenting

Significance of Minority Statuses: Gender, Ethnicity,

and Economic Attainment since Affirmative Action.”

Sociological Spectrum 21,1 (January-March 2001): 61–

80.

Valentine, Sean and Mosley, Gordon. “Acculturation and

Sex-Role Attitudes among Mexican Americans: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences 22,1 (February 2000): 104–13.

Zimmerman, Frederick J.; Christakis, Dimitri A; and Vander

Stoep, Ann. “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Patient: Work Attributes and Depression Disparities Among Young

Adults.” Social Science and Medicine 58 (2004): 1889-

1901.
132 CHAPTER 7: A SAMPLER OF NLS RESEARCH

SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND DATA QUALITY

Fendrich, Michael and Kim, Julia Yun Soo. “Multiwave Analysis of Retest Artifact in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Drug Use.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence

62,3 (May 2001): 239–53.

Kilburn, M. Rebecca; Hanser, L.M.; and Klerman, Jacob Alex.

“Estimating AFQT Scores for National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) Respondents.” Peace Research

Abstracts Journal 37,4 (August 1, 2000).

Kim, Hyoshin; Baydar, Nazil; and Greek, April. “Testing Conditions Influence the Race Gap in Cognition and Achievement Estimated by Household Survey Data.” Journal

of Applied Developmental Psychology 23,5 (January

2003): 567-582.

Raley, R. Kelly; Harris, Kathleen Mullan; and Rindfuss,

Ronald R. “The Quality and Comparability of Child Care

Data in U.S. Surveys.” Social Science Research 29,3

(September 2000): 356–81.

Shillington, Audrey M. and Clapp, John D. “Self-Report Stability of Adolescent Substance Use: Are There Differences for Gender, Ethnicity, and Age?” Drug and

Alcohol Dependence 60,1 (June 2000): 19–27.
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 133

NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) data are available

on cross-cohort CDs and as downloadable files on the

Internet. Each data set contains data and documentation

files, as well as software that allows users to peruse the data,

select variables of interest, and create extract files. Electronic and paper-copy documentation items accompany each

dataset and aid in its use.

This chapter first describes the current data releases

and features of the search and extraction software. Following this discussion, readers will find descriptions of the various documentation items that will assist them in their work.

Electronic and paper documentation items for the NLSY97,

the NLSY79, the NLSY79 children and young adults, and the

original cohorts are reviewed in separate subsections within

this chapter.

NLS User Services Office

The items discussed in this chapter are available through

NLS User Services. Individuals wishing to obtain NLS data

and documentation can check pricing information, download data and documentation, and place orders through the

www.bls.gov/nls Web site. Chapter 10 describes additional

publications and research reports. Questions or problems

can be addressed to NLS User Services using the following

information:

NLS User Services Office

(614) 442-7366

usersvc@postoffice.chrr.ohio-state.edu

Note to individuals ordering geocode data. To protect the

confidentiality of respondents, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) grants access to NLSY79, NLSY79 young adult,

and NLSY97 geocode files only to researchers in the United

States who agree in writing to adhere to the BLS confidentiality policy and whose projects further the mission of BLS to

conduct sound, legitimate research in the social sciences.

Researchers interested in learning more about the NLS

geocode program or downloading the application should see

the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls/geocodeapp.htm. Some

geographic information from interviews with the original cohorts is available for research use at the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Research Data Centers. Information about applying for access to these data also is available on the NLS Web site.

Note to customers outside the continental United States. If

data sets or documents are not available or cannot be accessed electronically, cross-cohort CDs and paper copies

can be ordered. To cover costs, NLS User Services must

charge handling fees to individuals ordering NLS data or

documentation to be shipped to an address outside of the

continental United States. Upon receipt of an order, User

Services will calculate the cost for the materials and the type

of mail service (air or surface) specified on the order form and

will notify the customer of the amount of the handling

charges for that order. NLS materials will be shipped upon

receipt, in U.S. dollars, of both the cost of the items ordered

and the handling fee.

Current data releases

Figure 8.1 lists the NLS data sets currently available to the

public. Researchers can download data files and accompanying documentation directly to a computer or server for

free. For a fee, researchers can order data files on the crosscohort CD, as well as paper versions of NLS documentation.

To download free data and documentation files, view pricing

information, or order cross-cohort CDs and paper documentation, see the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls.

NLSY97 data

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97)

data are available to researchers in three data sets:

z The NLSY97 main file contains the data and documentation from survey rounds 1 through 7, together with

search and extraction software. The data set holds the

data elements—described in detail in chapter 2—from

the youth questionnaires; the rounds 2 through 5 household income updates; the round 1 parent questionnaire;

and the round 1 screener, household roster, and nonresident roster questionnaire. This data set includes a

set of ASVAB scores and information from the high

school transcript data collections.

z The NLSY97 event history file, including main file data,

contains all of the data on the main file, as well as the

search and extraction software. Also included are a number of created event history variables describing the

youth’s employment, education, marriage, and program
134 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

participation through round 7. This data set includes a

set of ASVAB scores and information from the high

school transcript data collections.

z The NLSY97 geocode data CD, including main file

and event history data, contains all of the main file data

and documentation, the created event history variables,

and detailed geographic data. Because the geographic

data are confidential, only individuals who complete the

BLS geocode application process can obtain this file.

Information on obtaining this file can be found at

www.bls.gov/nls/geocodeapp.htm.

The NLSY97 main file and event history data are available on

the cross-cohort CD or can be downloaded from the Internet;

the geocode file is available only on individual cohort

geocode CDs.

NLSY79 data

Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979

(NLSY79) are available in two data sets:

z The NLSY79 main file with work history data contains

data and documentation, together with search and extraction software, for the NLSY79 main interviews from

1979 to 2002. It also contains created work history variables detailing respondents’ employment since 1978.

This data set holds all of the data elements described in

chapter 3 for the main NLSY79 interviews, except for the

detailed NLSY79 geocode data and the kinship proximity variables.

z The NLSY79 geocode data CD with main file and work

history data contains the constructed NLSY79 geocode

files from 1979 to 2002, the NLSY79 main survey data for

the same years, and the NLSY79 work histories. This

CD holds all data elements described in chapter 3, except for the kinship proximity variables. Because the

CD contains detailed confidential geographic data, it is

available only to individuals who satisfactorily complete

the BLS geocode application process. Information on

obtaining this file can be found at www.bls.gov/nls/

geocodeapp.htm.

The NLSY79 main file and work history data are available on

the cross-cohort CD or can be downloaded from the Internet;

the geocode file is available only on individual cohort

geocode CDs. Researchers who are interested in the NLSY79

women’s support network data file described in chapter 3

should contact NLS User Services (e-mail:

usersvc@postoffice.chrr.ohio-state.edu).

NLSY79 child and young adult data

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 child and

young adult data are available in two data sets:

Figure 8.1. NLS data files

NLSY97 • NLSY97 main files Rounds 1–7

• NLSY97 event history file with main files

NLSY79 • NLSY79 main files with work history data 1979–2002

NLSY79 Children/ • NLSY79 child and young adult files 1986–2002 (child)

Young Adults 1994–2002 (young adult)

Mature and Young Women • NLS of Mature and Young Women 1967–2003 (Mature Women)

1968–2003 (Young Women)

Older and Young Men • NLS of Older Men and Young Men 1966–90 (Older Men)

1966–81 (Young Men)

Cross-cohort • Current public release of all cohorts

NLSY97 • NLSY97 geocode file with main files, event history data Rounds 1-7

NLSY79 • NLSY79 geocode data with main files, work history data 1979-2002

NLSY79 young adults • NLSY79 young adult geocode data with child and young adult files 1994-2002

Cohort Data Files Survey years

Available by Download

Available on CD
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 135

z The NLSY79 child and young adult file contains data

and documentation, together with search and extraction

software, for the NLSY79 1986–2002 child data collections and the 1994–2002 NLSY79 young adult surveys.

This includes all child data elements described in chapter 4. Children and young adults can be linked to their

NLSY79 mothers by case identification code. This data

set is available on the cross-cohort CD or can be downloaded from the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls/.

z The NLSY79 young adult geocode CD contains all data

from the child and young adult public-use file, along

with geocode data for the young adults from 1994

through 2002. Information on obtaining the young adult

geocode CD can be found online at www.bls.gov/nls/

geocodeapp.htm.

Original cohort data

The NLS Mature Women and Young Women data sets contain data and documentation, together with search and extraction software, for the 1967–2003 surveys of the Mature

Women and the 1968–2003 surveys of the Young Women.

These data sets are available on the cross-cohort CD or as

separate files that can be downloaded from the www.bls.gov/

nls Web site. Included are all of the data elements described

in chapter 5, with the Mature Women pension plan data available as a separate file.

The NLS Older Men and Young Men data sets contain

all of the information described in chapter 6 for the 1966–90

surveys of the Older Men and the 1966–81 surveys of the

Young Men. These files are included on the cross-cohort

CD or can be downloaded from the www.bls.gov/nls Web

site.

NLS software

NLS Investigator search and extraction software is present

on the cross-cohort CD and in all downloadable data files.

The CD and download files also include installation and usage instructions. The Windows software features a userfriendly interface and allows the user to perform the following

five functions:

1. SEARCH the NLS documentation files for categories of

variables clustered by topical area. NLSY97, NLSY79,

NLSY79 children, and Mature and Young Women

searches can be based on (1) topical area of interest

(Jobs, Income, Geo92, and so forth) or (2) any word or

combination of words found within the variable titles

(for example, “Activity [and] Survey [and] Week” or

“Child [and] Age”). Due to differences in data structuring, search by area of interest is not currently available

for the Older and Young Men; any word searches are

available. Researchers can also choose specific variables by reference number, question number, question

name, or look at all variables collected during a given

survey year.

2. VIEW a screen image of each variable’s codebook information (including coding categories and frequencies for

the full universe of respondents) or view data for a given

respondent by identification code (for instance, case

#260).

3. SELECT variables for inclusion in an extract specification file that will be used to generate the data and documentation files described below.

4. EXTRACT data for the full universe of respondents or

for a sample restricted by race, sex, number of cases, or

user-specified Boolean equation, and produce a raw

ASCII data file (with SAS or SPSS control cards), a Dbase

file, or a STATA dictionary file.

5. DOCUMENT an extracted file by producing a listing of

all extracted variables, including each variable’s reference number, title, area of interest (if available), number

of valid cases, and minimum-maximum-mean values, or a

codebook file depicting the coding categories, full universe frequencies, verbatim question text and question

number, reference number, and variable title.

More information about searching for variables of interest is

provided in the user’s guides for the individual cohorts. A

representation of typical Investigator extract screens appears

in figure 8.2. Using the NLSY97 data, these example screens

show a combined survey year and “any word” search for the

respondent’s wage and salary income in 1998, as reported in

round 3 (1999).

Codebook documentation

Each NLS cross-cohort CD and downloaded data set contains data, documentation in the form of codebook pages,

and Investigator search and extraction software. The

codebook is the principal element of the documentation system and, for each variable in the file, contains information

intended to be complete and self-explanatory. In figure 8.2,

the codebook information for the example wage and salary

variable can be seen in the gray-shaded window labeled

“NLS-Codebook.” For each variable, the codebook depicts

a reference number, question title (and question text, in many

cases), variable description, coding information, frequency

distribution, and source. For the original cohorts and the

NLSY79, derivations are provided for certain created variables. Codebooks for the original cohorts contain universe

information for the early years and most recent surveys; separate flowcharts present universe information for the middle

years. The codebook also lists the previous and next survey

questions; for non-constructed variables, hyperlinks permit

users to page through the codebook in the order that questions were asked in the interview.

The codebook contains references to pertinent attach-
136 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

Figure 8.2. Search and extraction screens for the NLS Windows software
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 137

NLSY97 Main/event history Geocode

Technical Sampling Report Geocode Codebook Supplement (†)

Survey Instruments (†)

Interviewer Reference Manuals (†)

Codebook Supplement (†)

ments and appendixes that provide supplementary coding

and variable creation procedures. For the NLSY79 child file,

the codebook also includes source information on whether a

given variable is created or is a direct pickup from one of the

mother/child supplements.

In addition to viewing codebook pages electronically,

users can generate and print codebook pages and variable

lists using the Investigator software. This feature enables

researchers to customize the documentation for their particular research needs and to select and print information for

any or all pertinent variables.

