Report on the NLSY Round 16 Recti Experiment

Bernard Dugoni

Lisa Lee

Roger Tourangeau*

National Opinion Research Center

at the University of Chicago

August 27, 1997

%is project w% tinded by the u.S. Depaflmcnt of bbor, Burmu of hbor Smlistim, under Contiact J-9.-J-0.0065 to ihe Center

for hum Raourm Research, Ohio State Univemity. Opinions stated in this documeii”do not n=essarily repr-ent official

position or policy of the U.S. Depafiment of Labor. me authors grakfully acknowledge the tremendous benefit to [his project

added by the valuable ~sistmce in tie analysis of the data from Dennis Dew, W Li, and Kate Baldwin; gelti”g us data and in

helpins us to understmd them by Randy Olsen and Karima Nagi; mmmenb from Jonathm Veum md Chmlm PiemeC md help

plannins the study from Nancy Mathiowetz, Randy_O!sen, Ken Wolpin, and Mitiael Pergtit.
Executive Summa~

This report describes the results of an experiment conducted as part of Round 16 of the

National “Longitudinal Sufiey of Youth .wSY).. The N.SY was origifi~lly fielded in 1g7g; the

sample consists of persons who were 14 to 21 years old at that time. Through the first 15 rounds

of data collectio~ interviews were conducted eve~ year and the questions generally covered the

period since the last interview. The questions concern a range of tgpics, including labor force and.

educational experiences, health and disablfity, marital status, income, and program participation.

With Round 17, the schedule of data collection changed. ..From that round ou interviews will be

done every other yem, this change will double the..length of the period covered by m~y o?the

questions. The Round 16 experiment tested the effects of this change in the data collection

schedule.

For Round 16, 900 MSY sample members were randomly assigned to be interviewed.

about the period since their Round 14 interview, which was conducted about two years earlier.

Their responses were compared to a group of approximately 8,000 cases who were assigned to.be

interviewed about the one-year period since their Round 15’interview. Both groups were

restricted to NLSY sample members who had completed both the Round 14 and Round 15

interviews; both got the same questionnaires (except for the difference in the length of the period

covered by the inte.wiew)

The analysis examined several labor force and recipiency vm-ables--the number ofjobs the

respondents reported, the number of gaps between jobs, and whether they reported receiving

unemployment, Food Stamps, or”MDC payments. The two-year recall period had fittle

discernible effect on means and proportions for the sample as a whole. There was some decrease

in the number ofjobs respondents reported for the most recent year, but none of the other

i

.
analyses showed much overall impact of the two-year recall period.

However, a closer examination of the results found substantial errors in the reports

covering the two-year period. The two-year period covered by the Round 16 igtefiews included

the one-year period the respondent had already reported about in Round 15. The Round 16

repofis sometim= failed to reproduce the information the respondent bad provided in the earher

interview, “Thediscrepancies in repo~ concerning this overlapping pefi”odwere especially

marked among, respondents who had the complicated job and recipiency histories. On the

average, such respondents reported fewer jobs and less recipiency in their Round 16 interview

than they had in Round 15, The limited overall impact of the_two-year recall period thus appears

to reflect the stable circumstances of most of the respondents. It is easy for respmrden~ to.

remember their jobs if they have not riot changed jobs in many year> .fi is “farmore di~cult for

them to remember their jobs if theycha~ge job; frequently hong the subgroup of respondents

with dynamic job or recipien~ histories, the longer reroll period had a marked impact on

reporting. —

ii
Acknowledgments

Aside from the three of us listed as authors of the report-many others contributed to the

work described here. We thank Demis Dew, Yi LI, and Kate Baldwin for their invaluable

assistance in the tirdysis of the data; Randy Olsen and Karima Nag~for their help in getttig us the

data sets and in understanding them; Jon Veum and Chuck Pierret for their comments on an

earlier drafi of the report; and Nancy Mathiowetz, Randy Olsen, Ken Wolpin, and Mike Pergamit

for their help in plmming the study. This repofi could not have been completed without their

assistance.

This project was iirned out under Contract J9JOO065 ~om the Bureau of Labor Statistics

to the Center for Human Resource Research.

...

111
Introduction

Background. The Nationrd Longitudinal SuWey of Youth “~SY) is a nationally

representative sample of young men md young women who were 14 to 22 years of age when they

were first selected for the suwey in 1979. The NLSY sample encompasses three subsamples: 1) a

cross-sectional sample of youths designed to represent the citili.an, noninstitutionahzed segm?nt of

the popdation hving in the United Stites and born between January 1, 1957 ~d December 31, 1964;

2) a supplemented sample of youths designed to represent the civilian Mspanic, black, and

economically disadvantaged white segments of the population living in the United States ~d born

during that same-eight-year perigd; Wd 3) a..second supplemental sample of youths desi~:d to

represent the se~ent of the population in the United States fiitary as of January 1, 1979 and born

between January 1, 1957 and December31, 1961.

Interviewrwith members of the NLSY sample were conducted yearly from 1979 to 1994.

Data were collected in person in each of these years, except fi 1987, when budget constraints dictated

a telephone intemiew, The military and supplemental subsamples were dropped after the 1984 m–d

1990 intefiiews, respectively. By 1994, when Round 16 of the survey was c.onduaed, the sample

included 889.1 respondents, The interviews cover a range of subjects, iricluding labor. force

experiences and characteristics of the mrrent (or most recent) job, education, .vocationd training and

government training programs, ” health and disability., marital status, income, and program

participation,

Since “its beginning in. 1979, the ~SY interview has used .a basic reference period of

aPP roximatelY one yew. Most questiOns ask the respondents to report about events--new jobs,

income, educational episodes, births and deaths of family members, md so on--that have occurred

since tie previou interview, generrdly. conducted about a year before: In additio~ some questions

1
concern the most recent calendar year. .Fo~ examfile: the items in the W$Y inte~iew on welfare

recipiency use the previous calendar year for their reference period. Stafiing in Round. 17>bowev?r,

data will be collected every other year; for many items in the interview, this will double the length of

the reference period. To test the effect of lengthening the reference period from one to two years,

the BLS sponsored an experiment on Round 16 of the NLSY.

Effects of the length of the reference period. A classic paper by Neter and Waksberg

distinguished several processes ttiough which the length of the !?fer?n!e pgriod for a su.~e~.

iriterview cmrld tiect the data obtained (Neter & Waksberg 1964), According to Neter and

Waksberg, one effect of-a longer recall period is to increase the number of relevant events that

respondents completely forget. _Orr: of the oldest findings .of experimental psychology is that Wount

of infotiation forgotten incfeases. WftE th: passage of. tj.rne (see, for example,. Ebbinghaus,

1885/1 964; for recent review%;iee Bradburn, Rips, & Shevell, 19S7; Rubin & Wenzel, 199~. A

longer refererice period is, as a result, likely to lead to higher rate of omissions due to forgetting.

A second effect of a longer reference period may partly offset the effects of forgetting,

respondents may inadvertently include events that occured before the beginning of, the reference

period because they misremember when the event occurred. Such “telescoping,” or dating, errors

are likeher to occur as the reference pefiod grows longer (Huttenloche:, Hedges, & Prohaska, 19S8;

S.udman & Bradbum, 1973). Telescoping errors.. CSQinc~eas:. the_nurnber of :V?nts ~epofled.

“Bounded interviews that remind the respondents of information they have already reported are

thought to rninitie the effects of telescoping. The NLSY uses bounding to reduce telecopying errors.

According to Neter Wd Waksberg, @o other processes related to the le~gh .of the reference

period can dso affect reporting in sufieys. The fist is the level of reporting burden. As respondents

are required to report more events, the sheer effort of responding to the questions increases and the

2
quality of the data may suffer.. A longer reference period will increase the level of the reporting

burden. The final process distinguished by Neter ad Waksberg is conditioning, or the impact of

repeated interviewing. N:ter and Waksberg argue that, relative LOthe first interview, later ones yield

less complete reporting. One of the advantages of a longer reference period is that interviews can

be conducted less frequently, potentially reducing the impact of conditioning.

Aside from the length of the recall period, a number of other variables can alter the impact

of each of these processes. For example, the amount of forgetting depends on such factors as:

● The salience or emotional impact of the evenq

. The duration of the event

e The number of relevmt evens and their sirniltity to one anotheq

. The regularityyith which eyents of the type in question occuj

● The number and type of retrieval cues provided with the question.

Respondents tend to remember salient events (such as large consumer purchases) better than nonsafient ones (such as small purchases), long-lasting events better than short-hved ones, unique events

better than recurrent ones, and events that occur regularly better than those that occur at irregular

intervals (for reviews., see Bradbum et d., 19S7; Brewer, 1991; and Jobe, Tourangeau, & Smith,

1993).

Similarly, the level of telescoping errors depends not ody on the length of the reference period

(e.g., Baddeley, Lewis, & Nimmo-Smith, 1978) but dso on several additional variables:

● Whether the interview is bounded or unbounded

● The presence of landmark events (that is, events whose dates are well-known);

3
c The amount of other information that can be recalled about the event.

Bounding--the practice of retiewing information”tith “the respondent that he or she has already

reported in a previous interview-red landmark events tend to reduce the effects of telescoping (Neter

& Waksberg, 1964; Lotis & Marburger, 1983). By contrast, when additiop.al information about the

event is readily recalled, it can encourage respondents to estimate that the event occured more

recently than it actually did (Brom, Rips, & Shey:ll, 1985).

The NMY Round 16 experiment. To determine the net effect of lengthening the reference

period from one to NO years, an experiment was carried out in 1994, during Round, 16.of the ~S.Y.

A portion of the sample--9OOof the 8,806 sample members who were respondents in both Round 14

~d Round 15--w&re interviewed about the preceding two years. For.tfis subgroup, the Round 16

interview updated informat~ofi obtained in Round 14, two years before. For the remainder of the

sample, the interview” followed the usual procedure, obtaining data for the year since the last

interview.

We examined the results from the experiment to address three questions:

. Did the longer reference period affect reporting in the most recent y~r of the twoyW reference period? Such effects might reflect the impact on suwey repotis of the

level ofreporting burden or of “iriterna~’ telescoping (reporting events that occurred

early in the two-year reference, period as having occurred more recently than they

actually did).

● D]d respondents in the tie-year group accurately reproduce the information they had

already provided in the Round 15 .intemiew?

● Did the longer reference period have different effects for members of different

subgroups within the sample (such as persons who change jobs frequently)?

,.

4
We also explored whether the longer reference period affected response rates to the Round 16

int efiew,

Method

~e NLSY Sample

The NLSY is conducted by the Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University

and tided by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. In recent years, the youth

cohort data have become diversified as government agencies besides. the U.S. Department of

Labor, such as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National

Institute on Drug Abuse, have contributed topics for inclusion in the survey. Since 1990

interv[ew, tie overall NLSY sample size has been 9,964.

Design of the Recall Experiment

This experirn”erit was “designed to assess the impact of the transition to a two-year lag

between interviews for the NLSY on the reports by the respondents. The sections below describe

1) the sample of respondents for the experiment: 2) data collection collection procedures; 3) the

key variables and composites for this report; and 4) the analysis approaches used.

Respondents for the recall experhnent. A random subsample of 900” respondents was

selected from among the 8,891 persons who completed both the Round 14 and Round 15

interviews to participate in a’mo-year reroll experiment. Of the original 900 respondents selected

for the experimental group, 875 completed the Round 16 interview. “However, it was later

discovered that an error in the background information sheets for 22 of these respondents caused

the incorrect date of last interview to be used. These rtipondents were dropped from the analysis,

leaving a base of 878 selected for the experimental group and 853 who completed tbe interview.

The remaining 7,991 cases who completed the Round 14 and 15 interviews formed the “control

5
sample. -.

Procedure for data colledion. A special set of “interview instructions w= prepared in

which the interviewers informed the subsample of experimental group respondents of the reason

for tie experiment and explained the difference in the questions they would be asked. Although

this called attention to the experimental variable, it also averted respondent quwtions about why

the questions covered the same period already covered by the Round 15 interview. The respondent

was informed about the forthcoming change in the timing of the interviews and w= told that, to

assess any possible effect of this change on the data collected, their 1994 interview would be

conducted as though they had not been interviewed in 1993. Specifically, respondents were told:

In order to reduce the cost of conducting the NLSY program and to reduce

respondent burden, the NLSY will move to a .semi-anmrd interview schedule at the

conclusion of this yea’s survey.’ In..other words, we will not contact YOU in 1995

for survey participation. We will contact you for survey in 1996 and every two

years thereafter.

Because wc are moving to a semi-annual survey, we would like to assess what

affects, if any, the new schedule will have on the quality of tie data we collect.

Whh this in mind, we have selected a portion of this year’s cases to participate in

a special data collection experiment, the Round 16 NLSY Recall Experiment. The

point of the experiment is to conduct this year’s survey as if we had not

interviewed you last year, in order to assess the kind of data we can expect to

collect when we move to the semi-annual schedule.

Much of the information we will be asking you to confirm this year is identical to

information” asked last year, but the design of the Recall Experiment requir& us l-o

collect this information again. Please bear with us. Thank you for your

cooperation with this experiment” and your continued participation in the NLSY

study.

At key points during the interview, instructions were re}”eated, reminding them that they

were to answer regarding events which had occurred since ~eir igte-wiew two yetis prior. The

complete set of interviewer screens is shown in Figtire 1.

6
Figure 1. Special Instruction Screeus for Key Questias in the NLSY Recall Experiment.

Item Instruction Screen

Q6-ECALLZ We would next hke to discuss tiny employers you have worked for since . .

O/.!lintdateO/O. Please remember to think about the time”’since 0/0!lintdateO/O,

your interview date two years ago, instead of your intefiew date in 1993. .,:

Q9-~CALL2 In order to make fiture plans for schools, houshg, hospitals, and medical care,

information is needed about the number of children people have. We know that

some of these questions may not apply to you, but we need to ask the same

questions of all our respondents in order to be complete.

Q9-RECALL3 We have been asking det~led questions eve~ other year about any children that

you have had. We last asked you detailed questions relating to children during’

your interview on VO!fertrefdateYO....

Q9-mcALL4 We are first going to veri~ infoliation on children you”have”had, if ariy PWOR

TO Y.!fertrefdateYo. Then we are going to Mk you some questi~rrs about

children you have had, if any S~CE 07~-!fertrefdateO/o....

Q9-WCALLj So for the questions in this section, unless otherwise instructed, please think

about the time since 0/0!fertrefdateO/O. This will also help us better understand the

effects ofintefiewing you every other year after this_ year’s interview.

Q13-IC.. (~T: REAO ONLY ~ =CALL FLAG IS “1”: REC~L FLAG=VorecallVo) I

would also like to remind you that SOW of the ‘questions in this section will

refer to the time since your interview on 0/0!lintdateO/~,NOT your intetiew last

year. Please think of the specific date or time period being referred to in each

question. I will t~ to remind you when the time period is dtfferent.

Q13 U-2AR Our info~ation shotis that the last month you received unemployment

compensation in 19°/ObirrtyearO/0was O/ounempr_monthO/O.Is this correct?

(IF NECESSARY, REM~ WSPO~ENT:) Remember, we are using your

interview on O/o!IintdateO/~here instead of your intemiew last year.

Analysis variables. The NLSY intefiew ehcits a wide variety of information across a range

of topics. The impact of the longer reference period for the interview is hkely to vary depending on

the salience of the information requested from the respondents. Moreover, certain items essentially

7
ask the respondent to update information provided earlier (for example, regarding employment);

those respondents with no changes to report are less likely to be fiected by the !onger timeframe

called for in the new data collection schedde. We convened a cotittee to help us select the specific

vtiables for the analysis; the group consisted of M]chael Pergmnit (the BLS Project Officer for the

NLS~, Randdl Olsen (the Pnncipd Investigator), and two members of the ~SY Tectical Review

Conrrnittee--Nancy “Matbiowetz and Kemeth Wolpin.

The group agreed that the analysis should focus on a set of key econofic vm=ables. These

included 1) information on employment history (number of jobs, periods of unemployment), 2) on

recipiency of welfare payments (MDC, Food Stamps) and 3) on unemployment compensation.

Respondents were also asked to report on their spousel.s unemployment compensation, alloying us

to compare the effects of the longer reference period on both self and proxy reports. Of course, the

NLSY gathers data on other i_rnportant topics--such as educmion, marital, and fertifity histories--

where analyses similar to those reported here could dso be carried out.

The variables used in this analysis are based on respondents’ retrospective repons about

targeted time periods, recorded as “event histories.!: There are obviously any number of ways

composites could be created from these variables. For our purposes, we counted the riumber of

events occurring in comparable one-year time frames from”the reports given in Round 15 and Round

16. For example, we counted the number of jobs reported in the interval bounded by the two

intefiew dates. For the job history vtilables, these time frames were determined by the starting and

ending dates (for jobs and unemployment spells) collected as part of the.event histories. For the

recipiency variables .(WDC, unemployment, and Food Stamps), the reference period was the

retrospective report for i’cdendar year (either 1992 for”the repofis Iabelled “earlier year” or 1993 for

reports Iabelled “most recent ymr” in the tables below).

8
Data analysb. M estimates md statistics in this report were dculated using the Round 16

Beta Release Data Set and the Round 16 respondent weight (Rl 6WT). (In the course of retising

the report, we recalculated a few of the estimates using the Public Use Data Set.) Stmdmd eqors

associated with the estimates were computed using SUDM, a statistical progr~ package which

uses a Taylor-series algorithm for computing standard errors adjusted for the complex clustered

sampling design: used in the ~SY. These design-corrected staudard errors are reported in

Appendix 1, and were used in all statistical analyses in this repofi

The mrdyses reported below fall primarily into two groups. First, responses from the “twoyear reroll sample,” whose interviews covered a two-year period, were compared to the responses

of the “control group, ” whose interviews” covered a single year. Second, analyses comparing the

reports given by the two-year recall sample during the Round 15 interview were” compared to the

responses they gave during the Round 1$ int emiew in reference to the_same time period. These

reports are referred to as the “old report” and “new report, ” respectively. Nthough the “new report”

concerns the same time period as the “old repo~” it requires the respondent to retrieve information

across a two-year retrospective peritid to generate the event history on y~ch the new report is based.

For both types of comparison, t-tests are used to test the significance oftre differences. For both of

these subsets of analysis, Bonferroni’s adjustment was appfied to the determination of critical values

to control the familywise error rate in making multiple comparisons.

9
Results

The analysis explores three main issues:

1)

2)

3)

Whether the two-year recall group and control group differed in reports concerning””

the must recent year (such differences would, presumably, reflect the effed”s of the

greater reporting burden and increased likelihood of telescoping errors within the

two-year recall group);

The degree that reports from the two-year recall group concerning the initial part of

the reference period differ from the reports originally provided in Round 15 (such

differences between the two would presumably reflect the impact of forgetting);

Whether the effects of the longer reference pefiod vatied by subgroup.

As a preliminary step, we also examined the issue of whether the longer reference period had any

effects on either overall or subgroup response rates. We dld not expect to find any effects, but we

thought it important to determine whether nonrespmrse might have introduced my differences

between the two groups that should be taken into account in the main analyses,

R-ponse rats by group. The sample of cases ehgible for the experiment consisted of 8,759

persons who were rapondents in both Round 14 and 15; 878 of these cases were randomly assigned

to the experimental group. Of these 878, 853 completed the intemiew, for an unwtighted response

rate of 97.2°/0. The Round 16 response rate for the control sample was 7697/7881, or 97.70/~. We

also.calculated response rates for various demographic subgroups (see Table 1)

10
Table 1, Response Rates by Experimenhl Group

Two-Year Recall Group Control Group

Variable/ Initial n Respondents Response Initial n Respondents Response

Levels Rates Rates

Total 878 853 .972 7881 7697 .977

Sex

Males 427 413 ,967 3889 3789 .974

451 440 .976 3992 3908 .979

Race/Ethnicity

Hispanic 172 165 .959 1553 1482 ,967

Black 266 260 .977 2366 2315 ,978

Non-Bl\non-Hisp 440 428 .973 3982 3900 .979

Marital Status

Never married

Married

Formerly married

246 240 .976 2184 2133 .977

477 464 .973 4316 4214 .976

155 149 .961 1381 1350 .978

Educatiou

Less than HS 381 370 .971 3439 3351 .974

HS grad/rmgraded 253 245 .968 2221 2168 .976

College or more 244 238 .975 2221 2178 ,981
We amdyzed the response rate data tia logistic regrmsion models that examined_ the response

rates asafirrction ofexpenmentrd group anddemographlc subgroup. Thetwo-year recrdl group did

not differ &om the control group in this analysis nor dld this variable interact with any of the

demographic variables inthemodels. (Theresdts didti&mtethat Hlspmics hadthe lowest response

rates of the three racdethnic groups. No”other differences in-lespb”nse rates were statistically

significant.)

In general, the response rates within both groups were quite hi~ and nonresponse did not

appear totitroduce mydetectable differences tithe composition of thetwogrouPs. Thoseeligible

fortheexperiment were more hkelyto complete anintemiew than themembers of the Round 16

sample as a whole (970/o versus 910/o). This is probably due to the fact that ehgibility for the

experiment wasrestricted to those who completed thetwoprevious rmmdsofdatac ollection.

Repotis forthepreceding year. Wecomparedthe responses of thetwo-year recall sample

tothose of thecontrol goupont hekeyvtiablesd escfibedearlier. Theresults forthe reports about

themost recent year, shown in Table2, show a significant difference ordyfor thenumber of jobs

reported. The two-year recall sample reported significantly .fewer jobs regardless of whether

respmrden~ reporting no jobswere included or~otitt.ed from the..comparisorr (t = 9.70 for dl

respondents; t =12.80 for those reporting at least onejob; p < .01 for both). This difference”is

consistent tiththe hypothesis that respondents mayreport omit some events astheirreportirrg burden

incrwes. Thetwogroups dldnotdfier,howiver, onanyofthe other variables reexamined. Al

of these other variables concemrelatively rare events, such as unemployment spells.

12
Table 2. Reports for the Most Recent Year by Experimental Group

Experimental Group

Variable Control Two-Year ‘“-1 P

Recall

Number of Jobs -

(O or more) 1.24 (7568) 1..01 (841) 9.70 <.01

Number of Jobs

(1 or more) 1.42 (6465) 1,15 (716) 12.80 <.01

Number of Job Gaps 0.12 (4889) 0,14 (521) 0.85 n.s

Ron Unemployment 3.0% (7696) 4,0% (853)_ 1.22 =n.s.

