Social Indicators Research

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 1211–1224

Calibrating Time-Use Estimates for the British Household Panel Survey

  • Cristina Borra
  • Almudena Sevilla
  • Jonathan Gershuny
Article

Abstract

This paper proposes an innovative statistical matching method to combine the advantages of large national surveys and time diary data. We use data from two UK datasets that share stylised time-use information, crucial for the matching process. In particular, time-diary information of an individual from the Home On-line Study, our donor data set, is imputed to a similar individual from the British Household Panel Survey, our recipient dataset. Propensity score methods are used in conjunction with Mahalanobis matching to increase matching quality.

Keywords

Statistical matching Propensity score Mahalanobis distance Childcare time 

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricists companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baydar, N., Greek, A., & Gritz, M. R. (1999). Young mothers’ time spent at work and time spent caring for children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 20, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377.Google Scholar
  4. Bittman, M. (2004). Parenting and employment what time-use surveys show. In Michael. Bittman & Nancy. Folbre (Eds.), Family time: The social organization of care (pp. 152–170). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bloemen, H., Pasqua, S., & Stancanelli, E. (2010). An empirical analysis of the time allocation of Italian couples: Are they responsive? Review of Economics of the Household, 8(3), 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonke, J. (2005). Paid work and unpaid work. Diary information versus questionnaire information. Social Indicators Research, 70, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connelly, R., & Kimmel, J. (2009). Spousal influences on parents’ non-market time choices. Review of Economics of the Household, 7(4), 361–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gershuny, J. (2000). Changing times: Work and leisure in postindustrial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gershuny, J. (2004). Costs and benefits of time sampling methodologies. Social Indicators Research, 67, 247–252.Google Scholar
  11. Gershuny, J. (2012). Too many zeros: A method for estimating long-term time-use from short diaries. Annales d’Ėconomie et de Statistique, 105(106), 247–270.Google Scholar
  12. Gu, X., & Rosenbaum, P. (1993). Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2, 405–420.Google Scholar
  13. Joesch, Jutta. M., & Spiess, K. (2006). European mothers’ time spent looking after children—Differences and similarities across nine countries. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 3(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Judson, D. H., & Poppoff, C. L. (2004). Selected general methods. In J. S. Siegel & D. Swanson (Eds.), The methods and materials of demography (pp. 667–732). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Juster, F. T., Ono, H., & Stafford, F. P. (2003). An assessment of alternative measures of time use. Sociological Methodology, 33, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kan, M. Y. (2008). Measuring housework participation: The gap between “stylised” questionnaire estimates and diary-based estimates. Social Indicators Research, 86(3), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kan, M. J., & Gershuny, J. (2009). Calibrating stylised time estimates using UK diary data. Social Indicators Research, 93, 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kan, M. Y., & Pudney, S. (2008). Measurement error in stylized and diary data on time use. Sociological Methodology, 38, 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kum, H. & Masterson, T. (2008). Statistical matching using propensity scores: Theory and application to the levy institute measure of economic wellbeing. Economics working paper archive wp_535, Levy Economics Institute. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_535.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010.
  20. Lechner, M. (2002). Program heterogeneity and propensity score matching: An application to the evaluation of active labor market policies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peichl, A., & Schaefer, T. (2009). FiFoSiM: An integrated tax benefit microsimulation and CGE model for Germany. International Journal of Microsimulation, 2(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  22. Räessler, S. (2002). Statistical matching: A frequentist theory, practical applications and alternative Bayesian approaches. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Ridder, G., & Moffitt, R. (2007). The econometrics of data combination. In J. J. Heckman & E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 6, pp. 5469–5547). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.Google Scholar
  26. Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227–241.Google Scholar
  27. Rubin, D. B. (1986). Statistical matching using file concatenation with adjusted weights and multiple imputations. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 4, 87–94.Google Scholar
  28. Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schulz, F. & Grunow, D. (2012). Comparing diary and survey estimates on time use. European Sociological Review, 28(5), 622–632.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, J. (2000). A critical survey of empirical methods for evaluating active labor market policies. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 136(3), 247–268.Google Scholar
  31. Stuart, E. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 155–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sutherland, H., Taylor, R., & Gomulka, J. (2002). Combining household income and expenditure data in policy simulations. Review of Income and Wealth, 48(4), 517–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Buuren, S., Boshuizen, H. C., & Knook, D. L. (1999). Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 18, 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhao, Z. (2004). Using matching to estimate treatment effects: Data requirements, matching metrics, and Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhao, Z. (2008). Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. Economics Letters, 98(3), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zick, C. D., & Bryant, W. K. (1996). A new look at parents’ time spent in child care: Primary and secondary time use. Social Science Research, 25, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Borra
    • 1
  • Almudena Sevilla
    • 2
  • Jonathan Gershuny
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Ec. HistoryUniverstity of SevilleSevillaSpain
  2. 2.School of Business and Management, Queen MaryUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Deparment of Sociology, Centre for Time-Use ResearchUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations