Living Standards Measurement Survey 2003 (Wave 3 Panel)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Living Standards Measurement Study [hh/lsms]
This is the third Living Standards Measurement Survey conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina and it is panel with 2001, 2002 and 2004 Living Standards Measurement Surveys.
In 2001, the World Bank in co-operation with the Republika Srpska Institute of Statistics (RSIS), the Federal Institute of Statistics (FOS) and the Agency for Statistics of BiH (BHAS), carried out a Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS). The Living Standard Measurement Survey LSMS, in addition to collecting the information necessary to obtain a comprehensive as possible measure of the basic dimensions of household living standards, has three basic objectives, as follows:
1. To provide the public sector, government, the business community, scientific institutions, international donor organizations and social organizations with information on different indicators of the population's living conditions, as well as on available resources for satisfying basic needs.
2. To provide information for the evaluation of the results of different forms of government policy and programs developed with the aim to improve the population's living standard. The survey will enable the analysis of the relations between and among different aspects of living standards (housing, consumption, education, health, labor) at a given time, as well as within a household.
3. To provide key contributions for development of government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, based on analyzed data.
The Department for International Development, UK (DFID) contributed funding to the LSMS and provided funding for a further two years of data collection for a panel survey, known as the Household Survey Panel Series (HSPS). Birks Sinclair & Associates Ltd. were responsible for the management of the HSPS with technical advice and support provided by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Essex, UK. The panel survey provides longitudinal data through re-interviewing approximately half the LSMS respondents for two years following the LSMS, in the autumn of 2002 and 2003. The LSMS constitutes Wave 1 of the panel survey so there are three years of panel data available for analysis. For the purposes of this documentation we are using the following convention to describe the different rounds of the panel survey:
- Wave 1 LSMS conducted in 2001 forms the baseline survey for the panel
- Wave 2 Second interview of 50% of LSMS respondents in Autumn/ Winter 2002
- Wave 3 Third interview with sub-sample respondents in Autumn/ Winter 2003
The panel data allows the analysis of key transitions and events over this period such as labour market or geographical mobility and observe the consequent outcomes for the well-being of individuals and households in the survey. The panel data provides information on income and labour market dynamics within FBiH and RS. A key policy area is developing strategies for the reduction of poverty within FBiH and RS. The panel will provide information on the extent to which continuous poverty is experienced by different types of households and individuals over the three year period. And most importantly, the co-variates associated with moves into and out of poverty and the relative risks of poverty for different people can be assessed. As such, the panel aims to provide data, which will inform the policy debates within FBiH and RS at a time of social reform and rapid change.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
The househod questionnaires includes modules on:
- Individual demography and education
- Social protection, finances and credit
- Values and opinions
Domains: Urban/rural/mixed; Federation; Republic
Producers and sponsors
State Agency for Statistics (BHAS)
Republika Srpska Institute of Statistics (RSIS)
Federation of BiH Institute of Statistics (FIS)
The World Bank
Department for International Development, UK
Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER)
University of Essex, UK
Birks Sinclair & Associates Ltd.
Management of the survey
The Wave 3 sample consisted of 2878 households who had been interviewed at Wave 2 and a further 73 households who were interviewed at Wave 1 but were non-contact at Wave 2 were issued. A total of 2951 households (1301 in the RS and 1650 in FBiH) were issued for Wave 3. As at Wave 2, the sample could not be replaced with any other households.
Eligibility for inclusion
The household and household membership definitions are the same standard definitions as a Wave 2. While the sample membership status and eligibility for interview are as follows:
i) All members of households interviewed at Wave 2 have been designated as original sample members (OSMs). OSMs include children within households even if they are too young for interview.
ii) Any new members joining a household containing at least one OSM, are eligible for inclusion and are designated as new sample members (NSMs).
iii) At each wave, all OSMs and NSMs are eligible for inclusion, apart from those who move outof-scope (see discussion below).
iv) All household members aged 15 or over are eligible for interview, including OSMs and NSMs.
The panel design means that sample members who move from their previous wave address must be traced and followed to their new address for interview. In some cases the whole household will move together but in others an individual member may move away from their previous wave household and form a new split-off household of their own. All sample members, OSMs and NSMs, are followed at each wave and an interview attempted. This method has the benefit of maintaining the maximum number of respondents within the panel and being relatively straightforward to implement in the field.