Spouse on Unemployment 2.1% (4213) 3.40/0 (464) 1.52 rr.s.

Ron MDC 4.0% (7650) 4.6V0 (849) 0,78 n,s.

~R on Food Stare s 7.8% 843’ 1.08 n.s.

It is possible that the members of the two-year group reported fewer jobs pn average in the

most recent year because they displaced some of their jobs backwards in time; that is, these jobs were

not omitted entirely but merely reported as occurring during the prior year. If so, the reports of the

two groups would not differ if we examined data for both years covered in the two-year interview.

Table 3 shows the reports for the experimental and control groups for the two-year period

prior to the Round 16 interview. For the control group, the two-year repo~ combine the Round 15

and Round 16 data (each of which covers approximately one year), For the two-year recall group,

the two-year reports are simply the Round 16 reports, which covered the whole period. The results

indicate fiat once again the experimental group reported significantly fewer jobs for both job history

vtiables (*2.74 for zero or more jobx =3.37 for one or more joby P <.01 for both). T~s Suggests

that the difference in the number of jobs reported does not reflect the impact of dating errors. In

additio~ the resdts “indicate that significantly fewer respondents in the two-year gro”up than in the

13
control group reported receiving Food Stamps during the two-year period covered by Rounds 15 and

16 (=2. 10, p<.05). None of the other differences in Table 3 are significant.

Table 3. Repoti for the Past Two Years by Experimental Group

Experimental Group

Variable Control Two-Year t P

Number of Jobs 1.79 (7568) 1,64 (841) 2.74 <.01

(O or more)

Number of Jobs 1.99 (6649) 1,81 (742) 3.37. <:01

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps “0.22 (4889) 0.19 (521) 0.89 n.s.

Ron Unemployment 7.1% (7696) 5.5% (853) 1.62. n.s.

Spouse on Unemployment 4.970 (4213) 4.5~0 (464) 0.41 n.s.

Ron ~DC ~.8Y0 (7650)” 5.0% (849) 0.98 n.s.

Ron Food Stamps 10.6% (7609) 8.4% (S43) 2.10 <,:05

I

Note: For the control group, the two-year repom combine Round 15 and Round 16 reports; for the

two-year group, the two-year reports are the reports from Round 16, when respondents were

asked about a two-year period,

The results for the four recipiency variables suggest that the two~year recall group may have

telescoped some episodes of recipiency forward in time. A tigher propofion of the two-year group

than of the control group repofied receiving unemployment, Food Stamps, or AFDC during the most

recent year of the recall period (see Table 2), but a lower proportion of two-year group group

reported receiting benefits over tie course of the endre two-year period (Table 3), The same pattern

is apparent for reports about whether the respondent’s spouse had received unemployment. It is

possible that some members of the two-year recall group forgot some episodes of recipiency

(producing the lower rate of reporting for the entire two-year period) and that others misdated their

14
. .

episodes of reclplency, telescoping them forward into the more recent portion of the recall period

(accounting for the higher rate of reporting in the most recent year). ~though these findings are

intn=~ing, they me suggestive.at best.. Ordy oneof the diierences (for receipt of Food Strops dufing

the last two years) is significant.

Agreement between Ronnd 16 and Round 15 reports. The Round 16 interview required

two-year recall respondents to report a second time about the period already covered in the Round

15 interview. Analyses were conducted to. determine how accurately responden~ reproduced the

information they had provided in Round 15. On the average, the new reports of the number of jobs

held (including zero) were significantly lower than the number reported in Round 15 (t= 3.35, p <

.01). The new reports for those reporting at least one job were also significantly lower than the old

reports (P3 .08, p < .01). Once again, some of the difference may reflect jobs that are not omitted

entirely but are misdated as occurring during the most recent year of the two-year rec_dl period.

(Note, however, that the two-year recall respondents dso reported fewer jobs than control

respondents in the most recent year preceding the Round 16 interview; this suggests that j obs were

not displaced forward into the most recent year.) As Table 4 also shows, significantly fewer

respondents reported being on unemployment compensation in their new reports than in their earfier

repofi (f = 2.33, p <.0 1). There are no other significant differences in respondents’ old and new

reports concerning the period covered by the Round 15 interview.

I 15
Table 4. Old and New Reports by the Two-Year Recall Group for the Earfier Year

Reports about the EarHer Year

Variable Old Report New Report t P

Number of Jobs

(O or more) 1.17 (841) 1.03 (841) 3..35 “-:<.01

Number of Jobs

(1 or more) 1.33 (715) 1.21 (688) 3.08 <.0.1

Number of Job Gaps 0.10 (521) 0.05 (521) 1,63 n.s.

Ron Unemployment 5,6% “(g53) 2.7% (853~ 2.33 <.01

Spouse on Unemployment 2.7% (464) 2.6% (464) 0.08 n.s. . -.

Ron MDC 4.4% (849) 4,0% (849) 0.41 n.s.

Ron Food Stamps 7.2% (8.43) 6.5% (843) 0,.57 n,s,

Athough Table 4 shows some significant differences, a large percentage of respondents gave

the same report in Round 16 as they had given in Round 15. Even wit~regard to the report of the

number of jobs, 85.20/o of respondents did not change their answer and ~th regard to the other

variables, between 95. 5“/0.and 98.70/o of respondents did not change their reports. Table 5 displays

the results by variable.

16
Table”S. Differences between the Two-Year Recall Respondents’ Old and New Reports

Original New ‘/0 Same ._

Variable Report Report Difference. Aswer NNumber of Jobs 1.17 1.03 0.14 85,2% 841

Number of Job Gaps

.O:, ~

0.05 0.05 ““” .“93.2% 521

Ron Unemplo~ent 5.6% L7”A 2.9% .95.5!J0 853

Spouse on 2.7% 2.6% O.i”vo ‘9s.lYO 464

Unemployment

Ron ~DC .4.4”A 4,0% 0.4% 96.9% 849

R on Food Stamps 7.2% 6.5% o.7”h 9G;9”A 843

There are a couple of reasons why these apparently high levels of. agreement between the old

and new reports may present a somewhat misleading picture of the results. Rrit, we used a low

standard for determining whether the old and new reports agreed. Respondents merely had to report

the same mlmber of jobs and job gaps, not reproduce any other details regarding the jobs or spells

ofjob]essness. Thus, the “same” reports may actually refer to different jobs or job gaps. Similarly,

we counted the reports about recipiency” as the same if respondents indicated in both interviews that

tiey (or had not) received a given benefit. It is, of course, possible that different incidents of Food

Stamps or welfare recipiency are being reported in the two interviews. Second, the overall levels

agreement may mask impotint differences by subgrogp. For instance; the vast majority of

respondents have never reported receiving Food Stamps and consistently denied receiving Food

Stamps in both the Round 15 and Round 16 interviews. It is; therefore, important to examine the

level of agreement between the old and new repons among those respondents who reported

17
participafin~ in e“tih of the progrms. The &ext section examines these arrd other possible subgroup

differences ii the effect of the longer reference period.

Subgroup differences. We hypothesized that the length of the reference period would have

the greatest effect on reporting about jobs and job gaps among those with the most complex job

historiw. These respondents have the most to report and are the highest risk of mq~l!g an em.or of

omission.

We tested this hypothesis in two ways. first, we examined the rates of agreement between

the old and new reports afier classi~lng respondents by the number ofiobs and job gaps they had

reported in Round 15. Table 6 shows the results of this analysis. Clearly, the likelihood of

reproducing the exact number ofiobs and job gaps declines as there are more to recall. Moreover,

when there are dlfferehcek in the two reports, the new report is likely to omit jobs .oriob gaps that

were reported originally.