NLS user’s guides and supplemental

documentation

Extensive additional documentation is provided to assist researchers in using NLS data. Many items are available for

download; some are distributed only in hard copy. When

available, electronic versions of the questionnaire, codebook

supplement, and user’s guide are included on the cross-cohort CD and with the downloaded data set. Documentation

items can be ordered or downloaded from the product information page on the www.bls.gov/nls Web site. This page is

the most accurate source for determining whether an item is

available in electronic or paper form.

Individuals ordering an NLS cross-cohort CD will automatically receive the following items:

1. Installation, usage, and maintenance instructions

2. Current paper editions of the user’s guide for the cohort

of interest and the NLS Handbook

3. A free subscription to the quarterly NLS newsletter, NLS

News, which is also available electronically at

www.bls.gov/nls

Users downloading data from the www.bls.gov/nls Web site

will receive the first two items listed electronically; the third

is an option the user can choose while placing the order.

For detailed descriptions of the user’s guides and the

NLS newsletter, see chapter 10 of this handbook. Information about viewing error notices on the Internet also is provided in chapter 10.

Available for each NLS data set is a set of supplemental

documentation items, such as technical background reports,

interviewer’s reference manuals, and various attachments and

appendixes that provide coding information and variable creation procedures. Figure 8.3 lists the documentation items

Figure 8.3. NLS supplemental documentation items

Documentation items described in this chapter

Cohort (†) indicates that the item is updated after each survey round

NLSY79 Main Work history

Technical Sampling Report Appendix 18 in main Codebook Supplement

TSR Addendum (†)

Household Screener and Interviewer’s Manual Geocode

PAY–Attachment 106 Geocode Codebook Supplement (†)

Addendum–AFQT Score Creation Procedure

NLSY High School Transcript Survey

Survey Instruments (†)

Codebook Supplement (†)

Interviewer Reference Manuals (†)

Flowcharts (1979–92)

NLSY79 Child/ Child and Young Adult Questionnaires (†) NLSY79 Child Handbook

Young Adult Child Assessment Tables (†) NLSY79 Children 1992 Description and Evaluation

Child/Young Adult Data Users Guide (†) Young Adult Attachments (†)

Original Cohorts Survey Instruments (†) Codebook Supplements (†)

Interviewer Reference Manuals/Field Mature Women Older Men

Representative Manuals (†) Young Women Young Men

Flowcharts
138 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

available for each cohort; detailed descriptions of these items

follow in the same order. Items identified with a (†) are updated—either wholly or in part—for the most recent data

release. Purchasers of any NLS data set are encouraged to

access to all relevant documentation.

NLSY97 documentation

Supplemental documentation for the NLSY97 includes a number of different items. Documentation items that are new or

updated for the latest release are identified with a (†). In

addition, the NLSY97 user’s guide is described in chapter 10.

NLSY97 main file and event history

Technical Sampling Report—Youth Survey. This technical

manual, published by the National Opinion Research Center

(NORC) at the University of Chicago, describes the procedures used to select the sample. The manual includes weights

and standard errors for the initial survey year.

Survey instruments (†). This set of fielding materials serves

to collect information from cohort respondents or other subjects of the survey during each interview. NLS User Services

provides a new set of survey instruments, including a copy

of the questionnaire and questionnaire supplements, for each

survey year. The electronic codebook also incorporates

questionnaire information.

Interviewer Reference Manuals (†). Included with each

NLSY97 questionnaire is an interviewer’s reference manual.

This document reproduces computerized help screens that

provide NORC interviewers with detailed question-by-question instructions for coding each survey year’s questionnaire and other supplementary survey instruments.

Codebook Supplement (†). Reissued with each data release,

the Codebook Supplement contains variable creation procedures and supplementary coding information not present

in the electronic version of the codebook.

Attachment:

1. Census Industrial and Occupational Classification

Codes. This document lists the three-digit 1990 and

2002 census codes used to classify job and training

information.

Appendixes:

1. Education and Training Variable Creation (†). This

document provides the programs for several created

variables related to education and training. Education

variables include enrollment status, type of school, date

received diploma, highest grade completed, number of

schools attended, and PIAT math score. Training variables indicate whether the respondent received a certificate or license as the result of a training program and

the date on which the most recent certificate or license

was received.

2. Employment Variable Creation (†). This appendix provides programs for created employment variables, including hourly rate of pay, hourly monetary

compensation, number of weeks worked, total tenure

at job, and number of jobs held.

3. Family Background and Formation Variable Creation

(†). This appendix of created variable programs contains those dealing with family background, such as

household size, marital status, fertility, and marriage

and cohabitation history.

4. Geographic Variable Creation. Several variables in

the main data set provide information about the

respondent’s area of residence, permitting researchers

to identify key characteristics of the area without needing the geocode CD. Included in this appendix is a

summary of the four census geographic regions, an

explanation of the metropolitan statistical area/central

city status variable, and the definition for the rural vs.

urban variable.

5. Income and Assets Variable Creation (†). This document provides the creation procedures for income and

assets variables. These include household net worth

and gross household income, as well as receipt of public assistance.

6. Event History Creation and Documentation (†). This

appendix explains the structure of the event history

variables and describes the creation process.

7. Continuous Month Scheme and Crosswalk (†). This

document explains the structure of the event history

month-by-month and week-by-week status arrays and

provides crosswalks from continuous month/week

numbers to actual month and year dates.

8. Instrument Rosters (†). In each survey round, a number of rosters are used to organize information during

various parts of the interview. This appendix identifies

these rosters and shows how they are used in different

parts of the survey. It also lists the variable names,

titles, and reference numbers for the various instrument rosters used in each round.

9. Family Process and Adolescent Outcome Measures.

This document, which is provided separately from the

Codebook Supplement, summarizes the creation procedures for the various scales and indexes created by

Child Trends, Inc. The appendix also presents the results of Child Trends’ statistical analyses of the scales,

indexes, and a number of related attitude and behavior

variables.

10. CAT-ASVAB scores. This appendix describes the administration of the CAT-ASVAB to NLSY97 respondents
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 139

during round 1. It also discusses the process used to

create scores for each respondent who participated in

the test.

11. Collection of the Transcript Data, Wave 1. To help

researchers understand the variables from respondent

transcripts collected in round 3, this appendix describes

the data collection instruments, data-entry and coding

process, and resulting school- and respondent-specific

variables.

NLSY97 geocode file

Geocode Codebook Supplement (†). This publication,

which provides additional coding information not presented

in the document codebook, contains attachments relating to

the NLSY97 geocode CD and an introduction that discusses

key aspects of the geocode CD. Brief descriptions of the

contents of each document are provided below.

Attachments:

100. 1990 Census Bureau State and County Codes. This

attachment provides coding information for the State

and county variables included on the NLSY97 geocode

CD. These variables use the current Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes.

101. MSA Codes. This document lists the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) coding scheme used for NLSY97

geocode variables. The various sections also include

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)

codes, New England Consolidated Metropolitan Area

(NECMA) codes, and Primary Metropolitan Statistical

Area (PMSA) codes.

102. IPEDS Data and College Identification Codes (†). This

attachment briefly describes the coding schemes used

to identify the postsecondary educational institutions

attended by respondents and lists codes assigned by

survey personnel to institutions not represented in the

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS) coding schemes.

NLSY79 documentation

Documentation items for the NLSY79 files include various

technical reports and round-specific documents that provide critical information on each data collection round. Those

documentation items that are new or updated, either wholly

or in part, for the latest release are identified with a (†).

NLSY79 main file

Survey design, sampling, and fielding procedures. The following documents provide technical information about the

main NLSY79 and separately administered surveys, such as

the 1980 high school survey and 1980–1983 transcript data

collections.

Technical Sampling Report—Youth Survey. This technical

manual, published by NORC in 1983, describes the selection

procedures for the civilian and military youth samples. It

includes weights and standard errors for the initial survey

years. Updates to this document are released in an addendum.

Technical Sampling Report Addendum (†). This supplement to the 1983 Technical Sampling Report presents, in

tabular form, the standard errors and design effects for each

survey from l982 through the latest round of the NLSY79.

Household Screener and Interviewer’s Manual (1978).

Used for the 1978 preliminary screening of households from

which the two civilian youth samples were drawn, this manual

contains instructions provided to NORC interviewers, question-by-question specifications for the household screener

interview form, and a completed sample screener.

Profiles of American Youth—Attachment 106. This attachment provides general and technical information about the

1980 administration of the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) to NLSY79 respondents. Included

are technical notes on the ASVAB scale scores, an annotated

bibliography of U.S. Department of Defense publications, an

example of the test score report, and various brochures disseminated to participating respondents.

Addendum—AFQT Score Creation Procedures. This addendum to Attachment 106 provides information on the creation of two Armed Forces Qualification Test scores, the

AFQT80 and AFQT89, along with tables for converting

subtest raw scores to standard scores. This set of variables

was added to the NLSY79 data set beginning with the round

12 release.

NLSY High School Transcript Survey: Overview and Documentation. This document contains background information on the sample design, fieldwork, and types of variables

collected during the three rounds of this special survey effort. It includes the transcript survey codebook, instructions for coding courses, course codes, and copies of the

transcript coding form and school questionnaire. Finally, it

presents references to other technical reports prepared by

the sponsoring agency, the National Center for Research in

Vocational Education.

Round-specific documents. Each data release includes either complete or partial updates to the following round-specific documents:

Survey instruments (†). The set of field materials used during each interview serves to collect information from cohort
140 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

respondents or other subjects of the survey. In years during

which a paper-and-pencil interview was conducted, a new

set of survey instruments was issued for each survey year

and typically included a copy of the questionnaire, questionnaire supplements, the various versions of the household interview forms, the employer supplement, and a jobs

calendar. In years during which computer-assisted personal

interviewing was done, these items are all incorporated into

one survey instrument, although a paper calendar is provided for reference.

Codebook Supplement (†). Reissued with each data release,

the Codebook Supplement contains variable creation procedures and supplementary coding information. This information is contained in the following numbered attachments

and appendixes:

Attachments:

3. Industry and Occupation Codes. This attachment compiles: (1) The three-digit 1970 census classifications

used to code job and training information, as well as

occupational aspiration information; (2) the three-digit

1980 census codes that have been used (in addition to

the 1970 codes), beginning with the 1982 survey, to

classify respondents’ current or most recent job; (3)

three-digit 2002 census codes used starting in 2004 to

classify industry and occupation for all jobs; and (4)

the 1977 military occupational specialty codes used to

classify responses to the 1979–85 questions on military jobs and military occupations.

4. Fields of Study in College. This document provides

the coding classifications for the variables regarding

major fields of study and subspecialties at colleges attended.

5. Index of Labor Unions and Employee Associations. This

index provides codes for the 1979 questions regarding

the name of the union/employee association at jobs #1

through #5 (for example, R00937.–R00941.).

6. Other Kinds of Training Codes. Listed in this attachment are the various categories of occupational training used to code the 1979 survey question on types of

other training programs in which a respondent was enrolled for at least 1 month (R01348., R01353., R01358.,

R01363.).

7. Other Certificates Codes. This list defines codes for

the various types of certifications (practical nurse,

welding, insurance, chef, and so forth) that a respondent had ever received as of the 1979 interview (R01376.,

R01377., R01378., R01379.).

8. Health Codes. This modified version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) codes (International Classification of Diseases, Volumes 1 and 2,

Geneva, WHO, 1977–78) was used to classify types of

health problems limiting the amount or kind of work

that a respondent could do (1979–82 surveys) or occurring as a result of a work-related injury or illness

(1988–90 and 1992–2000 surveys). These codes also

were used in 1998–2002 to classify major health problems of biological parents for respondents 40 years or

older. Also included is a list of numeric codes identifying the parts of the body affected by health problems

or work-related injury or illness.

100. Geographic Regions. This attachment lists the States

making up each of the four regions used in ‘South/

Non-South Place of Birth,’ ‘South/Non-South Place of

Residence at Age 14,’ and such yearly variables as ‘Region of Residence.’

101. Country Codes. Provided in this document are the foreign country codes for respondents’ country of residence, country of parents’ birthplace, and country of

citizenship at the time of immigration.

102. State FIPS Codes. The Federal Information Processing

Standards are used to code respondents’ State of birth

and State of residence.

103. Religion Codes. This list contains the various denominational categories used to code the religion questions

in 1979 (R00103.10 and R00104.10) and 1982 (R06558.,

R06583., R06586., R06613., and R06616.).