Definition of 'out-of-scope'
It is important to maintain movers within the sample to maintain sample sizes and reduce attrition and also for substantive research on patterns of geographical mobility and migration. The rules for determining when a respondent is 'out-of-scope' are as follows:
i. Movers out of the country altogether i.e. outside FBiH and RS.
This category of mover is clear. Sample members moving to another country outside FBiH and RS will be out-of-scope for that year of the survey and not eligible for interview.
ii. Movers between entities
Respondents moving between entities are followed for interview. The personal details of the respondent are passed between the statistical institutes and a new interviewer assigned in that entity.
iii. Movers into institutions
Although institutional addresses were not included in the original LSMS sample, Wave 3 individuals who have subsequently moved into some institutions are followed. The definitions for which institutions are included are found in the Supervisor Instructions.
iv. Movers into the district of Brcko are followed for interview. When coding entity Brcko is treated as the entity from which the household who moved into Brcko originated.
The panel survey has enjoyed high response rates throughout the three years of data collection with the wave 3 response rates being slightly higher than those achieved at wave 2. At wave 3, 1650 households in the FBiH and 1300 households in the RS were issued for interview. Since there may be new households created from split-off movers it is possible for the number of households to increase during fieldwork. A similar number of new households were formed in each entity; 62 in the FBiH and 63 in the RS. This means that 3073 households were identified during fieldwork. Of these, 3003 were eligible for interview, 70 households having either moved out of BiH, institutionalised or deceased (34 in the RS and 36 in the FBiH).
Interviews were achieved in 96% of eligible households, an extremely high response rate by international standards for a survey of this type.
In total, 8712 individuals (including children) were enumerated within the sample households (4796 in the FBiH and 3916 in the RS). Within in the 3003 eligible households, 7781 individuals aged 15 or over were eligible for interview with 7346 (94.4%) being successfully interviewed. Within cooperating households (where there was at least one interview) the interview rate was higher (98.8%).
A very important measure in longitudinal surveys is the annual individual re-interview rate. This is because a high attrition rate, where large numbers of respondents drop out of the survey over time, can call into question the quality of the data collected. In BiH the individual re-interview rates have been high for the survey. The individual re-interview rate is the proportion of people who gave an interview at time t-1 who also give an interview at t. Of those who gave a full interview at wave 2, 6653 also gave a full interview at wave 3. This represents a re-interview rate of 97.9% - which is extremely high by international standards. When we look at those respondents who have been interviewed at all three years of the survey there are 6409 cases which are available for longitudinal analysis, 2881 in the RS and 3528 in the FBiH. This represents 82.8% of the responding wave 1 sample, a retention rate which is again high compared to many other panels around the world.
Dates of Data Collection
Data Collection Mode
Random checks were made by the FBSTA and interpreter to ensure the interviewers had called at addresses. These checks were made in Grude/Posusje (FBiH). The quality control checks identified that all these households had been interviewed at Waves 1 and 2, but that the interviewer had not yet called for Wave 3. Progress in this area was a little slower than for the other areas but everyone remembered the survey and had understood it’s purpose in re-interviewing the same people to see how things had changed. Ana Abdelbasit undertook further quality control checks in Cajnice and Visegrad over the telephone and no problems were identified.
Data Collection Notes
Mainstage Fieldwork Procedures
Apart from where new interviewers were taken on, in all but five cases interviewers returned to households they had interviewed at Wave 2. Supervisor 701 returned to three households she interviewed last year. At Wave 2 there were six households who moved across entity (three moving from FBiH to RS and three vice versa) for Wave 3 they were re-issued to the same interviewer who did the interview last year.
Training Supervisors and Interviewers
At the end of Wave 2 Supervisors were sent a form to rate the work of the Interviewers under their control. Evaluation was made under a number of headings. All forms were returned and based on this the FBTSA produced a list identifying 11 “weaker” interviewers, all but two of these were replaced for Wave 3. From a total of 126 field staff, 16 were new to the survey at Wave 3 (10 interviewers and 2 supervisors in FBiH and 4 interviewers in RS). On August 9 Supervisors and Interviewers were sent the Questionnaire, a Control Form, a Movers Form, and Interviewer or Supervisor Instructions. Four days interviewer and
supervisor training was undertaken from 26-29 August. Three one-day sessions were held for experienced staff and an additional half-day for new staff.