18
Table 6. Round 15 vs. Round 16 Report on Number of Jobs and Number of Gaps

Number of Jobs

Round 16 Report

Round 15 Report Same Fewer More n

NO Jobs 98.4°A --- 1.60/0 126

1 Job 94.7”A , 4,1~0 1.1”/0 531

2 Jobs 48.9% 47.6% 3 ,5Y0 143

3+ Jobs 41.4”A 56.1% 2.4°h 41

Number of Gaps

Round 16 Report

Round 15 Report Same Fewer More n

No Gaps 98.4% --- 1.6% 508

1 Gap 28.0% 64.00/G 8.0% 25

2+ Gaps 12.5~0 87.5°A O.O”A 8

In our second analysis, we grouped the respondents according to the number of jobs they had

reported prior to the Round 15 interview. As. the number of jobs ever held through Round 14

increases, the percentage of respondents reporting the same number of jobs in their old and new

Round 15 reports decreases (Table 7). This finding suggests that the increased burden on memory

caused by the stitch to a two-year reference period will not have the same effects on dl members of

the sample. Rather, the complexity of the respondent’s hlsto~ will interact with the Ien@h of the

recall period to tiect the accuracy of reports.

19
Table 7. Differences in Reporting on Jobs and Job Gaps by Number of Jobs Through Round 14

Number of Jobs

Jobs through Rouud 14 O/.Reporting Same n

Number of Jobs —

Las than 4 93.5% .200 :=

5-10 88.5°A– 410 ‘ ‘“”

11 or more. “-“ 71,3% ~30.

—

Number of Job Gaps —

Jobs through Round 14 “/0Reporting Same

n

Number of Gaps

Less than 4 97.5% 160 .”-

5-10 94.6% 277

11 or more 86.5% 104

Logisti_c regression models examining the proportion of respondents reporting the same

nl~mber of jobs =d job gaps in their old and new reports indicates significant effects for both the 

history through Round.14 and for the number ofjobs originally reported in Round 15. ” ~he latter

effect is ody marginally significant for the number ofjobs.) Appendix 3 shows the fill results from

the logistic regression analysis.

—

We also examined the relation between the old and new recipiency reports to determine

whether the tigh levels of overall a~eement between the two interviews masked discrepancies among “”

those reporting recipiency” in either intemiew, ‘These results (displayed” in Table 8) substantially

qu~fi the fidings reported in Table 5. For example, 96,9% of the two-year respondents reported

—

the same AFDC recipiency status in both intemiews; however, among the 5.7Y. of the respondents

who reported receiving MDC in either intemiew, only 470/0 (2. 7°/ti5. 7°/0)reported consistently in

the two interviews. The results are similar for the other three recipiency’variables.

20
Table S, Differences between Two-Year Recall Respondents’ Old and New Reports

R on Unemnlovment?

New Repoti

No Yes

No 93.6°A

Old Report

Yes 3.6°A

0.S%

I.9%

Spouse on Unemployment?

New Re~ofi

No Yes

No 96.4% o,90A

Old Report

Yes 1.O”A 1.7”/0

Ron AFDC?

New ReDort

No Yes

No

Old Repofl

Yes

94.2%

1.7”A

Ron Food Stamps?

New Report

No Yes

No 91.6% 1.1%

Old Repofi

Yes 1.9% 5.3”h

21
Discussion

The results supported four main conclusions:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Lengthening the recall period to two years had little discernible effect “onoverall or

subgroup response rates,

The two-year recall period did seem to reduce the level of reporting abo~ jobs for the

most recent year of the reference perio~ indicating an effect of the increased

reporting burden imposed by the longer reference period;

Respondents in the two-year group often failed to reproduce the answers they had

given in t“heRound 15 intefi”ew, indicating the impact of foi~etting o.ier the longer

reference period;

The impact of tEe two-vein recall period was most marked among those with the most

to remember--such as those with complex job histories or a large number ofjobs or

job gaps during the period covered by the Round 15 intemiew.

The response rates among those eligible for the experiment were very high--ov$r 97”A in the

both the two-year and control ~oups (see Table 1). The wperiment excluded persons who had been

nonresponderrts in either Round 14 or Round 15, as well as other problematic cases. Thus, within

the remaining group, consisting mostly of persons who had completed 15 pretious rounds of data

collection, there was little inclination not to complete the Round 16 interview. The length of the

recall periodhadno effect on response rates within this””fighly cooperative giOUp.

The two-year recall period seemed to reduce the number ofjobs reported for the most recent

year of the two-year refwence period (Table 2), and this reduction appears to reflect omissions rather

than dating errors (Table 3). Since these comparisons involve the same time period--the period of

aPProAmately one year between the Round 15 and Round 16 interview--the omissions would seem

td be the product of the increased reporting burden rather than of increases in the difficulty involved

in retrieving incidents over a longer time span. This line of reasoning suggests that the impact of the

longer reference period might be offset if the intemiew were shortened (eg.. by dropping.some

22
topics) or reporting burden were reduced.in some other way.

Comparison of the reports of the two-year group with their earher reports in Round 15

demonstrates lower levels of reporting in the second interview (Table 4). This falloff probably

reflects the effect of the longer reference period on the amount of forgetting. Consistent with this

view, the proportion of respondents reporting fewer jobs and fewer job gaps in the later interview is

highestamong those with th:most difficult employment tistories to remember (Tables 6 and 7).

Similarly, reports about recipiency of ~DC, Food Stamps, or unemployment varied most among

those who reported participating in these programs in either interview (Table S). These results

~ggest that the impact..oflen~hefing the reference pefiod to two years wfll.be most marked among

those respondents with compIex or dynamic histories--a key group for many analysts of the data.,

These findings are also consistent with recent theories about the impact of the passage of time on

memory (e.g., Rubin & Wetzel, 1996). ” The key variable is not elapsed time per se. but the

accumulation of timilar events, which makes it “increasingly dificult to recall each individual event.

23
References

Badddey, A. D., Lewis, V. & Nlmmo-Stit~ I. (1978). When did you last ? In M. M. Gruneberg

&R. N. Sykes (eds), Practical aspects o~menro~ @p, 77-83). San Diego, CA Academic Press.

Bradbum, N., Rips, L., & Sheve~, S. (1987). Answering autobiographical “questions: The impact of

memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236, 157-161.

Brewer, W., (1993). Autob.iographicfl memory and survey research. In N. Schwarz and S. Sudman

(Eds.), At(jobiographical nlemory mrd the va[idip of retrospective reporfs (pp. 11-20): New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Brown, N., Rips, L., & Shevell, S. (1985) .- The subjective dates of natural events k very-long-term

memory, Cogrrifive P~cholo~, 17, 139-177.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. (H. Ruyer and

C. Bussenias, trans.). New York: Dover (originally published in 1885).

Huttedocher, J., Hedges, L., & Pmhaska, .V. (1988). HlerarchlcaI organization in ord~red domains:

‘estimating the dates of events. Pkychoiogicai Revie]v, 95, 471-484,

Yobe, J., Tourangeau, R., & “Srnit~ A.F. (1993), “Contributions of survey research to the

understanding _ofmemo~,”’~ App[ied Co~7tive P~ihology, 7, 567-584. .

Loti, E. F. & Marburger, W, (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you

“P? ImPrOting the ac~racy of retrospective~epo fis with landmark events. M~~orY aizd co~zifion,

If, 114-120.

Neter, J., & Waksberg, J, (1964). A study ofresponse errors in expenditures data horn household

intetiews, Joz{rnaI of the Americatz Sfafistical Assocjafio?z, 59, 17-5 5“.