Appendixes:

1. Employment Status Recode (ESR) Variable Creation

1979–1998 (†). This appendix provides the adapted

PL/I version of the U.S. Census Bureau’s FORTRAN

program used to create the measure of main labor force

activity during the survey week from 1979–1993. Beginning in 1994, the SPSS formula for creating the variable is provided; this formula corresponds closely to

the revised formula provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Current Population Survey (CPS).

2. Total Net Family Income Variable Creation 1979–2002

(†). Contained in this appendix is the PL/I code for

1979–1996 and the SPSS code for 1998–2002 used to

create the *KEY* income variable for each survey year,

as well as the poverty level and poverty status variables.

3. Job Satisfaction Measures 1979–1982 and 1988. This

document provides background information and yearly

reference numbers for both the scale items and global

satisfaction measures of the modified Quality of Employment Survey scale administered in the 1979–1982

and 1988 surveys. It includes additional references

and a methodology for constructing the full scale.

4. Job Characteristic Index 1979 and 1982. This appendix gives background information, reference numbers,

questionnaire locations, and additional references for

the job complexity questions asked in these 2 survey
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 141

years.

5. Supplemental Fertility File Variables (†). This discussion provides a brief overview of the constructed

variables in the 1979–92 and 1994–2002 Fertility and

Relationship History/Created area of interest on the

main NLSY79 data file, background information on the

1982 and 1994 data quality checks, and information on

the availability of additional reports assessing the

NLSY79 fertility data.

6. SMSA Urban-Rural Creation (†). Contained in this

appendix are the decision rules used to create the ‘Current Residence in SMSA’ variables and the ‘Is R’s Current Residence Urban/Rural?’ variable series.

7. Unemployment Rate (†). This discussion explains how

the variable ‘Unemployment Rate of Labor Market of

Current Residence’ is created.

8. Highest Grade Completed and Enrollment Status Variable Creation (†). This document contains the code

used to create the *KEY* 1990–2002 variables ‘Highest Grade Completed as of May 1 Survey Year’ and

‘Enrollment Status as of May 1 Survey Year.’ It includes a discussion of the revised versions of the 1979–

2002 ‘Highest Grade Completed’ variables, which were

released for the first time with the 1994 data.

9. Linking Employers through Survey Years. This appendix identifies the procedures and variables necessary for linking employers reported across contiguous

interview years.

11. NLSY79 Round 12 (1990) Survey Administration

Methods. This appendix briefly describes the computerassisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and paper-administered personal interviewing (PAPI) techniques

employed during the 1990 NLSY79 interviews.

12. Most Important Job Learning Activities (1993–1994).

Provided in this document are value labels for the eight

1993/1994 variables that identify method(s) used by

respondents in learning to perform job duties associated with their current or most recent job.

13. Introduction to the 1993 through 2002 CAPI Questionnaires and Codebooks (†). This discussion introduces readers to the new documentation items and

terms used in the CAPI survey instruments beginning

in 1993 and alerts the users of these data to important

changes in the way some variables are coded, documented, and generated.

14. 1993–2002 Instrument Rosters (†). This consolidated

list provides subject content and matching reference

numbers for various types of roster items occurring in

the CAPI surveys.

15. Recipiency Event Histories (†). This appendix describes the logic of the new CAPI event history format

used to collect information on unemployment, AFDC/

TANF, Food Stamps, and other welfare recipiency. It

also describes the process whereby the RECIPIENCY

event histories (month-by-month and yearly) are created.

16. 1994 Recall Experiment. This discussion explains how

the 1994 recall experiment was designed to examine the

effects on the accuracy and consistency of respondents’ recall when the frequency of survey administration was changed from annual to biennial. A subsample

of NLSY79 respondents who were interviewed in both

1992 and 1993 answered questions in 1994 referring to

the period since their 1992 interview. These data were

then compared with respondents’ answers to the 1993

survey for possible discrepancies.

17. Interviewer Characteristics Data. For each round, this

appendix describes the data available regarding the

characteristics of NLSY79 interviewers; this information is based on NORC’s interviewer personnel files.

These data permit researchers to link interviewers with

the respondents they interviewed.

18. Overview of the NLSY79 Work History Data. This

appendix introduces users to the work history data. It

describes the creation of the data set, the programs

used to create it, and the input variables.

19. SF-12 Summary Scores. This appendix explains the

administration of the SF-12 health scale, a brief inventory of self-reported mental and physical health. This

was administered to respondents who had turned 40

since their last interview as part of the age 40+ health

module.

Interviewer Reference Manuals (†). Accompanying each

NLSY79 questionnaire is an interviewer’s reference manual,

called the Question-by-Question Specifications (Q by Q).

This document provides NORC interviewers with background information on the NLSY79 and, where necessary,

detailed question-by-question instructions for coding each

survey year’s questionnaire, employer supplement, household interview forms, and other supplementary survey instruments. Beginning with the 1993 interviews, copies of the

interviewer CAPI help screens are incorporated as part of

each Q by Q. All users must have access to a copy of the

latest Q by Q.

Flowcharts. These schematic diagrams, available for the

1979–92 surveys, depict the often complex skip patterns in

the main questionnaire and questionnaire supplements.

NLSY79 work history documentation

Appendix 18, “Overview of the NLSY79 Work History Data”

(found in the main NLSY79 codebook supplement), introduces users to the work history data. It describes the creation of the data set, the programs used to create it, and the

input variables.
142 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

latest data release. Researchers using the NLSY79 child file

who make extensive use of data derived from the mother’s

record should consider ordering the relevant NLSY79 main

file documentation items as well as the child materials.

Other summary reports also are available to researchers

working with the child data; chapter 10 of this document

provides descriptions and ordering information.

Child Assessment Instruments (†). Depending on the year,

the child survey includes a Child Supplement, a Child SelfAdministered Supplement for children 10 years of age and

older, and a Mother Supplement. The mode of administration—paper or CAPI—also varies depending on the year.

Young Adult Questionnaire (†). The young adults (NLSY79

children age 15 and older) are administered the CAPI Young

Adult Questionnaire. Through 1998, they were administered

the paper Young Adult Survey—Self-Report Booklet as well.

The Young Adult Self-Report was a paper booklet until 2000,

when the young adult self-report questions were incorporated into the CAPI questionnaire.

Child Assessment Tables (†). These year-specific reports

contain descriptive tables based on the NLSY79 child assessment data. They provide detailed distributions of raw

and normed scores by age and race or ethnicity for overall

scales, as well as for any relevant subscales. The tables are

available for each child assessment year starting with 1994.

Child and Young Adult Data Users Guide (†). This guide is

updated for each data release. It provides information on the

contents of the data, characteristics of the child and mother

samples, sampling constraint issues of which users should

be aware, and a discussion of each child assessment administered during the interviews. Users are encouraged to access the 2000 guide as well as the 2002 data guide if they plan

to use data from more than one survey round because the

current guide is not comprehensive. With the introduction

of the Young Adult Survey in 1994, the content of the Young

Adult Questionnaire is discussed in detail. The guide also

outlines potential research applications that exploit the longitudinal and cross-cohort potential of the child and young

adult data.

NLSY79 Child Handbook (1986–90). This document summarizes the administration of child assessments during the

1986–90 period.

NLSY79 Children 1992 Description and Evaluation. This

publication describes the 1992 child assessment data, including completion rates for assessments by age, race, and

ethnicity. It offers in-depth discussions of outcomes over

time and evaluates the validity of the assessments.

NLSY79 geocode file

Geocode Codebook Supplement (†). This publication, which

provides additional coding information not presented in the

electronic codebook, contains attachments and appendixes

relating to the NLSY79 geocode CD and an introduction that

discusses key aspects of the geocode CD. Brief descriptions of the contents of each document are provided below.

Items identified with a (†) are updated for the latest release of

data.

Attachments:

100. Geographic Regions. This document lists the States

making up each of the four regions used in coding such

variables as ‘Region of Residence,’ ‘South/Non-South

Place of Birth,’ and ‘South/Non-South Place of Residence at Age 14.’

101. Country Codes (†). Provided in this document are the

foreign country codes for respondents’ country of residence, country of parents’ birthplace, and country of

citizenship at the time of immigration.

102. State FIPS Codes. The Federal Information Processing

Standards are used to code respondents’ State of birth

and State and county of residence.

104. SMSA Codes (†). This attachment contains coding

information used to classify the respondent’s SMSA,

MSA, CMSA, or PMSA of residence at each interview

date.

105. Addendum to FICE Codes (†). This document provides

supplementary identification codes for colleges and

universities not listed in the Education Directory:

Colleges and Universities (1981–82 and 1982–83

supplement) published by the National Center for Education Statistics. It includes information on the revised

Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE)

code variables first present on the 1994 release.

Appendixes:

7. Unemployment Rate (†). This discussion explains how

the continuous and collapsed versions of the variable

‘Unemployment Rate for Labor Market of Current Residence’ were created.

10. Geocode Documentation (†). This appendix provides

background information on the creation of the original

1979–82 geocode tape and later updates on the modification of those data for the 1979–2002 release.

NLSY79 child and young adult documentation

Documentation for the child file includes survey instruments

(often called “supplements”), a child and young adult data

users guide, a child handbook covering assessment procedures and data collected from 1986–90, and summary reports

evaluating data collections since 1990. Those items identified with a (†) are updated, either wholly or in part, for the
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 143

NLSY79 young adult attachments (†). These numbered attachments provide supplementary coding information not

contained in the codebook, as well as the electronic question-by-question specifications available to the interviewers. Through 2000, these attachments were included in the

printed questionnaire rather than as a separate booklet. Beginning in 2002, they are provided as HTML documents that

are downloadable with the data.

Attachments:

3. 1970 Census Industry/Occupation Codes. This attachment contains the three-digit 1970 census classifications

used to code job and training information and Employer

Supplements (U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census of

Population Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1971).

4. 1990 Census Industry/Occupation Codes. This document lists the three-digit 1990 census classifications

used for double coding of occupation and industry for

the CPS job (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,

1991).

5. Electronic Question-by-Question Specifications. This

attachment lists the help screens available to the interviewer during the administration of the CAPI questionnaire and indicates the question numbers that were

linked to these screens.

6. 2000 Census Industry/Occupation Codes. This document lists the three-digit 2000 Census classifications

used for the coding of occupation and industry for all

jobs in the 2002 survey data (U.S. Census Bureau,

www.census.gov/hhes/www/ioindex/ioindex.html).

NLS original cohort documentation

Documentation items for each original cohort data file are

specific to the cohort. Relevant documentation includes a

set of questionnaires, a codebook supplement, interviewer

reference manuals, and flowcharts. Those items identified

with a (†) are updated, either wholly or in part, for the most

recent release of data for each cohort.

Sets of survey instruments (†). A unique set of survey instruments serves to collect information from respondents during

each interview. Each cohort has a separate set of questionnaires; new questionnaires are issued for each survey year.

A set of survey instruments includes not only copies of each

survey’s questionnaire, but also copies of the household

record cards used before 1995 to record information on the

composition of each respondent’s household.

Interviewer Reference Manuals/Field Representative’s

Manuals (†). Accompanying each questionnaire is a field

reference manual that provides Census Bureau field representatives with background information on the NLS,

respondent locating instructions, and detailed question-byquestion instructions for coding and otherwise completing

the questionnaire and household record cards.

Flowcharts. Universe information and skip patterns for

1977–93 questionnaires are provided within separate flowcharts, available for purchase by single year or by set. The

cohort codebooks contain comparable information for earlier years. For CAPI administrations of the surveys of women

beginning in 1995, this type of information is incorporated in

the questionnaire.

Codebook Supplements (†). This set of numbered attachments and appendixes contains cohort-specific supplementary coding and variable creation information not present in

the codebook. A listing of the contents of each codebook

supplement follows below. Contents of the Mature Women

supplement appear first, followed by those for the Young

Women, Older Men, and Young Men.

Mature Women codebook supplement

Attachments:

2. Census of Population Industry and Occupational Classification Codes. This document provides the occupation-industry coding assignments made by Census

Bureau personnel from the verbal descriptions obtained

in the interviews. Codes from 1960, 1980, 1990, and 2000

have been used with this cohort; table 8.1 summarizes

the survey years and jobs for which each scheme is

available. This attachment also contains a copy of the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index, an ordinal prestige scale

assigning a rank of 0 through 97 to each of the threedigit 1960 census occupations.

