This document is also available in
pdf format (597k) CONTENTSCHAPTER 1NATURE AND COVERAGE OF THE SURVEY CHAPTER2 SAMPLING AND RESPONDENT SELECTION
2.1 DESIGN
2.2 METHOD
2.3 OUTCOMES
2.4 ADDRESS SELECTION
2.5 RESPONDENT SELECTION
2.6 FIELDWORK PROCEDURES
2.7 SUBSTITUTION OF ADDRESSES CHAPTER 3QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN CHAPTER 4FIELDWORK ISSUES
4.1 BRIEFING
4.2 QUALITY CONTROL AND SUPERVISION
4.3 REISSUES
4.4 RESPONSE RATES
4.5 POPULATION PROFILE, SAMPLE DESIGN AND ACHIEVED PROFILE DATA CHAPTER 5CODING AND DATA PROCESSING
5.1 CODING
5.2 DATA PREPARATION CHAPTER 6WEIGHTINGS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 WEIGHTING FACTORS
6.3 COMBINED WEIGHT FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
6.4 AGE, SEX AND LOCAL AUTHORITY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS COMPARED WITH GRO ESTIMATES
6.5 SOME CAUTIONS ABOUT WEIGHTING CHAPTER 7COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS AND DESIGN EFFECTS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS AND DESIGN EFFECTS
7.3 RESULTS FOR DESIGN FACTORS AND COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS TABLESCHAPTER 2
2.1 DEFINITION OF RURAL / URBAN INDICATORS
2.2 SAMPLING FRACTIONS USED FOR EACH RURAL / URBAN AREA
2.3 COMPARISON OF SAMPLE A AND SAMPLE B BY RURAL / URBAN INDICATOR
2.4 COMPARISON OF SAMPLE A AND SAMPLE B BY LOCAL AUTHORITY GROUPINGS
2.5 COMPARISON OF SAMPLE A AND SAMPLE B BY MOSAIC CODE CHAPTER 3
3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT CHAPTER 4
4.1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
4.2 RESPONSE RATES FOR EACH RURAL / URBAN AREA
4.3A OUTCOMES BY RURAL / URBAN SPLIT (ABSOLUTE NUMBER)
4.3B OUTCOMES BY RURAL / URBAN SPLIT (%)
4.4A OUTCOMES BY LOCAL AUTHORITY GROUPINGS (ABSOLUTE NUMBER)
4.4B OUTCOMES BY LOCAL AUTHORITY GROUPINGS (%)
4.5A OUTCOMES BY MOSAIC CODE (ABSOLUTE NUMBER)
4.5B OUTCOMES BY MOSAIC CODE (%) CHAPTER 6
6.1 TOTAL BASE NUMBER AND SUM OF HOUSEHOLD DESIGN WEIGHTS BY QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE AND RURAL / URBAN INDICATOR
6.2 PRECENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS TO SUM OF HOSUEHOLD WEIGHTS BY QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE AND AGE / GENDER
6.3 HOUSEHOLD DESIGN WEIGHTS TO MAKE SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PAF
6.4 % BY MOSAIC CATEGORY OF THE ED IN ISSUED SAMPLE, PAF AND WEIGHTED ISSUED SAMPLE
6.5 % BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ISSUED SAMPLE, PAF AND WEIGHTED ISSUED SAMPLE
6.6 HOUSEHOLD CONTACT RESPONSE RATES BY DIFFERENT FACTORS
6.7 PERSON CONTACT NON-RESPONSE
6.8 RESPONDING HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD
6.9 AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS COMPARED WITH GRO
6.10 FACTOR REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED TO WEIGHT TO MAKE THE SAMPLE RESRESENTATIVE CHAPTER 7
7.1 DESIGN FACTORS FOR % REPORTING VERY WORRIED
7.2 ILLUSTRATION OF CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR %
7.3 ILLUSTRATION OF CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR SCORE
7.4 AVERAGE DESIGN FACTORS
7.5 ILLUSTRATION OF CALCULATION USING A DIFFERENCE
7.6 DESIGN FACTORS (UNHAPPY)
7.7 DESIGN FACTORS (AGREE STRONGLY)
7.8 AVERAGE DESIGN FACTORS
7.9 DESIGN FACTORS FOR QUESTIONS IN VERSION A OF QUESTIONNAIRE
7.10 DESIGN FACTORS FOR QUESTIONS IN VERSION B OF QUESTIONNAIRE FIGURESCHAPTER 6
6.1 HOUSEHOLD NON RESPONSE WEIGHTS
6.2 COMBINED INDIVIDUAL WEIGHTS
6.3 FINAL WEIGHT ADJUSTED TO GRO ESTIMATES APPENDICES1 SCOTTISH MOSAIC
2 SAMPLE ISSUE SHEET
3 QUESTIONNAIRE A
QUESTIONNAIRE B MODULES
4 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATES FOR EACH RURAL /URBAN AREA
5 LIST OF EDITING AND CODING CHECKS COMPLETED AcknowledgementsThe information gathered in this report is based upon the input of a number of key individuals and organisations. We are extremely grateful to the following in particular: Juliet Harvey, John Landrock, Wendy Kenyon and Kerstin Hinds of the Scottish Executive | As the representatives of the Scottish Executive and as key members of the project team, helping to guide the study at all stages. | Other partners to the research, including staff within the Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Forestry Commission | Much of the information sought in the study will be of specific interest to these bodies who all contributed funding to the project. | Gillian Raab | Who offered her statistical expertise to the study and designed and undertook the calculation of the weights and design effects for the study |
In particular, we would like to express our gratitude to Juliet Harvey and Kerstin Hinds of the Scottish Executive for their leadership over the project. |