Skip to main content

Calibrating Time-Use Estimates for the British Household Panel Survey

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recently, researchers also consider experience sampling methods whereby respondents record what they are doing at randomly selected moments of time (Juster et al. 2003; Gershuny 2004).

  2. 2.

    In the alternative constrained matching all the records in both dataset are represented in the matched file. To accomplish this, the units in both samples are replicated to the population size.

  3. 3.

    Kan and Gershuny (2009) and Connelly and Kimmel (2009) include examples of this method.

  4. 4.

    See the Rubustness Check section for recent developments in this methodology which overcome this drawback.

  5. 5.

    120 BHPS observations had to be discarded because they had no HOL close matches available.

  6. 6.

    We used the procedure developed by Becker and Ichino (2002) for STATA. We obtained 9 blocks.

  7. 7.

    In fact, none of the differences are significant at the 1 % level.

  8. 8.

    The additional variables were interaction terms between total working hours and age, civil status, education categories, number of children, childcare responsibility, and computer use. Results are available upon request.

  9. 9.

    Instead of the 120 cases in our preferred method, radius matching leaves 360 observations out of the analysis.

  10. 10.

    We used the Stata program uvis to compute this last estimation (Royston 2004).

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonke, J. (2005). Paid work and unpaid work. Diary information versus questionnaire information. Social Indicators Research, 70, 349–368.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kan, M. J., & Gershuny, J. (2009). Calibrating stylised time estimates using UK diary data. Social Indicators Research, 93, 239–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kan, M. Y., & Pudney, S. (2008). Measurement error in stylized and diary data on time use. Sociological Methodology, 38, 101–132.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhao, Z. (2008). Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. Economics Letters, 98(3), 309–319.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefited from comments provided by Man Yee Kan, David Berrigan, and Oriel Sullivan. Any remaining errors are our own. This paper was partly prepared while Dr. Borra was an Academic Visitor in the Centre for Time Use Research at the University of Oxford (summer 2009, autumn 2010). The authors would like to express their thanks for the financial support provided by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Project ECO2008-01297 and Movility Grant “José Castillejo” Convocatoria 2010), by the Andalusian Government (Convocatoria IAC 2009 2), and by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Number RES-060-25-0037).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Borra.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Matching quality

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borra, C., Sevilla, A. & Gershuny, J. Calibrating Time-Use Estimates for the British Household Panel Survey. Soc Indic Res 114, 1211–1224 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0198-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Statistical matching
  • Propensity score
  • Mahalanobis distance
  • Childcare time