All briefing sessions were conducted at the Hotel Italia in Sarajevo. The primary trainers for the sessions were the FBSTA Rachel Smith, SIG members Bogdana Radic and Vesna Grubiša (RSIS) Zdenko Milinovic and Fehrija Mehic (FOS) and Edin Sabanovic and Jelena Miovcic (BHAS) and a full-time interpreter. All field staff were provided with Instructions which contained the basic information needed for survey administration, but during the training this was heavily supplemented with additional printed materials, forms and examples.
Each session was conducted semi-formally, with opportunities for questions and answers as well as for further explanation and additional examples. The importance of in-field quality control procedures was stressed throughout the training. Quality control procedures for the Supervisors included:
1. review of all sample materials prior to assignment to each interviewer
2. strict control over the activities of a small group of interviewers (5 to 6 interviewers per Supervisor)
3. weekly updates and meetings with each interviewer
4. verification of 10% of the work of each interviewer via field visits or telephone to selected households
5. accounting for and review of all data from each interviewer prior to data entry.
Quality control procedures utilised by the interviewers included: careful use of the sample household location procedures, detailed household member identification and selection for interview procedures. During each training session, the sample addresses were distributed to each interviewer and discussed with them in detail. Ample time was allowed for a clear understanding of the materials, quantity of work expected from each interviewer and the procedures to be followed in conducting the work. Prior to leaving the training session each interviewer thus had: an assignment, field administration forms and a supply of survey questionnaires. Each interviewer was allocated, on average, 30 households. The data collection period was twelve weeks in length.
Every two weeks Supervisors reported to the Field Office on the progress of each address allocated to their Interviewers. In this way it was known by the Field Offices and the FBSTA how many interviews had been completed and the refusal rates in order to have early warning of any potential problems in the field.
The major problem for panel surveys is attrition, that is, the loss of respondents who either refuse to take part any further in the survey, are unable to be contacted during fieldwork, or who move and cannot be traced. Attrition in panel surveys is potentially damaging as the sample size for respondents with complete longitudinal records reduces over time and there is a danger of differential attrition introducing bias. The following procedures have been taken in an attempt to reduce attrition.
This wave, interviewers were given the tracking information they had collected at Wave 2. This process has worked extremely well in enabling interviewers to find movers. Further tracing of movers was undertaken by the BHAS, in particular Jelena Miovcic and Edin Sabanovic were responsible for finding any households or individuals. For Wave 3, 32 mover households were sent to BHAS of which 18 were successfully found (56%).
One advance letter per household was produced. Production of the advance letter was part of the feed forward process and each letter was personally addressed to each sample household. The letter included additional wording to ask it to be left where others in the household could see it.
As a small token of thanks for taking part in the panel a notepad was given to each person who was interviewed. The name of the survey was printed on the notepad, to give respondents a feeling of “belonging” to the survey.
In FBiH refusal conversion attempts were made and 70% of these households were successfully converted as shown below.
Area / Number reissued / Number successfully interviewed
Zavidovici / 5 / 5
Visoko / 22 / 15
Novo Sarajevo / 7 / 7
Sarajevo Novi Grad / 10 / 6
Sarajevo Centar / 16 / 9
Total / 60 / 42
Approximately 90% of the questionnaire (Annex B) is based on the Wave 2 questionnaire, carrying forward core measures that are needed to measure change over time. The questionnaire was widely circulated and changes were made as a result of comments received.
In order to undertake a longitudinal test the Wave 2 pretest sample was used. The Control Forms and Advance letters were generated from an Access database containing details of ten households in Sarajevo and fourteen in Banja Luka. The pretest was undertaken from March 24-April 4 and resulted in 24 households (51 individuals) successfully interviewed. One mover household was successfully traced and interviewed.
In order to test the questionnaire under the hardest circumstances a briefing was not held. A list of the main questionnaire changes was given to experienced interviewers.
Issues arising from the pretest
Interviewers were asked to complete a Debriefing and Rating form. The debriefing form captured opinions on the following three issues:
1. General reaction to being re-interviewed. In some cases there was a wariness of being asked to participate again, some individuals asking “Why Me?” Interviewers did a good job of persuading people to take part, only one household refused and another asked to be removed from the sample next year. Having the same interviewer return to the same households was considered an advantage. Most respondents asked what was the benefit to them of taking part in the survey. This aspect was reemphasised in the Advance Letter, Respondent Report and training of the Wave 3 interviewers.
