TY - JOUR
T1 - The quality of fertility data in the web-based Generations and Gender Survey
AU - Leocádio, Victor
AU - Gauthier, Anne H.
AU - Mynarska, Monika
AU - Costa, Rafael
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the Generations and Gender Programme (GGP) national representatives in Estonia, Finland, and Sweden for authorizing the use of the data not publicly available on the date of development and submission of this work. Victor Leocádio acknowledges the Brazilian Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES) for the funding, the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) for the invitation to work as a Visiting Research at the Generations and Gender Programme (GGP), and the Program in Demography of the Center for Development and Regional Planning (CEDEPLAR) of the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) for the support. This paper is a product of this visiting period at NIDI. Monika Mynarska acknowledges the funding from the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (BPN/BEK/2021/1/00247).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Leocádio, Gauthier, Mynarska & Costa.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - BACKGROUND The Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) enables investigating family-related events from a life course perspective. After its first round of face-to-face implementation, various factors resulted in the second round being implemented on the web. Despite its advantages, implementing a web-based GGS has its drawbacks ‒ for instance, possible misreporting, and especially underreporting, of life history variables due to the lack of on-site guidance. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality of GGS second-round data collected through the web by verifying the accuracy of fertility histories. METHODS We compare the GGS data with population-based estimates from open access sources, the Human Fertility Database (HFD) and the United Nations Population Division (UN), using three cohort indicators and one period fertility indicator that are frequently used as summary measures. We restrict the analysis to the female fertility history data of countries where the second round of the GGS was implemented via the web and the data processing has been completed: Estonia, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden. RESULTS For the four indicators, the GGS estimates are consistent with the population-based estimates. With a few exceptions, HFD and UN estimates fall within the GGS confidence intervals (CIs). CONCLUSION Overall, we found similarities that demonstrate the high quality of the data. Our assessment finds no systematic deviation for the cohort indicators and small scale underreporting for the period indicator (nevertheless, also usually within the CIs). CONTRIBUTION The high level of similarity is encouraging for the use of GGS second-round data and the implementation of web-based methods of data collection.
AB - BACKGROUND The Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) enables investigating family-related events from a life course perspective. After its first round of face-to-face implementation, various factors resulted in the second round being implemented on the web. Despite its advantages, implementing a web-based GGS has its drawbacks ‒ for instance, possible misreporting, and especially underreporting, of life history variables due to the lack of on-site guidance. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality of GGS second-round data collected through the web by verifying the accuracy of fertility histories. METHODS We compare the GGS data with population-based estimates from open access sources, the Human Fertility Database (HFD) and the United Nations Population Division (UN), using three cohort indicators and one period fertility indicator that are frequently used as summary measures. We restrict the analysis to the female fertility history data of countries where the second round of the GGS was implemented via the web and the data processing has been completed: Estonia, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden. RESULTS For the four indicators, the GGS estimates are consistent with the population-based estimates. With a few exceptions, HFD and UN estimates fall within the GGS confidence intervals (CIs). CONCLUSION Overall, we found similarities that demonstrate the high quality of the data. Our assessment finds no systematic deviation for the cohort indicators and small scale underreporting for the period indicator (nevertheless, also usually within the CIs). CONTRIBUTION The high level of similarity is encouraging for the use of GGS second-round data and the implementation of web-based methods of data collection.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85166960128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4054/DEMRES.2023.49.3
DO - 10.4054/DEMRES.2023.49.3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85166960128
SN - 1435-9871
VL - 49
SP - 31
EP - 46
JO - Demographic Research
JF - Demographic Research
M1 - 3
ER -