Rutin, D.C., & Wetzel, A,E. (1996), One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of

retention. Psycholo@”cal Revieu,, 103, 734-760,

Sudman, S. & Bradbum, N. M. (1973). Effects of time tid memory factors on response in su~eys.

Jot[rnai of fhe Anzericatz SfafisficaiAssocia fiotz, 68, 805-815.

Wagenam, W. (1986),. My memo~ A study of rastotiographical memo~ over six yems. Cogrzifive

P~ycho[ogy, 18, 225-252,

24
Appen&x 1:

Sbndard Errors
Appendix Table 1:

The StandardErrors and DEWS for dre Estimates ti Table 2

Control Group Report on Most Recent Year

Variable Mean N SE by SE by SAS

SUDAAN DEFF

Number of Jobs

(Oor more) 1.24 7568 0.0113 0.0095 1.415

Number of Jobs 1.42 6465 0.0109 0..0091 1.435

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.12 4889 0.0081 0.0067 _. ..11..462

R on Unemployment 0.03 ...7696 0.0023 0.0019 1.404

Spouse on Unemployment 0.021 4213 0.0024 0.0022 “.1.,239

Rmr AFDC 0.040 7650 .0.0026 o.m22 .1.*327

Ron Food Stamps 0.068 7609 0.0037 0.0029 1597

Experiment Group Report on Most Recent Year

Variable Mean N SE by SE by

SUDAAN SAS DEFF

Number of Jobs 1.01 841 0.0214 .= 0.0199 1.156

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.15 716 0.0178 0.0175 1.035

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.14 521 0.0221 0.0191 1.339

R on Unemployment 0.04 853 0...0079 0.0067 1.379

Spouse on Unemployment 0.034

464..

0;0082 0.0084 0.934

R on AFDC 0.046 849. 0.0072 0.0072 1.002

R on Food Swmps 0.078 843 0.0085 :-: 0..0092” :- 0..852

Source: National hrrgitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohgrt--l 994 Youth Beta Release.

A-1
Appendix Table 2:

The Standard Errors and rhe DEFFs for rbe Estimates in T;ble 3

Control Gro_upReport on P&t Two Years

Variable Mean N SE by SE by SAS

Number of Jobs 1.79 7568 0.0204 0.0164 1.547

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.99 6649 0.0211 0.0167 1.596

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.22 4889” 0.0113 0..0096 1.386

R on Unemployment 0.071 7696 0.0033 -0.0029 1.268

Spouse on Unemployment 0.049 4213 0.0037 0“:0033 1.222

Ron AFDC 0.05.8 ‘“’ 7650 0.0034 0.0027 1.619

R mr Faod Stamps 0.106 7609 0,.0050-” 0.0035. 1.980

Experimental Group Report on Past Two Years

Variable Mean N SE by SE by

SUDAAN SAS DEFF

Number OfJobs 1.64 841 0.0508 0.0409” 1..543“-

(0 or more)

Number OfJobs 1.81 746 0.0522 0.0409 1.629

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.19 521 0.0317 0.0264 1.442

R mr Unemployment 0.055 853 -0...0093.. ._-.00078 1:430”

Spouse on Unemployment 0.045 464 0..0090 0.0Q9.7.. 0.876.

Ron AFDC 0.050 -.849 0.Q374 0.0075 0.977

Ron Food Stamps ‘0.084 843 0.0092 0.0095 0.922

Source: . National Lo~irodinal Suwey of Youth, “1979COhort--Youfi 1979.-. i 993 Release 7.0

National LongimdirxalSuW&yof Ybuth, 1979 Cahart--l 991Yoifi Beta Release.

A-2
Appendix Table 3:

The StandardErrorsandthe DEFFs for tbe Estimates in Table 4.

Old Report on Earlier Year

Variable Mean N SE by SE by SAS

SUDAAN DEFF

Number of Jobs 1.17 841 0.0309 ~:o=o .1.528

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.33 715 0.0294 0.0230 1.634

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0:10 ““““521 0.0269 0.0182 2.185

R on Unemployment 0.056 853. .0.0108 0.0078 1.887

Spouse on Unemployment 0.027 464 0.0086 0..W76 1.285

Ron AFDC .0.044 849 0.0068 0..0070 ~ D.933

R mr Food Stamps 0.072 843 0.0089 0.0089 0.960. “,:”

New Rep[>rtrm Earlier Year

Variable Mean N SE by SE by

SUDW. . SAS DEFF

Number of Jobs 1.03 841 0.0279 0..0224 1.551

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.21 688 0.0M6 ““ 0.0200 “1.638

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.05 521 0:0147” “: oa120 1.501

Ron Unemployment 0.027 853 .0..0062-” 0.0056 1.233

Spouse on Unemployment 0.026 464 0.M82 “=Qjo074”““-” 1.239 “- ~

R mr AFDC .0.040 849 0.0070 0.0068 ““- i .085

R mr Food Stamps 0.065” 843 0:0086 “o.m5 .1.021

Source: Nationti Longitudinal Survey of Youdr, 1979 COhOrt--Youtb1979-1993 Release 7.0,

NationaJ Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979”Cohort--l994 You~ Beta.Release. 

A-3
Appendix 2

SubgroupResults
Appendix Table 4.

OIdand New Reportson tie Earlier Year, Mde Respondents

Old Report New Report

Variable

Estimate SE.N Estimate SE N“ t

Number of Jobs 1.249 0.077 407 1.111 0.068 413 1.343

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.3.55 0.073 “– 372 1.229 0.063 368 1.307

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.103 0.045 321 0.051 0.032 292 0.942

Mean Duration of GaPs 90.310 39.093 17 81.475 “- “=62.895 ‘“- 1“0 0..119 ‘-” 

Source: Natimral Lmrgitudimd Sumey of Youth, 1979 Cohart--Youtb 19?9 - 199? “Release7.0:

NatiOmdLongitudinal Suwey of Youth, 1979 Cohort--l 994 Youth .BetaRelease.

ApDendix Table 5.

Gross and Net Discrepancies irrR;porting on tie Earlier Year, Mali RespOndenE

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepancy

(off-&lagonals) (marginals)

Variable Estimate SE N Estimate SE N

Number of Jobs 0.148 0.025 407 0:120 0.026 ‘“

~7

Number of Gaps 0.063. 0.022 “.261- 0.026 ..:...O.022 261

Duration of Gaps 1.000 O.wo

SoOrce:

5 0083 0.s40 ..” .5

Nation~ Lmrgimdinal”Suwey of Youdr, 1979 COhom--Youdr1979-1993 “Release7.0.

National Lorrgitu@nalSurvey of Youth, .1979 Cohort--1994 Youth Beta ReIease.
Appentix Table 6.

Old and New Reportson the EarlierYear, Female Respmrdenti

Old Report New Repon

Variable

Estimate “SE N Estimate

SE.

N t

Number of Jobs 1.085 0.072 434. 0.933 0.064 440 1.578

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1.310 0.064 343 1.191 0.054 325 1.421

(l or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.132 0.058 342 0.061 0.037 317 1.032

Mean Duratimr of Gaps 65.127 38.921 20 64.592 58.7i6 10 0.007

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 COhOrt--Youti 1979-1993 Release 7.0.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohort--1994 Youth Bera Release.

Appendix Table 7.

Gross artdNet Discrepanciesin Reportingon the Earlier Year, Female Respondents

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepancy

(off-dtiazorals) (rnarginds)

VarLable Estimate SE N Esdrrrate ‘SE .N

Ncmber of Jobs 0.147 0.025 434 0.119 0.025 434

(Oor more)

Number trfJob Gaps 0.080 0.023 280 0.048 0.024 280

Duration of Gaps I ,000 0.000 6 0.315 0.690 6

A-5

source: National LOngitudLnalSurvey OfYouth, 1979 Cohort--Yi)uth 1979-1993 Release 7.0.

