1. Quality improvements for the labour force survey Grant Agreement no

2. What and how we tested? Two of model questionnaires were tested:
V2 (developed by TF HMEU)
VPT (proposed by Statistics Portugal)
Only two modules namely „At work” and „Producing goods” were supposed to be tested, but because employment rate cannot be computed without module „Absences from work”, this module was also included in the test. .

3. What and how we tested?
A sample of 9315 dwellings, located in 8 counties (7 counties and Bucharest Municipality) was selected. The volume of the sample drawn for the pilot equals 5/4 of the normal quarterly sample in the respective counties. The actual number o persons surveyed were of
In each county, the sample of the pilot was split, dwelling being randomly allocated to one of the questionnaires to be tested (V2 or VPT). All persons aged years living in the dwelling were asked to fill in the same version of questionnaire (V2 or VPT).
Data collection was performed in the second quarter of The sample was uniformly spread on the 13 reference weeks of the quarter.
Non-response rate for the entire sample was 22.3

4. Distribution of the sample (of individuals) achieved for V2, VPT and comparison with the regular LFS sample in the 8 counties included in the test Same reference period as the pilot survey (i.e. second quarter of 2016)
LFS V2
VPT
Abs. %
Total
8414
100.0
5981
5608
Age groups
15-24 ani
1204
14.3
912
15.2
758
13.5
25-34 ani
1484
17.6
1013
16.9
993
17.7
35-44 ani
1850
22.0
1232
20.6
1295
23.1
45-54 ani
1905
22.6
1375
23.0
1211
21.6
55-64 ani
1971
23.4
1449
24.2
1351
24.1
Urban/ rural area
Urban
5148
61.2
3787
63.3
3534
63.0
Rural
3266
38.8
2194
36.7
2074
37.0
Sex
Masculin
4133
49.1
2939
2773
49.4
Feminin
4281
50.9
3042
2835
50.6
County
Alba
764
9.1
458
7.7
443
7.9
Bistrita-Nasaud
571
6.8
377
6.3
385
6.9
Braila
537
6.4
346
5.8
352
Dambovita
982
11.7
704
11.8
615
11.0
Dolj
1414
16.8
1016
17.0
878
15.7
Neamt
826
9.8
562
9.4
500
8.9
Timis
1360
16.2
14.7
871
15.5
Bucuresti
1960
23.3
1640
27.4
1564
27.9

5. Non-response rate for the pilot survey and the regular LFS Same reference period as the pilot survey (i.e. second quarter of 2016)
LFS Q2
2016
Total pilot survey
Pilot survey V2 sub sample
Pilot survey VPT sub sample
Total
25.9
22.3
22.7
21.8
Alba
8.8
12.0
14.3
9.5
Bistrita Nasaud
10.9
10.6
13.2
7.9
Braila
25.2
20.4
22.2
18.5
Dambovita
10.3
8.1
6.6
9.8
Dolj
0.0
Neamt
13.5
13.3
13.7
Timis
6.7
7.6
5.6
Bucuresti
51.5
42.9
43.1
42.6

6. Translation issues
V2_EAW1a was translated in Romanian as “In the week from Monday the [date] to Sunday the [date], did you have a place of work or an own account business?”
V2_EAW1b was translated in Romanian as “In that week did you carry out any other activity for wage or other incomes in cash or kind, even if it was only a short or occasional one?”
V2_EAW1c was translated as “In that week, did you carry out any unpaid activity for a business owned by a family member?”
VPT_EAW1 was translated as “In the last week, did you work even if it was only for one hour?”.
VPT_EAW3 was translated as “Did you work for a business owned by a family member?”

7. Main results Experiences from the field test
No special problems were reported regarding the questions, except perhaps:
for questions 1 and 3 of V2 as well as for question 3 of VPT - where the word “business” generated some confusion among farmers which did not understood if this is or not a “business”.
for V2, it was reported that some people tend to respond positively to the second question although they are unpaid family workers and should provide a positive answer in the third one.
Without doubts, VPT was the preferred version due to its simplicity, shortness and ease of administration. Questionnaire V2 was considered to complicated, with too many filters and questions that are perceived as useless or even annoying. Please note that data collection was PAPI
It should be noted that the evaluation was made for the each questionnaire as a whole and not for each sub-module separately. So, the result is influenced by the fact that in V2, all persons (all potentially employed as well as all not employed) are routed to sub-module “Producing goods”.