4. Bose Index. This list provides a mean occupational prestige score for each of the three-digit 1960 occupation

codes for the Mature and Young Women cohorts.

5. Employment Status Recodes. This attachment describes

the methodology used by the Census Bureau to calculate each respondent’s employment status from the CPS

questions asked in each NLS interview. It provides (1)

definitions of ‘working,’ ‘with a job but not at work,’

‘unemployed,’ and ‘not in the labor force’; (2) the decision rules used to assign or recode respondents to a

particular labor force status; and (3) Census Bureau

methodology for dealing with exceptions to the rules.

Appendixes:

3. State Names and State Codes by Census Division Listing
144 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

4. Derivations for R02847. (Reason left Current Job 1967)

5. Source for Occupational Atypicality Codes

6. Derivations for R02872.50 (Occupational Training 1967–

1972)

7. Derivations for R00792.50 (Training Prior to 1972)

8. Derivations for R00744.05 (Number of Years Worked

Before 1967 in Occupation)

9. Derivations for 1977 *KEY* Variables

10. New Geographical and Environmental Variables 1967–

1977

11. Derivations for 1971 *KEY* Variables

12. Derivations for 1972 *KEY* Variables

18. Union Categories—Copy of Coding Instructions for

Name of Union or Employee Association

19. Derivations for 1982 *KEY* Variables

20. Derivations for 1987 *KEY* Variables

21. Derivations for 1989 *KEY* Variables

22. Derivations for 1992 *KEY* Variables

23. Geometric Progression Coding (†)

24. Pension Plan Data Documentation (†)

36. Summary of the Major Differences between the 1995

and Earlier Surveys

37. Summary of 1995 Data Cleaning Issues

38. Derivations for 1995 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

39. Summary of 1997 Data Cleaning Issues

40. Derivations for 1997 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

41. Derivations for 1999 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

42. Derivations for 2001 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

43. Derivations for 2003 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

Young Women codebook supplement

Attachments:

2. Census of Population Industry and Occupational Classification Codes. This document provides the occupation-industry coding assignments made by Census

Bureau personnel from the verbal descriptions obtained

in the interviews. Codes from 1960, 1980, 1990, and 2000

have been used with this cohort; table 8.1 summarizes

the survey years and jobs for which each scheme is

available. This attachment also contains a copy of the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index, an ordinal prestige scale

assigning a rank of 0 through 97 to each of the threedigit 1960 census occupations.

4. Bose Index. This list provides a mean occupational prestige score for each of the three-digit 1960 occupation

codes for the Young Women and Mature Women cohorts.

5. Employment Status Recodes. This attachment describes

the methodology used by the Census Bureau to calculate each respondent’s employment status from the CPS

questions asked in each NLS interview. It provides (1)

definitions of ‘working,’ ‘with a job but not at work,’

‘unemployed,’ and ‘not in the labor force’; (2) the decision rules used to assign or recode respondents to a

particular labor force status; and (3) Census Bureau

methodology for dealing with exceptions to the rules.

Appendixes:

1. Fields of Study in College—Instructions for the Coding

Scheme

2. State Names and State Codes by Census Division Listing

4. Listing of Median Education for Different Occupations

5. Source for Occupational Atypicality Scores

6. Supplemental Edit Specifications for *KEY* Variables:

R03297., R03292., R03294., R03293., R03295.

7. Listing of Correction to Employment Status Recode for

1968 and 1969

9. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. A

10. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. B

11. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. C

12. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: Method

for Variable Construction

18. Union Categories—Copy of Coding Instructions for

Name of Union or Employee Association

20. Derivations for R05007., R05012. (Marital Status Patterns)

21. Rules for Revising Variables Rep (Month/Yr Since Left

School)

22. GED/SVP/Job-Level/Job Family Values

Table 8.1. Mature and young women industry and occupation coding systems by survey year

Coding system Mature women Young women

1960 codes 1967–92 1968–93

1980 codes—current/last job only 1984, 1986 1983–87

1980 codes—current/last job and dual job only 1987–92 1988, 1991

1980 codes—all jobs 1995–99 1993–99

1990 codes—current/last job and dual job only 1992 —

1990 codes—all jobs 1995–99 1993–99

2000 codes—all jobs 1995-2003 1995-2003
CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION 145

23. Derivations for R05031.–R05047. (Occupation and Other

Job Information before Birth of Child)

24. Derivations for R05049.–R05060. (Occupation and Other

Job Information after Birth of Child)

25. New Geographic and Environmental Variables for 1968–

1978

26. Derivations for 1978 *KEY* Variables

27. Source for the Job Characteristics Index

28. Source for the Job Satisfaction Measures

29. Reason for Preference in Union Certification Election

(Item 10e, 1982, R07627.)

30. Derivations for the 1983 *KEY* Variables

31. Listing of Changes in 1983 Survey Made after Questionnaire Printed

32. Derivations for the 1988 *KEY* Variables

33. Derivations for the 1991 *KEY* Variables

34. Derivations for the 1993 *KEY* Variables

35. Geometric Progression Coding

36. Summary of the Major Differences between the 1995

and Earlier Surveys

37. Summary of 1995 Data Cleaning Issues

38. Derivations for 1995 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

39. Summary of 1997 Data Cleaning Issues

40. Derivations for 1997 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

41. Derivations for 1999 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

42. Derivations for 2001 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

43. Derivations for 2003 *KEY* and Other Created Variables

Older Men codebook supplement

Attachments:

2. Census of Population Industry and Occupational Classification Codes. This document provides the occupation-industry coding assignments made by Census

Bureau personnel from the verbal descriptions obtained

in the interviews. The 1960 census classifications have

been used to code all occupation and industry variables

for all survey years. In addition, the Census Bureau

double coded the current or last job held by the respondent using the 1960 and 1980 classifications in 1983.

This attachment also contains a copy of the Duncan

Socioeconomic Index, an ordinal prestige scale assigning a rank of 0 through 97 to each of the three-digit 1960

census occupations.

5. Employment Status Recodes. This attachment describes

the methodology used by the Census Bureau to calculate each respondent’s employment status from the CPS

questions asked in each NLS interview. It provides (1)

definitions of ‘working,’ ‘with a job but not at work,’

‘unemployed,’ and ‘not in the labor force’; (2) the decision rules used to assign or recode respondents to a

particular labor force status; and (3) Census Bureau

methodology for dealing with exceptions to the rules.

Appendixes:

1. Table Used for Determining Cutoff Points for Poverty

Status Variables

2. Additional Instructions to Interviewers for the 1969 Survey

3. State Names and State Codes by Census Division Listing

4. Explanation for Census Processing of Weeks on Layoff

(R00737. in 1967 and R01248. in 1969)

5. New Geographic and Environmental Variables 1966–1976

18. Union Categories—Copy of Coding Instructions for

Name of Union or Employee Association

19. Derivations for 1981 *KEY* Variables

27. Procedures for Calculating the 1990 Weights (R06013.10,

R06013.20, R07113.10, R07113.20, R07113.30)

28. Derivations for 1990 *KEY* Variables

29. Summary of Major Differences Between the 1990 and

Earlier Surveys

30. Explanation for the 1990 Created Social Security Variables (R06743.10–R06743.30)

31. Derivations for Collapsed Occupation and Industry Variables (R07092.–R07098.)

32. Procedures for Coding Cause of Death—Supplemental

Death Certificates

Young Men codebook supplement

Attachments:

2. Census of Population Industry and Occupational Classification Codes. This document provides the occupation-industry coding assignments made by Census

Bureau personnel from the verbal descriptions obtained

in the interviews. The 1960 census classifications have

been used to code all occupation and industry variables

for all survey years; only the 1960 codes were used with

this cohort. This attachment also contains a copy of the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index, an ordinal prestige scale

assigning a rank of 0 through 97 to each of the threedigit 1960 census occupations.

5. Employment Status Recodes. This attachment describes

the methodology used by the Census Bureau to calculate each respondent’s employment status from the CPS

questions asked in each NLS interview. It provides (1)

definitions of ‘working,’ ‘with a job but not at work,’

‘unemployed,’ and ‘not in the labor force’; (2) the decision rules used to assign or recode respondents to a

particular labor force status; and (3) Census Bureau

methodology for dealing with exceptions to the rules.

Appendixes:

1. Fields of Study in College—Instructions for the Coding

Scheme

2. State Names and State Codes by Census Division Listing
146 CHAPTER 8: NLS DATA SETS AND DOCUMENTATION

3. Codes for Enlisted Men and Officers in the Military

4. Listing of Median Education for Different Occupations

5. Listing of Corrections to Employment Status Recode for

1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969

6. Listing of the Method Used to Create Respondent’s

Father and Mother 1966 Variables

7. Derivatives for Creation of Dropped Variable Used to

Create R02958.

8. Derivations Used to Create Enrollment Pattern 1966–

1969

9. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. A

10. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. B

11. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: App. C

12. Determinants of Early Labor Market Success: Method

for Variable Construction

13. Dual Labor Market Theory: Appendix A (Primary and

Secondary Jobs)

14. Edits for R02997.

15. Decision Criteria for Construction of Variables for Date

Last Attended School

16. Listing of Corrections Made for 21 Variables (R02315.–

R02317., R02320.–R02322., R02611.–R02622.)

17. Work Experience Variables: Time Reference for the 1970

Work History Section

18. Union Categories—Coding Instructions for Name of

Union or Employee Association

19. GED/SVP/Job-Level/Job-Family and 3 Digit Occupation

Code

20. Derivation for R03836. and Number of Weeks *KEY*

Variables Between 1975 and 1976

21. New Geographic and Environmental Variables 1966–1976

22. Source for the Job Characteristics Index

23. Source for the Job Satisfaction Measures

24. Derivations for R03035., R03829., R03833.

25. Reason for Preference in Union Certification Elections

26. Derivations for R08114.–R08118.
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 147

CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

1

Providing information about risks is particularly relevant for

medical studies in which participants could suffer adverse reactions to drugs or treatments. Although the National Longitudinal

Surveys have included health-related topics, information about these

topics has been obtained only through questions asked of respondents, rather than through any medical exams or procedures. As

such, NLS respondents bear no risk of participating. 2

 Surveys that are funded through Federal grants to universities

and other organizations generally do not have to undergo this OMB

Like all surveys, the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS)

rely on the cooperation of respondents to provide relevant,

accurate, and timely information that researchers and

policymakers can use to understand economic and social

phenomena. At a minimum, securing cooperation requires

survey administrators to explain clearly to potential respondents the uses of the survey and the importance of each

respondent’s information to the success of the survey. Ethical survey practice entails more than just convincing members of the survey sample to participate, however. Sample

members need to be informed about how their confidentiality will be protected, how their information will be used,

whether participation is voluntary or mandatory, the estimated amount of time it will take to complete the survey, and

any risks of participating.1 After survey administrators provide this and other relevant information to potential respondents, those potential respondents can provide what is called

their “informed consent” to participate.

The NLS program has established a variety of procedures for ensuring respondent confidentiality and obtaining

informed consent. These procedures comply with Federal

law and the policies and guidelines of the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), and the U.S. Census Bureau. This chapter

describes the process of protecting respondent confidentiality and gaining informed consent in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) and its associated Child

and Young Adult surveys, the National Longitudinal Survey

of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), and the now-discontinued NLS original cohorts of Mature Women, Young Women, Older Men,

and Young Men.

OMB procedures

OMB is responsible for setting overall statistical policy among

Federal agencies. For example, OMB has established standards on collecting information about race and ethnicity, industry, occupation, and geographic location. OMB also has

established standards on the manner and timing of data releases for such principal economic indicators as the gross

domestic product, the national unemployment rate, and the

Consumer Price Index. In addition, OMB sets standards on

whether and how much respondents to Federal surveys can

be paid for their participation, an issue of particular concern

in the NLS program.