National Longitidtial Survey””of Youti, 1979 Cohort--1994 Youth Beta Release.
Appendix Table 8.

Old sod New Repom on the Earlier Year in the Two-Year Group,

Respmrdents with Four or Fewer Jobs through Round 15

Old Report New Report

Variable

Estimate SE. .N Estimate SE N t

Number of Jobs 0.806 0.076 200 0.749 0..070 202 0.552

(Oor more)

Number of Jobs 1,066 0.045 141 1.019 .-..0.025 1“36 0.913

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.039-”””

0,B37.

178 0.007 ““’0.013” 171 0.816

Mean Duration of Gips””””Z9T828- --- 6 11.000 --- 1

Source: National Lmrgitudinai”Surveyof Yguti, 1979 Cohort--Youti 1979-1993 Rele&e 7.0..

Natioti Longirodfial Suwey of Youti, 1979 Cohort--1994 Youth Beta Release,

Appenfix Table 9.

Gross and Net Discrepancies ti Reportingon tie EarlierYear,

Respondentswith Fow or F&werJobstirough Round 15

Gross Discrepancy “NetDiicfepinky

(off-diagonals) (margtidls)

Varfable Esdmate SE N“ Estimate SE N

Number of Jobs 0.061 0.025 200 0.061 0.025 2m

(Oor more)

Number af Job Gaps 0.017 0.015 160 0.017

0:015 160

Duration of”Gaps” --- — o. ---- =_ ..--,. o

Sourcti National Longimditi Survey of You@, 1979 Cohort-Youth 1979-1993 Release 7.O.

Nationdl Longimdinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohon-- 1994 Youth Beta Release. 

A-6
Appendix TabIe ,10.

Old andNew Reportson the EarlierYear in theTwo-Year Group, 

Respondentswiti 5 to 10 Jobs tfrruu~ Rmmd 15

Old Report New Report

Vwiable

Estimate SE N Estimate SE.’” N t

Number of Jobs 1.170 0.068 410 I.055 0.059 419 1.277

(OOrmore)

Number of Jobs 1.297 0.062 361 1.195 ““’” “0.051 -..354 1.271

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.123 0.054 335 0.055 0.036 3.13 1.048

Mean Duration of GIps 55.975 29.233 18 64.013 44.824 11 0.150”

Source: Nationsl h~itodinal Survey OfYouti, 1979 CohOrt--Yuuth 1979-1993 Release 7.0.

National Lmrgitudind Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohort--l 994 Youtb B&cdRelem-e.

Appendix Table 11.

Gross md Net Discrepancies in Reportingon tie Eafiief ~~ar,

Respondentswith 5 to 10 Jobs tirough Round 15

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepancy

(Oft-dragorrals) (rmdrginals)

Variable Estimate” SE N Estimate SE N

Number of Jobs 0.120 0.023 410 0.101 0.024 410

(Oor more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.071 0.022 277 0:055 0.023 277

A-7

Duration of Gaps ““J.000 0.022 7 0.196 0.637 7

Source:.. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohnrt--Ynuti 1979-1993 “Release7.0.

Natiomd Longitudinal Survey of YQuk, 1979 Cohort--1994 Youth Biti REliase.
Appendix Table 12.

Old and New Reporrs on-tie Earlier Year in tbe Two-Year Group,

Respondents with 11 or More Jobs through Round 15

Old Report New Report

Variable

Estimate SE N Estimate SE N t

Number of Jobs 1.441 0.120 230 1.178” -0.114. 233. 1.589

(Oor retire)

Number of Jobs 1.568 0.113 212 1.369 0.108 202 ....1.273

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.187 0.098 150 ‘0.118 0.073 125 0.565

Mean Duration of Gaps “125.286 “’”“ 58.677- 13 “““88.213 --- 8

---

Source: National LongiWdinal Sumey of Youtik 1979 Cohon-Youti 1979-1993 ReleaSe 7.0. ..

National Longitudinal “Surveyof Youth, 1979”Coh6N--l 994 Youth “Beh”Release. “-

Appendix Table 13.

Gross and Net Discrepancies”inRepMing on the Efllier Year,

Respondentswith 11 or More Jobs through Rmmd 15

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepmq

(off-diagomds) (margirials)

Variable Estimate SE N ~timate SE N

Number of Jobs 0.262 0.042

230.-

0.197 ._ 0.045 230

(Oor more)

Number of Joh Gaps 0.148 0.051 104- 0.015 0.055 104

Duration of Gaps 1.000 --- 4. 0.270 ---“““ “‘ “a

Source: National Longitudind Survey of Youti, 1979 Cohort--Youti 1979-”1993 Release 7.0.

National Longitudinal “Surveyof Youti, 1979 Coh{irt--l994 Youth Bera Release.

A-8
Appentix.Table 14.

Old and New Reportson theEarlierYear in the Two-Year Group,

RespondentsCornpletirrgHigh School or Less

Old Report New Report

Variable

Estim-ate SE N Estimate SE N t

Number of Jobs . 1.177. -..0.067 600 0.997 “07060 610 2.001

(Oor more)

Nmher of Jobs 1.372 . . . 0.062 497 1.229 0.055 .._ 477 1.725

(1 or more)

Number of Job GZps 0.112 0.046 460 .0.076 ...D_034 433 “0.629

Mean Duratimr of Gaps 91.948 38.154 22 75.978 46.94.9 15 o.m4

Source: National Lmrgimdind Suwey of Youth, 1979 Cohort--YoutJr 1979-1993 ReIease 7.0.

National Lrnrgimdinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohort--l 994 Youth Bew Release..

Appendix Table 15.

Gross and Net Discrepanciesin Reportirig on tbe Earlier Year,

Respondents Completing High School or Less

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepancy

(off-diagonals) (marginals)

Variable .Esti.mate SE _N Estimate SE N.

Number of Jobs 0.170.. 0.022 . 600 .:0.144 _o.023 600

(Oor more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.058 “ 0.017 380 0.013 0.018 “380

Duration of Gaps 1.000 0.000 8 0.292 0.566 8

Source National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Qhort--Yc)utJr 1979-1993 Rel&ase7.0.

National Longitudinal Surv&y’ofYouth, 1979 Cohort--i 994 Youth Beta Release.

A-9
Appendix Table 16.

Old and New Reports on the Earlier Year “intie Two-Year Grmrp,

Respondents With More than High School Education

Old Report New Repon

Variable

Estimate SE N Estimate SE N t

Number of Jobs 1.149 0.08.7 236 1.069 0.074 238 0.700

(0 or more)

Number of Jobs 1.267 0.077 214”-’- 1.181 0.063 213 0.864

(1 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.127 0.064 199 0.023 ““0.024 172 1.522

Mean Duration of Gaps 59.658 40.824 – i4 “-- 56.207 .5 ---

Source:. National Longitudinal”Sumey of .Youeh, 1979“Cohoit--Youti 1979”-1993 Release 70.

National Longimdi~l SuWey“ofYoufi, ~979Cohort-; 1994 Youth Beta “R&ie=se.

Appendix Table 17.

Gross and Net Discrepanciesin Reportingon @e EarlierYear,

RespondentsWifi More thanHigh School Education

Gross Discrepancy Net Discrepancy

(off-diagorxds) (margitis)

Variable Estimate” ..SE ..” N Gtirnate “’”. SE -N. .