2. Length of the questionnaire. The average time of interview was 30 minutes. No problems were mentioned in relation to the timing, though interviewers noted that some respondents, particularly the elderly, tended to wonder off the point and that control was needed to bring them back to the questions in the questionnaire. One interviewer noted that the economic situation of many respondents seems to have got worse from the previous year and it was necessary to listen to respondents “stories” during the interview.
3. Confidentiality. No problems were mentioned in relation to confidentiality. Though interviewers mentioned it might be worth mentioning the new Statistics Law in the Advance letter. The Rating Form asked for details of specific questions that were unclear. These are described below with a description of the changes made.
- Module 3. Q29-31 have been added to capture funds received for education, scholarships etc.
- Module 4. Pretest respondents complained that the 6 questions on "Has your health limited you..." and the 16 on "in the last 7 days have you felt depressed” etc were too many. These were reduced by half (Q38-Q48). The LSMS data was examined and those questions where variability between the answers was widest were chosen.
- Module 5. The new employment questions (Q42-Q44) worked well and have been kept in the main questionnaire.
- Module 7. There were no problems reported with adding the credit questions (Q28-Q36)
- Module 9. SIG recommended that some of Questions 1-12 were relevant only to those aged over 18 so additional skips have been added. Some respondents complained the questionnaire was boring. To try and overcome this new questions were added to end the interview on a lighter note.
As at Wave 2 CSPro was the chosen data entry software. The CSPro program consists of two main features to reduce to number of keying errors and to reduce the editing required following data entry:
- Data entry screens that included all skip patterns.
- Range checks for each question (allowing three exceptions for inappropriate, don't know and missing codes).
The Wave 3 data entry program had more checks than at Wave 2 and DE staff were instructed to get all anomalies cleared by SIG fieldwork. The program was extensively tested prior to DE.
Ten computer staff were employed in each Field Office and as all had worked on Wave 2 training was not undertaken.
Editing Instructions were compiled (Annex G) and sent to Supervisors. For Wave 3 Supervisors were asked to take more time to edit every questionnaire returned by their interviewers. The FBTSA examined the work twelve of the twenty-two Supervisors. All Supervisors made occasional errors with the Control Form so a further 100% check of Control Forms and Module 1 was undertaken by the FBTSA and SIG members.
Individual level identifiers have been attached to all members of the Wave 3 households selected for the panel sample. There is a household level identifier (IDD) for the issued household and each member of that household has a person number (ID) within the household. The household level identifier is needed for each wave but does not necessarily need to be related to the previous wave identifier for a given household. Households change in composition over time, making the notion of a core household that endures over time problematic for a panel.
In addition to these wave specific household and person number identifiers, each sample member has a unique personal identifier (LID) attached to them. This identifier is the unique number that each sample member carries with them throughout the life of the panel, even if they move between different households. This is the key linking identifier to be used in analysis when matching together data for the same individual from different waves of the survey and is a critical variable.
LSMS Data Manager
The World Bank
In receiving these data it is recognized that the data are supplied for use within your organization, and you agree to the following stipulations as conditions for the use of the data:
1. The data are supplied solely for the use described in this form and will not be made available to other organizations or individuals. Other organizations or individuals may request the data directly.
2. Three copies of all publications, conference papers, or other research reports based entirely or in part upon the requested data will be supplied to:
Department for International Development
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The World Bank
Development Economics Research Group
LSMS Database Administrator
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
tel: (202) 473-9041
fax: (202) 522-1153
3. The researcher will refer to the 2003 Living in Bosnia and Herzegovina Survey as the source of the information in all publications, conference papers, and manuscripts and will credit DFID, the Agency for Statsitics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Office of Statistics and the Republika Srpska Institute of Statistics as the organizations that collected the data. At the same time the statistical institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina are not responsable for the estimations reported by the analyst(s).
4. Users who download the data may not pass the data to third parties.
5. The database cannot be used for commercial ends, nor can it be sold.
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
DDI Document ID
Date of Metadata Production
DDI Document version
Version 0.2 (March 2011).