Another of OMB’s responsibilities is to review the procedures and questionnaires that Federal agencies use in collecting information from 10 or more respondents. Federal

data collections reviewed by OMB include administrative

data, such as the tax forms that the Internal Revenue Service

requires individuals and corporations to complete. OMB

also reviews all censuses and surveys that Federal agencies

conduct, either directly or through contracts.2

OMB examines a variety of issues during these reviews,

such as:

z The amount of time (and money, if any) that the agency

collecting the information estimates respondents will

spend to provide the requested information

z The agency’s efforts to reduce the burden on respondents of providing the information

z The purpose and necessity of the data collection, including whether it duplicates the objectives of other

Federal data collections

z The ways in which the agency obtains informed consent from potential respondents to participate in the data

review process unless the grantee in turn contracts with a Federal

statistical agency such as the Census Bureau to collect the data. In

place of OMB review, surveys funded through grants typically

must undergo a competitive peer-review process established by

the agency administering the grant, and that review process examines the procedures for maintaining respondent confidentiality and

obtaining the informed consent of the participants. In addition,

such surveys also typically are scrutinized by an institutional review board established at the grantee’s institution.
148 CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

3 In the NLS program, OMB must review all data collections for the

NLSW, NLSY97, NLSY79, and NLSY79 Child survey. For the

NLSY79 Young Adult survey, OMB review is required only for

respondents under age 21. Interviews with Young Adult respondents age 21 and older are not subject to OMB review because

those interviews are not funded through the contract with BLS.

Instead, those interviews are funded through a competitive grant

from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Developcollection

z The policies and procedures that the agency has established to ensure respondent confidentiality

z The statistical methods used to select representative

samples, maximize response rates, and account for

nonresponse

z The payment of money or the giving of gifts to respondents

z The questionnaire itself, including the quality of its design and whether it includes questions that respondents

may regard as sensitive

These OMB reviews are very thorough. From the time an

agency prepares an OMB information collection request until

the time OMB approves the data collection, the process typically takes 7 months or more and includes multiple layers of

review within the agency and at OMB. These reviews are

helpful in improving survey quality and ensuring that agencies treat respondents properly, both in terms of providing

them with information about the data collection and its uses

and protecting respondent confidentiality.

The review process also provides the general public

with two opportunities to submit written comments about

the proposed data collection. The agency conducting the

data collection publishes a notice in the Federal Register

describing the data collection and inviting the public to request copies of the information collection request, questionnaires, and other materials that the agency eventually will

submit to OMB. The public is invited to submit written comments to the agency sponsoring the data collection within

60 days from the time the Federal Register notice is published. In the history of the NLS program, the public very

rarely has submitted comments to BLS, but when comments

are received, they are summarized in the information collection request that ultimately is submitted to OMB.

After the request has been submitted to OMB, the

agency sponsoring the data collection then publishes a second notice in the Federal Register and invites the public to

submit comments directly to OMB within 30 days. Again, in

the history of the NLS program, the public very rarely, if ever,

has submitted comments to OMB.

Once OMB has received the information collection request, they have 60 days to review the package, ask followup questions, suggest changes (or, occasionally, insist upon

changes) to the survey questionnaire or procedures, and

ultimately grant approval.

After OMB grants approval, the sponsoring agency can

begin contacting potential respondents and collecting information from them. The process of contacting potential NLS

respondents begins with sending them an advance letter

several weeks before interviews are scheduled to begin. The

advance letter serves several purposes. The obvious purpose is to inform respondents that an interviewer will be

contacting them soon, but BLS and the organizations that

conduct the surveys for BLS also use the letter to thank

respondents for their previous participation and to encourage them to participate in the upcoming round. Another

important objective of the advance letter is to remind respondents that their participation is voluntary and to tell

them how much time the interview is expected to take. The

letter also explains to respondents how the data will be used

and how respondents’ confidentiality will be protected by

BLS and the organizations that conduct the surveys for BLS.

An example of an advance letter is shown in figure 9.1.

Institutional review boards

In addition to OMB review, each of the National Longitudinal Surveys is reviewed and approved by an institutional

review board (IRB) at the institutions that manage and conduct the surveys under contract with BLS. Those institutions are The Ohio State University and the National Opinion

Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. BLS

and OMB do not require these reviews; rather, the reviews

are required under the policies of the universities. Obtaining

approval from the IRBs involves completing a form signed

by the Principal Investigator, providing a summary of the

research project and submitting a description of the consent

procedures and forms used in the survey. Additional documentation includes a copy of any materials used to recruit

respondents, a detailed summary of the survey questionnaire, and any other information regarding the risks to humans of participating in the survey.3

The NLS project staff at The Ohio State University Center for Human Resource Research (CHRR) and at NORC obtain approval from their respective IRBs prior to the start of

each round of data collection. Because each survey includes

ment to The Ohio State University Center for Human Resource

Research. Virtually the same procedures are used to conduct the

NLSY79 Child and Young Adult interviews for respondents age 21

and older as are used for younger respondents, so OMB presumably would approve the data collection if asked to do so. Data

collection for the NLSY79 Young Adults age 21 and older is subject

to the approval of the institutional review boards at The Ohio State

University and the University of Chicago.
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 149

You are part of something truly great: the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

1979.

Few people have the opportunity to make such a great and lasting contribution.

The study is a valuable tool for legislation and research. The study is also a

moving picture of your life. And because you represent many others your

contribution becomes a “living” record of the people of this nation... a

record that may be available for generations to come.

Those of us who work on the study are proud to work with you. We are a team of

researchers who carefully prepare the content of the study to make sure it continues to be so

valuable to educators and government policymakers; professionals who prepare and complete

materials for the study; and a staff of interviewers who work tirelessly to contact you.

We all appreciate your continued participation and dedication to this study, which is

sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. As a small

thank you, we have included a calendar magnet to help you keep track of important dates.

We remain extremely grateful to you for your continuing participation and look forward to

speaking with you again in 2004. The average interview lasts 60 minutes. As always, the

information you provide is protected by law.

One of our interviewers from NORC at the University of Chicago will be contacting you in

the coming weeks to set up a convenient appointment for your interview. In the meantime,

if you have any questions about the study, please feel free to call us toll free at 1-877-853-

5908. The questions and answers shown on the back of this letter provide further

information about this survey and your confidentiality.

We look forward to talking with you soon! And again,

Figure 9.1 NLSY79 round 21 advance letter
150 CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

only an interview and no invasive medical procedures, the

IRBs typically focus on respondent compensation, consent

procedures, and confidentiality protections for special populations, such as incarcerated or disabled respondents. Prisons, schools, and other institutions in which NLS sample

members may reside often request the IRB approval statement and application as evidence that appropriate procedures are being followed and to judge whether to permit NLS

interviewers to have access to individuals for whom the institutions are responsible.

Federal laws

Three Federal laws govern policies and procedures for protecting respondent confidentiality and obtaining informed

consent in the NLS program: the Privacy Act of 1974, the

Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency

Act (CIPSEA) of 2002, and Title 13 of the United States Code.

The Privacy Act is discussed in the section on the NLSY79

and NLSY97 cohorts, as well as in the section on the NLS

original cohorts. CIPSEA, which applies to all data collected

by Federal agencies under a pledge of confidentiality for

exclusively statistical purposes, also is discussed in both

sections. Title 13 applies only to the NLS original cohorts

and is described in that section of this chapter.

NLSY79 and NLSY97 cohorts

The Privacy Act and CIPSEA protect the confidentiality of

participants in the NLSY79, its associated Child and Young

Adult surveys, and the NLSY97. CIPSEA protects the confidentiality of participants by ensuring that individuals who

provide information to BLS under a pledge of confidentiality

for statistical purposes will not have that information disclosed in identifiable form to anyone not authorized to have

it. In addition, CIPSEA ensures that the information respondents provide will be used only for statistical purposes. While

it always has been the BLS policy to protect respondent data

from disclosure through the Privacy Act and by claiming

exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, CIPSEA is

important because it specifically protects data collected from

respondents for statistical purposes under a pledge of confidentiality. This law strengthens the ability of BLS to assure

respondents that, when they supply information to BLS, their

information will be protected. In addition, CIPSEA includes

fines and penalties for any knowing and willful disclosure of

specific information to unauthorized persons by any officer,

employee, or agent of BLS. Since the enactment of the Trade

Secrets Act and the Privacy Act, BLS officers, employees,

and agents have been subject to criminal penalties for the

mishandling of confidential data, and the fines and penalties

under CIPSEA are consistent with those prior laws. CIPSEA

now makes such fines and penalties uniform across all Federal agencies that collect data for exclusively statistical purposes under a pledge of confidentiality.

BLS policy requires that advance letters sent to potential respondents in these surveys include on the back of the

letter the series of questions and answers about confidentiality and other survey topics shown in figure 9.2. In addition

to these written questions and answers, survey interviewers

are trained how to answer questions from respondents about

how their privacy will be protected.

Interviewers explain to potential respondents that all

the employees who work on the surveys at BLS, NORC, and

CHRR are required to sign a document stating that they will

not disclose the identities of survey respondents to anyone

who does not work on the NLS program and is therefore not

legally authorized to have such information. In fact, no one

at BLS has access to information about respondents’ identities, and only a few staff members at NORC and CHRR who

need such information to carry out their job duties have access to information about respondents’ identities.

Interviewers also explain that the answers respondents

provide will be made available to researchers at BLS and

other government agencies, universities, and private research

organizations, but only after all personal identifiers—such

as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and places of

work—have been removed. In addition, the publicly available data files exclude any information about the States,

counties, metropolitan statistical areas, and other, more detailed geographic locations in which respondents live, making it much more difficult to infer the identities of

respondents.

Respondents are told that some researchers are granted

special access to data files that include geographic information, but only after those researchers undergo a thorough

application process at BLS and sign a written agreement

making them official agents of BLS and requiring them to

protect the confidentiality of respondents. In no case are

researchers provided with information on the personal identities of respondents.

Finally, the reference in the questions and answers to

the National Archives and Records Administration and the

General Services Administration may be confusing to some

potential respondents, because those Federal agencies are

not involved in the administration of the surveys. Interviewers explain to respondents that NLS data and materials will

be made available to those agencies because they are responsible for storing the Nation’s historical documents. The

information provided to those agencies does not include

respondents’ personal identities, however.

The organizations involved in the NLS program continuously monitor their security procedures and improve them

when necessary. Protecting the privacy of NLS respondents

entails considerable responsibilities for BLS, the organizations that conduct the surveys for BLS, and the researchers

who use the data. Indeed, researchers in particular may become frustrated that they cannot obtain access to all the
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 151

Figure 9.2. Confidentiality and reporting burden information in the NLSY97 advance letter

WHY IS THIS STUDY IMPORTANT?

Thanks to your help, policymakers and researchers will have a better understanding of the work experiences,

family characteristics, health, financial status, and other important information about the lives of people in your

generation. This is a voluntary study, and there are no penalties for not answering questions. However,

missing responses make it more difficult to understand the issues that concern people in your community and

across the country. Your answers represent the experiences of hundreds of other people your age. We hope we

can count on your participation again this year.

WHO AUTHORIZES THIS STUDY?

The sponsor of the study is the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study is authorized

under Title 29, Section 2, of the United States Code. The Center for Human Resource Research at The Ohio

State University and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago conduct this study

under a contract with the Department of Labor. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

approved the questionnaire and has assigned 1220-0157 as the study’s control number. This control number

expires on October 31, 2007. Without OMB approval and this number, we would not be able to conduct this

study.

WHO SEES MY ANSWERS?

We want to reassure you that your confidentiality is protected by law. In accordance with the Confidential

Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002, the Privacy Act, and other applicable Federal laws,

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, its employees and agents, will, to the full extent permitted by law, use the

information you provide for statistical purposes only, will hold your responses in confidence, and will not

disclose them in identifiable form without your informed consent. All the employees who work on the survey at

the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its contractors must sign a document agreeing to protect the confidentiality

of your data. In fact, only a few people have access to information about your identity because they need that

information to carry out their job duties.

Some of your answers will be made available to researchers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other government agencies, universities, and private research organizations through publicly available data files. These

publicly available files contain no personal identifiers, such as names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and

places of work, and exclude any information about the States, counties, metropolitan areas, and other, more

detailed geographic locations in which survey participants live, making it much more difficult to figure out the

identities of participants. Some researchers are granted special access to data files that include geographic

information, but only after those researchers go through a thorough application process at the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Those authorized researchers must sign a written agreement making them official agents of the

Bureau of Labor Statistics and requiring them to protect the confidentiality of survey participants. Those

researchers are never provided with the personal identities of participants. The National Archives and Records

Administration and the General Services Administration may receive copies of survey data and materials

because those agencies are responsible for storing the Nation’s historical documents.

HOW MUCH TIME WILL THE INTERVIEW TAKE?