Number of Jobs 0.107 0.029 236 0.074 . ..0.030 ..236.. .=-

(0 or more)

Number of Job Gaps 0.096 .“ 0.034 158 0.079 0.035 ::.. .158”

Dtiratinn of Gaps 1.000 ”.. ..:. 3 .:-0,045 --- .3

Source: .... ._ Natit>na]~~ngimdinal Survey of .Y.outi, 1979 COhOrt--YOUth]g7”9: 19g3 Rele{Se7.0. ,. . ..

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 Cohon-.l”994 You”fi“BetaReleXe.

A-10
Appendix 3:

bgistic Regression Models
Appentix Table 18: 

Model for RepordngDifferent Numbers of Jobs

Independent Variable/Effem Coefficient (SE) t-tist p value 

Intercept -9.33 (0.97)

Number of Jobs in Round 15 -3.16 (0.32)

5 to 10 Jobs.drrough Round 14 -0.67 (0.38) _

(vs. Fewer drsn 4)

11 or More Jobs drrough Round 14 -0.11 (0.39)

(vs. Fewer than 4)

Male (vs. Female) -0.25.(0.32)

Hispanic (vs. ion-Black, non-Hkpanic) 0.39(0.33 ‘

Black (vs. non-Black, rrmr-Hispanic) 0.35 (0.30)

I.esstian High School (vs. College 0.56 (0.34)

or more)

High Sch\)ol Gradtiate (vs. College 0.45<0.38)

or more)

Never Married (vs. Formirly Married)” -0.02 (0.44)

Currentiy Married (vs. Formerly Married) 0.01 (0.39)

-9.62

9.94

-1.77

-0.28

-0.80

1:09

1.14

1.65 .. ‘

1.17

-0.06

0.00

0:00

0.08

0.T78

0.43

f>8

0.26 

0.10 “

0.25

0.95

0.01 _ L99.. . ... 

A-11
Appentix Table 19:

Model for ReportingDifferent Numbersof Joh GaPS

Independent Variable/Effect Coefficient (SE) i-test p value

Intercept -7.38 (1.23) -6.02 0.00

Number of Jc)hsin Round 15 1.53(0.37) ““:” 4.16 0.00

5to 10Jobs drrough Round 14 .- 1.36 (0.70) 1.96 0.05

(vs. Fewer than 4)

11 or More lobs through Round 14 1.65 (0.63). : ““-”” 2.62 ...0.01

(vs. Fewer tin 4)

Male (vs. Female) -0.40(0.48). -0.84 “0.41

Hispanic (vs. n(m-Black, n(m-Hisparric) 4.46 (0.88) -0.52 0.60

Black (vs. non-B1ack, non-Hispanic) 0.18(0.50) 0.36 0.72

Less than High School (v5L~Qllege -0.77(0:52) -1.4s o. i4

<>rmore)

High School Graduate (vs. college -0.15 (0.48) -0.3.0”.. Q.76

or more)

Never Married (vs. Formerly Marfied) 0.36 (0.82) 0.44 0.66

CurrentI vMarried”(vs.F(>rmerlvMarried) 0.85 (0.79) 1.08 0..28

A-12
92-01

92-02

92-03

92-04

92-05 .“ : ..:

92-06 “-

92-07

92-08

92-09

92-10

92,11

92-12.

92-13

National Longitudinal Suweys (NLS)

Discussion Paper Series

-

Michael R. Pergamit

Nomm M. Bmdburn

Mtiin R, Frankel

Reginald P. Baker

Michael R. Pergamit

Saul Schwafiz

Rohefi Hutchens

George Jakubson

A. Colh @eron

R. Mak Gritz

Thomm MaCurdy

HenW S. Fmber

Fmnk L. Mon.

Paula Baker

Audrey Light

Manuelita Ureta

Lisa M. Lynch

Evmgelos M. Falmis

H. Elizabeth Peters

tie Hill

June E. ONeill

Arleen Leibowi@

Jacob Alex Klemm

Linda Waite

Lee A. Liflwd

Joseph G. Almnji

Tbomm A. Dunn

m

How the Fedeml Government USeS Data from

the National Longitudinal Suweys

A Comparison of C6rnputer-Assistid Pemonal”

[ntemiews (CAPI) with Paper-and Pencil lnter-

~iews (PAP]) in the National Longitudinal Sumey

of Youth

Dynamic Models of the Joint Determination of

bbor Supply and Family Structme

The effmti Of Unemployment Compensation

on the Unemployment of Youth

Evaluating Competing Theori- of Worker

Mobility

Evaluation of the 1989 Child-we Supplement

in the National Longitudinal Sumey of Youth

Gender Difference in the Quit Behavior of

Young Workers

The Impa& of Private Sector Training on Rwe

and Gender Wage Differeritials and the Cmeer

Patterns of Young Workem

Responses of Female Labor Supply ad F@ility

to the Demographic Cycle

A SUdy of Inkrcohoti Change in Women’s

Work Pattern md Emings

Women’s Employment During Pregnmcy

ad Following Bifih

Work Experience, Joh Tenure, Job Sepaation,

and Wage Growth

Fti”ily BackWound md Labor Mmkw outcomes
92-14 George J. Bo~as

StephenG. Bronm

Stephen J. Tmjo

9>15 Jmes J. Hechm

Stephen V. Cmeron

Peter Z. Schochet

93-16 R. Mwk Griti

Thomas MaCwdy

94-17 Alm L. Gw~m

Thomm L,. Steinmeier

94-18 Au&ey Light

94-19 Christopher J. Ruhm

95-20 Mmk Lowensteti

Jaes Spletier

95-21 Jacob Alex Kleman

95-22......

.“” Jacob Alex Klema

Arleen Leibowitz

95-23 = -. .> Stephen G. Bron~s

Cmol Moore

95-24 Donald O. Parsons

95-25 Donald O. Parsons

95-26 An Baflel

Nachum Sichemm

95-27 Audrey Light

95-28 Laura Branden

R. Mark Gritz

Michael R. Pergmit

96-29 Thomas Dunn

Douglm Holti-Eakti

Self-Selection md Internal Migration in the

United Stat=

The Deteminmk ad Consequences of PubIic

Se&or and Private Sector Tmining

P@cipation in Low-Wage Labor Makets by

Young Men

Retirement in a Family ”Conteit A Smcmril Model

for Husbands md Wives

Tmsitions from School to .Work A S“wey of

R=ewch Using the National Longimdinal Sumeys

High School Emplo~en~ Consumption or

Investment

Infomal Trainin~ A Review of Existing Data and

Some New Evidence

Characterizing Leave for Maternity: Modeling the

NLSY Data

Employment Continuity Among New Mothem

Intent ive Pay, Information, md -in~ Evidence

from the National Longitudinal Suwey of Youth

The Evolving Stmctures of Female Work Activities:

Evidence from the National Lo”git”dinal SUWeyS of

Mamre Women Suwey, 1967-1989

Povefiy Dynamics Among Mamfi Women Evidence

from the National Longitudinal Sweyi, 1967-1989

Technological Change and the Skill Acquisition of

Young Workers

HIgb School Employment

The Effect of Intimiew Leng&- on A~ition in the

National Longimdinal SuNey ofYo”th

Capitil Market Constraints, Parenml Weal& md tie

Trmsition to self-Employment among Men md

Women
96-30

96-31

96-32

96-33

97-34

Jeff Grogger

Nick Ronm

“me Intergenemtional Effects of Fatherlesmes on

Educational Attakment ad EntW-ievel Wages

Jonathm Veum Ttitikg Wages, and the Humm Capital Model

Michael R, Pergait

...Eric P. Slade

Bemmd Dugoni

Lisa Lee

Roger Toumgau

Assessing School to Work Tmsitioti h the United

stat=

h halysis of the Consequences of fiployer

Lincked Health Insurmce Coverage ti U.S.

Repofi on the NLSY Round 16 Recall Expetient