Based on preliminary tests, we expect the average interview to take about 60 minutes. Your interview may be

somewhat shorter or longer depending on your circumstances. If you have any comments regarding this study

or recommendations for reducing its length, send them to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal

Surveys, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212.
152 CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

data that they want or that they must undergo a long review

process at BLS to obtain some types of data. It is important

to remember, however, that protecting respondent confidentiality must remain paramount. Any action that might jeopardize respondent confidentiality and erode the confidence of

respondents could harm response rates in the NLS program

and in other government or academic surveys. Thus, without the safeguards in place to protect respondent confidentiality, researchers would have far less data available to work

with than they currently enjoy.

Contractors’ role in maintaining respondent confidentiality. BLS, NORC, and CHRR are responsible for following the

Federal requirements and maintaining their own security procedures. As mentioned earlier, all officers, employees, and

agents of BLS are required to sign agreements stating that

they will not disclose the identities of survey respondents to

anyone who does not work on the NLS program and is therefore not legally authorized to have such information. Each

contractor has in place procedures to ensure that the data

are secure at each point in the survey process. (See the Data

Handling section of this chapter for more information.)

Like all contractor staff, field interviewers are agents of

BLS and are required to sign the BLS agent agreement before

working on the NLSY79 or NLSY97. All interviewers also

must undergo a background check when they are hired.

Confidentiality is stressed during training and enforced at all

times. Field interviewers receive specific instructions in their

reference manuals to remind them of the appropriate procedures when locating or interacting with respondents or contacts.

At the end of each interview, interviewers ask respondents to provide information on family members, friends, or

neighbors who can be contacted if the interviewers are unable to locate the sample member in a subsequent round of

interviews. The interviewers then use those contacts to help

in locating sample members who have moved. When contacting a sample member’s relatives, friends, or neighbors

about the sample member’s whereabouts, interviewers never

disclose the name of the survey they are conducting. They

are instructed to maintain the confidentiality of any relative,

friend, or neighbor who provides information about the

sample member’s whereabouts.

Answering machines can pose problems when interviewers are contacting sample members because it is difficult to confirm that the interviewer is calling a sample

member’s correct telephone number or that other household

members will not hear the message. For those reasons, interviewers are instructed not to leave messages on answering

machines.

When interviewers contact the appropriate household,

they ask to speak with the sample member or the parent of a

sample member under age 18. Interviewers introduce themselves and state the purpose of the call by saying that they

are from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and are calling concerning a national survey.

The name of the survey is not disclosed to anyone but the

sample member.

Special situations. The NLSY79 and NLSY97 are general

population surveys and include a variety of sample members

with special circumstances, such as incarcerated individuals, respondents in the military, other institutionalized persons, disabled persons, those with limited English

proficiency, and so forth.

Incarcerated respondents. Incarcerated respondents constitute the largest group requiring special accommodations.

The first challenge with incarcerated respondents is contacting them to schedule an interview. NLS interviewers must

contact the prison administration to arrange for an interview,

but the interviewers cannot legally reveal to the prison administration that the prisoner previously had participated in

the survey without first obtaining the written, informed consent of the prisoner to reveal that information.

The process of obtaining prisoners’ consent begins by sending them a letter. The letter reminds prisoners

that they have participated previously in a NORC survey,

but, in case the mail is monitored by prison staff, the letter

does not name the survey or BLS so as not to reveal the

prisoner’s participation. The letter encourages the prisoner

to participate in the upcoming round of the survey. It explains that NORC staff needs to set up an interview through

the prison administration but that NORC cannot tell the prison

administration about the prisoner’s participation without the

prisoner’s informed consent. The letter then asks the prisoner to request a consent form by signing and dating an

enclosed form letter and mailing it to NORC in a pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope. The letter reminds the prisoner that the mail at the institution may be monitored and

explains that the consent form that NORC will send the prisoner will state the prisoner’s name and the name of the survey. The letter emphasizes that, by returning the enclosed

form letter, prison management or staff may learn that the

prisoner is a participant in the survey.

If the prisoner chooses to send the form letter to NORC,

NORC then sends the prisoner a cover letter and a consent

form that names the specific survey. The prisoner is asked to

sign the consent form and mail it to NORC in a pre-addressed,

postage-paid envelope. Once NORC has received the signed

consent form, NORC staff can contact the prison to request

permission to interview the prisoner and learn about any

restrictions that the prison administration may impose.

If the prison administration permits an interview and a

date and time have been scheduled for the interview, NORC

mails another letter to the prisoner. This letter serves two
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 153

purposes. First, it tells the prisoner when the interview will

take place. Second, it informs the prisoner in writing that the

interview very likely will be monitored by prison staff. That

fact probably is obvious to any prisoner, but NLS staff feels

that it is important to tell the prisoner in writing.

Once all of these steps are complete, the prisoner finally

can be interviewed, but the NLS program takes additional

steps to minimize the risk that prisoners might reveal illegal

or illicit behavior in the presence of prison staff during the

course of the interview. This concern generally is not an

issue for the NLSY79, which has not asked questions on

such sensitive topics in recent years, but it is an issue with

the NLSY79 Child and Young Adult surveys and with the

NLSY97.

As described later in this chapter, such sensitive questions are asked in the self-administered portions of the

NLSY97. During these portions of the survey, the typical

protocol for a respondent who is not incarcerated involves

the interviewer turning the laptop computer around to enable the respondent to read the questions to him or herself

and enter the answers directly into the laptop computer without the interviewer knowing the responses. (In fact, the

interviewer does not even know which questions the respondent answered). In some relatively low-security correctional

facilities, such as some county jails and halfway houses, this

protocol still would be possible. In higher security facilities,

the prison administrators would not permit the prisoner to

touch the computer, so the questions either would have to

be read to the respondent or skipped altogether.

NLS program staff have identified the questions that

could be considered even moderately sensitive or risky for

the prisoner to answer out loud. Given this examination, the

NLS program has adopted the following protocol for administering sensitive questions to prisoners:

1. At the very beginning of the interview, the interviewer

will indicate in the survey instrument whether a respondent is in a correctional facility of any kind and, if so,

whether the facility permits the prisoner to touch the

laptop and enter responses to the self-administered

questions. For Federal prisons, the interviewer assumes

that the prisoner is not permitted to touch the laptop.

2. If the facility permits the prisoner to enter responses to

the self-administered questions directly into the laptop,

then the full set of questions, including all of the sensitive questions, would be administered.

3. If the facility does not permit the prisoner to enter responses directly into the laptop, or if the interview is

conducted over the telephone rather than in person, all

survey questions will be asked orally by the interviewer,

but the instrument is programmed to skip sensitive questions in which the prisoner might be asked about illegal

or illicit behavior.

Military respondents. NLS respondents who are in the military tend to be very cooperative and willing to participate in

the surveys, but it sometimes can be difficult to locate and

contact them, particularly if they are stationed outside the

United States. It sometimes is necessary to seek the help of

military or civilian staff in the Department of Defense to locate and contact military respondents, but NLS program staff

first must obtain the military member’s written, informed consent to reveal to Department of Defense staff that he or she

previously had participated in the survey and is willing to be

contacted to participate in future rounds of the survey.

Respondents with limited English proficiency. Some respondents lack fluency in English and are more comfortable using

another language. It is not possible to accommodate all of

the different languages other than English that respondents

might speak, but the NLSY79 and NLSY97 historically have

made special arrangements for respondents and their parents who speak Spanish, the most commonly spoken language other than English among respondents. Staff members

translate advance letters and other informational materials

into Spanish to enable respondents and the parents of minor

respondents to provide their informed consent based on information that is written in the language that they understand best. Survey questionnaires also have been translated

into Spanish to ensure that the surveys are administered

consistently, an alternative much preferable to having Spanish-speaking interviewers translate the English-language

questionnaire during the interview. The first 6 rounds of the

NLSY97 included a Spanish version of the questionnaire,

but, because the number of respondents who speak only

Spanish has continued to decline, it no longer is cost-effective to continue programming a computerized Spanish questionnaire. For that reason, Spanish questionnaires are not

used starting with round 7 (2003-04) of the NLSY97. Advance letters and other informational materials still are available in Spanish, however. The main NLSY79 questionnaire

continues to be translated into Spanish.

Sensitive subjects. The NLSY79 and NLSY97 have included

questions on income and assets, religion, relationships with

parents and other family members, sexual experiences, abortion, drug and alcohol use, criminal activities, homelessness,

runaway episodes, and other topics that are potentially sensitive for respondents to discuss. Respondents are advised

at the start of the interview that they can choose not to

answer any questions that they prefer not to answer. During

training, interviewers undergo exercises to teach them how

to allay the concerns of respondents about answering sensitive questions and encourage them to respond. Interviewers are instructed not to coerce respondents into answering

questions that they prefer not to answer, however.

All questions in the NLSY79 and most questions in the
154 CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

NLSY97 are read to the respondent by an interviewer. The

respondent then provides an answer, and the interviewer

records that answer on a laptop computer. For especially

sensitive questions, some respondents might be reluctant to

answer truthfully—or at all—if they have to tell an interviewer their answers, even though interviewers can face criminal and civil penalties if they disclose the respondents’

identities or answers to anyone not authorized to receive

that information.

Obviously, it is important that respondents answer all

questions truthfully, so the NLSY97 includes a self-administered portion of the questionnaire to reduce the potential

reluctance to respond to sensitive questions. In this mode

of data collection, the interviewer hands the laptop computer to the respondent and asks the respondent to read the

questions and enter his or her responses with the keyboard.

Sometimes, respondents have literacy problems or disabilities that prevent them from reading the questions on the

computer screen. For this reason, the interviewer also provides the respondent with a set of headphones that plug

into the computer and enable the respondent to listen to a

computer-generated recording of someone reading the questions. While the respondent completes this computer-assisted self-interview, the interviewer does not see the

respondent’s answers and, in fact, does not even see what

questions the respondent is answering. Even in the selfadministered portion of the survey, however, respondents

still have the option not to respond to individual questions.

Guidelines for e-mailing sample members. At the end of

each interview, respondents are asked to provide information that will help interviewers contact them during subsequent rounds of the surveys. In addition to the information

collected about relatives, friends, or neighbors, interviewers

also obtain the e-mail addresses of sample members who

have them. During round 5 of the NLSY97 (conducted during 2001-2002) and round 20 of the NLSY79 (conducted during 2002), the NLS contractors began using e-mail as a means

to contact a small number of sample members who were hard

to reach by other means. The following guidelines were

enacted to ensure confidentiality:

1. The name of the survey is not contained in the subject

line or text of the e-mail message. Some sample members

may share the use of an e-mail address with other household members, so the survey name is omitted from the

message to prevent other household members from learning the specific name of the survey.

2. E-mail is sent from one NORC address. Field interviewers are not permitted to use their individual e-mail accounts to contact sample members.

Respondents knowing respondents. One feature of the

sample design in the NLSY79 and NLSY97 is that there often

are multiple respondents within the same original household,

either siblings or, occasionally, spouses. It obviously is not

possible in these cases to prevent family members from knowing that a relative is in the survey sample, but interviewers

take steps to ensure that each respondent’s answers remain

private and are not revealed to other family members.

Consent from NLSY97 respondents and parents. Because

of the young ages of this cohort in the initial survey years,

additional measures were taken to obtain informed consent

from minors and their parents. Consent procedures for

rounds 1 through 5 of the NLSY97 included the following

protocol:

1. For respondents age 17 and younger, parents were asked

to complete a written Parental Permission to Interview

Youth form prior to the youth’s completion of the interview. Respondents themselves were asked to complete

a written Youth Assent to Participate form prior to completing the interview. This protocol also applied to respondents whose interviews were completed by a proxy.

(Proxy interviews are conducted in cases in which a disabled respondent could complete the interview only with

the assistance of a parent, guardian, or other caretaker.)

Respondents who were age 17 or younger and had attained independence or were considered “self-supportive” were not required to have a parent complete a

permission form.

2. Whether or not a parent permission form was required,

all youths, regardless of age, signed a consent form prior

to completing the interview.

Through the completion of round 5 data collection in May

2002, a significant proportion of NLSY97 sample members

required signed parental permission because they had not

yet reached age 18 or established legal independence.

As of January 1, 2003, all NLSY97 sample members were

at least age 18. Beginning in round 6, consent procedures

changed to align with procedures of other large surveys of

adults. Respondents age 18 and older now verbally consent

prior to completing the interview. They read a consent statement similar to those used in previous rounds, but they no

longer need to sign any documents.4

 For incarcerated respondents and respondents whose interviews are completed

by proxy, the NLS program continues to require signed consent as an additional safeguard against possible coercion.

4 Data collection for round 6 began in November 2002, when approximately 250 respondents were still age 17. Interviews with

these respondents were postponed until January 2003, when all

had reached age 18.
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 155

Consent from NLSY79 respondents and Young Adults age

18 and older. Respondents are able to review the confidentiality and consent information presented in the advance letter. The respondent gives verbal consent to participate at

the beginning of the interview.

Children of the NLSY79, parental consent. In the Children

of the NLSY79, the biological children of female NLSY79

sample members are assessed, and the mothers are interviewed about their children. Children ages 4 to 14 are given

a variety of assessments depending on their age; children

younger than age 4 are not assessed. The mother’s consent

is required for these assessments to be administered. The

field interviewer asks the mother to sign a consent form. The

back of the parental permission form has the questions and

answers shown in figure 2 of this chapter. In the rare cases in

which the child is not assessed but the mother is interviewed

by telephone about the child, the mother gives verbal consent over the telephone. The field interviewer signs the consent form and returns it to the central office of the NLS

contractor for secure storage.

Children ages 10 to 14 are asked a series of questions

through a self-administered questionnaire on a variety of

potentially sensitive topics. After the mother verbally agrees

that the child may answer these questions, the interviewer

reads a consent statement to the child and obtains verbal

consent. This consent statement is similar to the statement

used with older respondents but has been cognitively tested

and revised to ensure that it is appropriate for preteens.

Young Adults under age 18, parental consent. Parental permission is required for young adults ages 15 to 17 who undergo an interview modeled on the questionnaire used in the

main NLSY79. For telephone interviews, the field interviewer

asks to speak to the parent and requests permission from

that parent to interview the young adult. When the parent

grants permission, the interviewer signs the consent form

and returns it to the central office of the NLS contractor for

secure storage.

NLS original cohorts

The NLS original cohorts were conducted for BLS by the

Census Bureau. Title 13 of the U.S. Code authorizes the

Census Bureau to conduct censuses and surveys and protects the confidentiality of respondents. Title 13 requires

that information collected from respondents by the Census

Bureau remain confidential. The information can be used

only for statistical purposes at secure locations by Census

Bureau employees who have been specifically authorized to

have access to NLS data. Individuals not employed by the

Census Bureau can have access to confidential NLS data

only if they have obtained “Special Sworn Status” from the

Census Bureau to use the data. Title 13 provides specific

penalties for violations of the confidentiality of companies,

establishments, households, or individuals. Publication of

NLS data must not include details that can identify individuals participating in the survey. Wrongful disclosure of confidential information could result in substantial monetary

fines and jail time. The Census Bureau’s internal Disclosure

Review Board sets the confidentiality rules for all data releases.

The Privacy Act also applies to the NLS original cohorts. The law requires the Census Bureau to provide NLS

sample members with information about the purpose of the

survey, the legal authority for conducting the survey, and

the ways in which the information about participants will be

used. The Privacy Act also requires the Census Bureau to

inform sample members that their participation is voluntary,

rather than mandatory, and that there are no consequences

to sample members who choose not to participate. This information enabled NLS original cohort sample members to

provide their informed consent to participate. CIPSEA also

applies to information collected by the Census Bureau for

exclusively statistical purposes under a pledge of confidentiality.

The information provided to NLS Mature Women and

Young Women sample members about their confidentiality

and reporting burden was similar to the information provided

to sample members in the NLSY79 and NLSY97. The information presented on the back of the advance letter for the

2003 NLS of Mature Women and Young Women is shown in

figure 9.3.

If the sample member received the advance letter and

agreed to participate, the Census Bureau regarded that agreement as informed consent and proceeded with the interview.

If the sample member had not received the advance letter

when the Census Bureau interviewer visited or called on the

telephone to conduct an interview, the interviewer either

handed the sample member a copy of the advance letter or

read her a statement that contains the information required

to obtain informed consent. If the sample member agreed to

participate, the interviewer proceeded with the interview.

The great majority of NLS original cohort interviews were

by self-response, meaning the sample member answers the

questions. If the sample member is unable to respond because of a physical or mental condition, a proxy respondent

can provide the information if the sample member is present.

Because the proxy respondent usually is a family member

living in the same household as the sample member, the Census Bureau assumes that the proxy has sufficient knowledge

to respond on behalf of the sample member. The interviewer

follows the same informed-consent protocol described earlier. That is, the interviewer makes sure that the proxy respondent has received a copy of the advance letter or has

been read the statement that contains the information required to obtain informed consent.
156 CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

Figure 9.3. Confidentiality and reporting burden information in 2003 NLS Mature Women and Young

 Women advance letter

SOME COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS

WHY IS THIS SURVEY IMPORTANT?

Because of your help, the Department of Labor, as well as economists, sociologists, and other researchers, will

get a clearer picture of how work-related decisions influence people’s lives. If you are married, information

about your husband will help provide a more complete picture. Policymakers can use the work information we

obtain to shape economic policy. This is a voluntary survey, and there are no penalties for not answering

questions. However, missing responses seriously hamper our ability to make statements and predictions about

the country as a whole. Your answers represent hundreds of other women your age. We hope we can count on

your participation again this year.

WHO AUTHORIZES THIS SURVEY?

The Census Bureau is conducting this survey for the Department of Labor. It is authorized under Title 29,

Section 2, of the United States Code. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 2003

questionnaire and has assigned 1220-0110 as the study’s control number. This control number expires on

December 31, 2003. Without OMB approval and this number, we would not be able to conduct this survey.

WHO SEES MY ANSWERS?

We want to reassure you that your confidentiality is completely protected. We are conducting this survey

under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Section 8. Section 9 of this law requires us to keep all

information about you and your household strictly confidential. We may use this information only for statistical

purposes.

HOW CAN I PREPARE FOR THE INTERVIEW?

We will be asking questions about your family life, your participation in the labor force, health insurance and

pension coverage, and special employment problems. If you are married, we will ask similar questions about

your husband. It would be helpful if you would give some thought to these topics before the field representative visits.

HOW MUCH TIME WILL THE INTERVIEW TAKE?

Based on preliminary tests, we expect the average interview to take about 70 minutes. Since not everyone will

complete all parts of the questionnaire, actual times do vary. Your interview may be somewhat shorter or longer

depending on your circumstances. If you have any comments regarding this study or recommendations for

reducing its length, send them to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment

Statistics, National Longitudinal Surveys Division, Project 1220-0110, Washington, DC 20212.

Census Bureau interviewers are required to sign an affidavit affirming their responsibilities to protect the confidentiality of respondents. Interviewers receive training that

stresses the importance of protecting respondent confidentiality. This training and the interviewer reference manuals

explain the appropriate procedures to follow when locating

or interacting with respondents or contacts. These procedures are similar to those that interviewers from NORC must

follow when conducting the NLSY79 and NLSY97, as described earlier in this chapter.

Disclosure limitation. Disclosure limitation is the process

for protecting the confidentiality of data. An improper disclosure of data occurs when someone can use published
CHAPTER 9: CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT 157

statistical information to identify an individual who has provided information under a pledge of confidentiality. Using

disclosure limitation procedures, the Census Bureau modifies or removes the characteristics that put confidential information at risk for disclosure. Although it may appear that

a table shows information about a specific individual, the

Census Bureau has taken steps to disguise the original data

while making sure the results are still useful. Under these

restrictions, survey contractors and researchers are prevented from receiving certain information on NLS original

cohort respondents, particularly information on geographic

location, employer names, school names, and some income

data.

Research Data Centers. The Census Bureau’s Center for

Economic Studies has established a number of Research Data

Centers throughout the United States. At Research Data

Centers, researchers may have access to confidential data

sets collected by the Census Bureau, with appropriate safeguards to protect respondent confidentiality.

A considerable amount of geographic information collected during NLS Mature Women and Young Women interviews is available for researchers to use at the Research Data

Centers. The cohort-specific files contain the respondent

identification number, survey year, and State code. Researchers may match these files to the data sets. The Research

Data Centers have available the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) State codes for each survey year. Having the State variables enables researchers to identify the

census regions and divisions. Variables also are available at

the Research Data Centers on county, metropolitan statistical area, ZIP Code, census tract and block, and latitude and

longitude of residence for Mature Women and Young Women

respondents. Selected environmental variables are available

about the counties and metropolitan statistical areas where

the women resided, and information also is available on the

names of the colleges and universities that the women attended.

The Research Data Centers also have information on

respondents’ State and county of residence that was collected in the NLS Older Men and Young Men interviews.

More information about the Research Data Centers is available online at www.ces.census.gov.

Data handling in all NLS cohorts

An important part of maintaining respondent confidentiality

is the careful handling and storage of data. Steps taken by

BLS, the Census Bureau, CHRR, and NORC to ensure the

confidentiality of all respondents to the NLS include maintaining secure networks, restricting access to geographic

variables, and topcoding income and asset values.

Network security. The data that are stored and handled at

each NLS organization’s site are done so with maximum security in place. During data collection, transmission, and

storage, password protection and encryption are used to

secure the data. Standard protocols for network security are

followed at each organization’s site. Detailed information

about these arrangements is not provided to the public to

prevent anyone from circumventing these safeguards.

Restricting access to geographic information. Geographic

information about NLSY79 or NLSY97 respondents is available only to researchers who are designated agents of BLS.

These researchers must agree in writing to adhere to the BLS

confidentiality policy, and their projects must further the mission of BLS and the NLS program to conduct sound, legitimate research in the social sciences. Applicants must

provide a clear statement of their research methodology and

objectives and explain how the geographic variables are necessary to meet those objectives. For more information about

obtaining access to geographic variables in the NLSY79 and

NLSY97, see the NLS Web site at www.bls.gov/nls.

Because of the confidentiality restrictions followed by

the Census Bureau, geographic information for the NLS original cohorts is available only at Census Research Data Centers.

Topcoding of income and asset variables. Another step taken

to ensure the confidentiality of NLS respondents who have

unusually high income and asset values is to “topcode” those

values in NLS data sets. Values that exceed a certain level

are recoded so that they do not exceed the specified level. In

each survey round, income and asset variables that include

high values are identified for topcoding. For example, the

wage and salary income variable usually is topcoded, but

variables indicating the amount received from public assistance programs are not. Notes in the codebooks for topcoded

income and asset variables provide more information about

the exact calculations used to topcode each variable. Additional information about topcoding is provided in the user’s

guides for each NLS cohort.
158 CHAPTER 10: FOR MORE INFORMATION

FOR MORE INFORMATION

I

n addition to this Handbook, the Bureau of Labor Statis

tics (BLS) and the Center for Human Resource Research

(CHRR) at The Ohio State University prepare and distribute

a variety of materials designed to inform the research community about the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) program. This chapter describes the various documents

available to the public, including general and technical publications, special summary reports, bibliographies, and research papers. Persons wishing to order any item should

check for item availability online at the www.bls.gov/nls Web

site.

NLS News

All purchasers of NLS data and other interested persons

receive this complimentary quarterly newsletter. Previous

issues of NLS News can be found at www.bls.gov/nls. The

newsletter contains:

z Updates on the status and availability of the various

NLS data releases

z Notices of errors found in the data files or documentation

z Citations for completed NLS research

z Topical information on areas of interest in the surveys

z Other information of general interest to the NLS research

community

Technical manuals

NLS User’s Guides. These guides to accessing NLS data

and documentation are designed for researchers working with

one or more of the NLS data sets. Separate cohort-specific

guides are published in conjunction with each survey round

for the NLSY79 and NLSY97. User’s guides also are available for the NLS of Mature Women and the NLS of Young

Women, NLSY79, and NLSY97. These documents function

to: (1) Introduce the reader to the NLS program, the various

NLS cohorts, and the public-use data releases; (2) present

discussions of important subsets of NLS variables; and (3)

describe the components of the NLS documentation system.

The user’s guide for each NLS cohort can be viewed on the

BLS Web site (www.bls.gov/nls) or ordered in hardcopy form

from NLS User Services.

The user’s guides discuss sampling design and fielding

procedures, sample representativeness and attrition, sample

sizes and retention rates, reasons for noninterview, created

variables, and weighting for all cohorts, as well as design

effects for the NLSY79 and NLSY97. Each guide also contains topical discussions of sets of NLS variables, including

variable summaries, references to relevant survey instruments

or documentation items, and cautionary notes to users about

any inconsistencies in, or special considerations in using,

those sets of variables. Finally, the guides describe the paper copy and electronic documentation items distributed with

each data set. Included are discussions of the organization

and content of the NLS data-collection instruments; the NLS

Investigator search and extraction software that facilitates

identification of variables of interest; and the NLS codebook

system that provides core information on each variable’s

coding categories, frequency distribution, universe, and

source.

Figure 10.1 lists the topical areas of discussion for the

NLSY97 guide, and figure 10.2 lists the topics in the NLSY79,

Mature Women, and Young Women guides.

NLSY79 child documentation. The NLSY79 child documentation informs data users about certain nuances of the various assessments and the limitations of these data. It then

provides specific instructions on how to properly access

and use the child assessment variables. Of particular interest are discussions of the nature of the mother and child

samples and the longitudinal nature of the child assessment

data. A report, entitled “Patterning of Child Assessment

Completion Rates in the NLSY: 1986–1996” (CHRR, 1998)

documents patterns of assessment completion through the

1996 survey. The NLSY79 2000 Child and Young Adult

Data Users Guide (CHRR, 2002) provides additional important information for users of these data; for specific tabular

information, users should refer to the 1994–2000 NLSY79

Child Assessments Selected Tables reports (CHRR, 1997, 1998,

2000, 2002). The NLSY79 Child Handbook (1986–90) summarizes the overall administration of child assessments.

Together, these manuals and reports describe each of

the child assessments administered during the biennial child

surveys and the criteria used in their selection. They supply

information regarding the field procedures used in adminis-
CHAPTER 10: FOR MORE INFORMATION 159

Figure 10.1. NLS User’s Guide topical areas: NLSY97

Aptitude, achievement, and intelligence scores

Achievement tests

Administration of the CAT-ASVAB

PIAT Math Test

Education

College experience

Educational status and attainment

School-based learning programs

School experience

School and transcript surveys

Employment

Employers and jobs

Fringe benefits

Gaps in employment

Industry

Job search

Labor force status

Occupation

Self-employment characteristics

Tenure

Time spent at work

Wages

Work experience

Event history

Expectations, attitudes, behaviors, and time use

Alcohol use

Attitudes

Autonomy and parental control

Cigarette use

Crime, delinquency, and arrest

Drug use

Expectations

Sexual activity and dating

Time use

Family background and demographic characteristics

Age of respondent

Sex

Geographic indicators

Household and neighborhood environment

Household composition

Nonresident characteristics

Parent characteristics

Race and ethnicity

Youth history

Health

Income, program participation, and assets

Assets and debts

Income

Program participation

Marital history and fertility

Childcare

Fertility, pregnancy, and children

Marital and marriage-like relationships

Training

Figure 10.2. Figure NLS User’s Guide topical areas: Mature Women (MW), Young Women (YW), and

 NLS79 (79)

Age

Alcohol use

Aptitude, achievement, and intelligence scores (YW, 79)

Attitudes and expectations

Childcare

Cigarette use

Class of worker

Crime, delinquency, and arrest records (YW, 79)

Discrimination

Drug use (79)

Educational attainment

Family background

Fertility

Fringe benefits

Gender (79)

Geographic residence and environmental characteristics

Government training and jobs programs (79)

Health

High school survey and college information (YW)

Household composition

Income and assets

Industries

Job characteristics (YW, 79)

Job satisfaction

Job search

Jobs and employers (79)

Labor force status

Marital status and marital transitions

Military (79)

Occupations

Pension benefits and pension plans

Poverty status and public assistance support sources

Race, ethnicity, and nationality

School and transcript surveys (79)

School discipline (YW, 79)

Sexual activity and contraception (79)

Social Security and disability (MW, YW)

Time and tenure with employers (79)

Training

Transfers (YW, MW)

Wages

Work experience

Work history data (79)
160 CHAPTER 10: FOR MORE INFORMATION

tering the child and young adult interviews, the interviewer

training required, and the types of field conditions encountered. Indicators of the reliability and validity of the assessments are presented, as well as references to other studies

that have used the same or similar measures. The documents discuss the scoring of the child assessments and the

types of summary scores available. Descriptive materials

about the assessments include tabular information relating

the distribution of the various outcome scores to a number

of child and maternal characteristics, correlations among assessments, selected reliability coefficients, and a discussion

of potential biases due to attrition. The data user’s guide

also provides comprehensive information on the young adult

surveys.

Summary reports

Also available to users are several reports that summarize

either special data collections or selected sets of NLS variables. The following reports currently are distributed:

NLS Older Male Sample Revisited. This volume introduces

the reader to the 1990 resurvey of the NLS Older Men cohort,

to which 2,092 members of the original sample and 2,206 widows or other family members of deceased sample members

responded. The document first describes the purpose and

content of the 1990 survey and includes seven additional

sections on mortality, physical well-being, emotional wellbeing, family and friendship support systems, economic wellbeing, current and prospective labor market activity, and

status of the widows provide an overview of the data. The

56 tables and accompanying descriptive text in the seven

sections: (1) Describe and illustrate the categories of data

that were collected, (2) record the sizes of various subsets of

the sample (for example, the number of men who were employed in the year preceding the survey), (3) present some

simple relationships that invite more sophisticated analysis,

and (4) provide some evidence on the reliability and validity

of several of the psychological scales used in the survey.

Although the tabulations presented within this volume are

based on preliminary data, researchers will find the results

useful in developing their research plans and deciding

whether the database meets their needs.

Patterning of Child Assessment Completion Rates in the

NLSY79: 1986–1996. This paper examines completion rate

patterns in the child data for the period 1986–96 by looking

for evidence of changes in interview quality, changes associated with the transition to CAPI interviewing, and connections between child or family characteristics and completion

patterns. The report focuses on the completion rates of the

PIAT Math Test, PIAT Reading Test, and the Behavior Problems Index.

NLSY79 Children: 1992 Description and Evaluation. This

report describes the 1992 child assessment data, including

completion rates for all assessments by the respondent’s

age, race, and ethnicity. Systematically explored within a

multivariate context are: (1) The independent association

between a wide range of socioeconomic and demographic

characteristics and all of the 1992 assessment scores and (2)

the extent to which the full range of 1986 assessment scores

are useful predictors of many of the 1992 scores.

This analysis provides information about the internal

validities of many of the NLSY79 child assessments, particularly those targeting the younger children in 1986. The report explores the extent to which hyperactivity of the child or

the presence of others in the testing environment affects a

child’s performance on a number of the 1992 assessments.

The Ten-and-Over Years: Self-Reports from the Children of

the NLSY79: 1990 Tabulations and Summary Discussion.

This report describes the sample of 1,116 children age 10 and

older who responded to the Child Self-Administered Supplement during the 1990 survey. That instrument collected selfreports on a wide range of topics, including parent-child

activities and decision making, school satisfaction, afterschool employment, and religious involvement. Other topics included in the administration were friendship

networking; dating and sexual initiation; future education,

family, and career expectations; and substance use and participation in other illicit activities. This report presents narrative overviews of the types of data collected and tabular

summaries of these data.

Children of the NLSY79: 1988 Tabulation & Summary Discussion. This document describes the child assessment data

collected in the 1988 round of the NLSY79. The tables present

the characteristics of the children and their mothers, the distribution of scores and completion rates for each assessment, and correlations between assessment scores and

subscores in 1988, as well as selected cross-year correlations between 1986 and 1988 assessment scores. These data

may be useful in clarifying issues of reliability and validity.

Maternal-Child Health Data from the NLSY79: 1988 Tabulations and Summary Discussion. This report provides narrative descriptions and tabular summaries of the prenatal,

infant, and child health information collected during the 1983–

88 NLSY79 rounds. It describes a range of maternal pre- and

postnatal behaviors, including prenatal care, use of

sonograms and amniocentesis, cigarette and alcohol use,

and infant feeding. This report also discusses the health

status information collected biennially for all NLSY79 children. Brief descriptions highlight data quality and other substantive issues of interest.
CHAPTER 10: FOR MORE INFORMATION 161

NLS bibliography database

NLS User Services maintains an up-to-date archive of NLS

research. The electronic NLS database stores records of

nearly 4,500 NLS-based journal articles, working papers, conference papers, monographs, theses, and dissertations published during the past three decades. Updates to the

bibliographic database are ongoing and new records are accessible as soon as the record is entered into the database.

The NLS bibliographic database, accessible on the

Internet at the www.nlsbibliography.org Web site, allows

users to search, retrieve, and print customized listings of

NLS research. Each search produces an annotated bibliography of all citations matching user specifications. Users

may conduct database retrievals using any of the search

fields described below; search types can be combined to

produce more refined results.

AUTHOR: Select one or more authors from the list of more

than 2,000 authors of NLS research and retrieve all citations by the author(s) selected.

TITLE: Select a single title from the title list (such as “What

Researchers Have Learned from the NLS about Youth

Unemployment”) or search the title field by supplying

the specific title term(s) to be found (for instance, titles

of research entries containing the words “siblings” [or]

“brothers” [or] “sisters”).

SOURCE: Choose a source of NLS research, such as a journal name (for example, Econometrica) or the name of a

professional conference (such as Population Association of America). It is then possible to retrieve a list of all

NLS research from that source or to search the title field

by supplying the specific source term(s) to be found

(for instance, citation sources containing “conference”

or “school of”).

KEYWORD: Select one or more of the 600 keywords that

describe the research projects and retrieve all citations

to which those topical keywords have been assigned.

ABSTRACT: Supply terms to search the abstract fields of

the citations. This search is useful when the supplied

term does not exist as a keyword or has not been assigned to a citation.

COHORT: Select one or more of the NLS sample groups

(such as the Mature Women) and retrieve citations associated with the selected cohort(s).

FORMAT: Select one or more of the types of publications

(such as monographs, journal articles, or working papers) and retrieve all citations of each type.

YEAR: Select one or more years of publication and retrieve

all citations published in the selected year(s).

ADVANCED: Combine many of the above search types to

form a complex search strategy. Searches that may be

combined are those for author, format, keyword, cohort,

and year.

FULL-TEXT: Search for text in any of the citation text fields:

Titles, abstracts, and keywords. This search is useful to

find newly emerging research terms before they are indexed as keywords.

User submission form. Web users may now submit a new

citation to the bibliography or correct an existing citation.

The process involves filling out a short online form that is

then sent by e-mail to the NLS Bibliography staff for review

and entry into the database.

NLSY79 child bibliographies

Bibliographies present research based on the NLSY79 fertility, childcare, and child development data collections. Updated periodically, these topical publications list published

articles, monographs, theses, reports, and presentations that

use data from the NLSY79 and Children of the NLSY79. Both

publications listed below are available on the BLS Web site

(www.bls.gov/nls) under the link for “Publications and other

documentation.”

“Research Using NLSY79 Data on Fertility, Child Care,

& Child Development” (Bibliography No. 1 in Series)

“Child Assessment Research” (Bibliography No. 2 in

Series)

Error updates

Prior to working with an NLS data file, users should make

every effort to acquire current information on data or

documentation errors. Several methods are used to notify

users of errors in the data files or documentation and to

provide corrected information for those persons who

acquired an NLS data set from CHRR. The most up-to-date

list of errors can be obtained on the BLS Web site

(www.bls.gov/nls) by choosing the appropriate cohort and

then clicking on the heading “Errata.” Errors discovered

after the release of a data file are distributed in hardcopy

form to current data purchasers along with the data set.

Error notices and information on how to acquire the

corrected data or documentation also appear in NLS News,

the quarterly NLS newsletter, available online at

www.bls.gov/nls.

Research analyses

CHRR research reports. NLS User Services continues to

distribute NLS research reports prepared by CHRR’s research

staff. These reports include (1) the individual cohort research volumes, which present analyses of data from roundspecific data collections of the Older Men, Young Men,
162 CHAPTER 10: FOR MORE INFORMATION

Mature Women, Young Women, and NLSY79, and (2) other

special reports prepared by CHRR investigators.

Persons interested in ordering any of these documents

(distributed by volume or chapter) should contact NLS User

Services by e-mail at usersvc@postoffice.chrr.ohio-state.edu.

BLS research reports. Staff at BLS and external researchers

and organizations funded through the BLS grants program

conduct ongoing analyses of data from the NLS. Results are

published in occasional news releases and Monthly Labor

Review articles, as well as in an NLS Discussion Paper series. Users can obtain all of these publications through the

Internet at www.bls.gov/nls. Users also can request these

publications through e-mail at NLS_Info@bls.gov or by calling (202) 691-7410.