8. Main results Quantitave - Questionnaire V2
The opening questions (V2_EAW1a) gather 92.8% of total employment while the subsequent two questions have a very modest contribution (1.4% of total employment - V2_EAW1b and 0.2% of total employment - V2_EAW1c).
EPG1c gathers another 193 respondent 5.5% of total employed while EPG4 has virtually no contribution (only one observation classified as employed due only to this question).
Out of 3487 respondents potentially employed (after V2_EAW1a, b and c):
3150 respondents (90.3%) are not self-employed in agriculture or were absent from work and did not work, supplementary, in agriculture;
152 respondents (4.4%) are self-employed in agriculture and their status as employed is confirmed by sub- module ‘Producing goods”;
185 respondents (5.3%) are also working as self-employed in agriculture but are excluded from employment after sub-module “Producing goods”.
Without routing potential employed to the module “Producing goods”, 136 respondents giving a positive reply to V2_EAW1a, 44 respondents giving a positive reply to V2_EAW1b and 5 respondents who answered “yes” to V2 would have remained in employment even if they are not in fact employed.

9. Main results Quantitave - Questionnaire VPT
The opening question captures 98.6% of total employment. The remaining shares are brought by:
sub-module “Producing goods”: 21 new respondents (0.6%) by V1_EPG2 and 3 new respondents (0.1%) by V1_EPG4
EAW4 (and confirmed by sub-module “Absences”): 21 respondents (0.6%)
Out of 3663 respondent providing a positive reply to VPT_EAW1, status as employed is confirmed for 3252 respondents by:
being paid (VPT_EAW2) - for 3009 respondents (92.5%);
being unpaid family worker (VPT_EAW3) – for 23 respondents (0.7%);
V1_EPG2 in sub-module “Producing goods” – for 217 respondents (6.7%)

10. Main results Impact on the employment rate
The new ICLS definition, which is different from the current one in respect to treatment of own-use producers, is expected to have a negative impact on the employment rate measurement for Romania, where this group of persons has a significant share of total employment
Both, V2 and VPT, questionnaires are designed to implement the new definition. Nevertheless, they include (for testing purpose) one question, namely EPG3a, which could be used to reproduce, more or less, the old definition of employment. This question could, potentially, be used after the adoption of the Framework Regulation and new Implementing act of the LFS to compute, in parallel, estimates of the employment rate according to “new” and “old” definition
Consequently, for each of the two questionnaires, two employment indicators were computed:
employment according to new definition
employment according to old definition

11. Main results Impact on the employment rate
Points to be keept in mind when interpreting the results:
questions in the module “Producing goods” of V2/VPT are not exactly the same as those currently used by Romanian LFS. Thus we can expect that the “old definition” of employment, as computed based on V2/VPT will not exactly reproduce current LFS estimates. For this reasons, we named LFS estimates as “current definition” to be distinguished by “old definition” – as they can be computed based on V2/VPT questionnaires. Relevant questions in the current national questionnaire
LFS estimates does not refer to the national estimates. Since the test took place in only 8 counties (according to NUTS3 level) LFS estimates used for comparisons as well as V2/VPT ones refers to these 8 counties only.
Results are not weighted.
Therefore the results of the assessment must be interpreted carefully. Still they are able to offer a rough estimate of the expected impact of the changes foreseen.

12. Main results Comparison between LFS (current definition) and V2/VPT (new definition)
Employment rate (LFS-current definition versus V2/VPT – new definition) in the 8 counties included in the test, by age groups, urban/ rural area and gender
LFS V2
Diff. V2-LFS
VPT
Diff. VPT-LFS
Total
63.3
58.5
-4.8
58.8
-4.5
Age groups
15-24 ani
20.1
16.2
-3.9
16.8
-3.3
25-34 ani
76.0
75.6
-0.4
74.6
-1.4
35-44 ani
83.8
79.5
-4.3
79.1
-4.7
45-54 ani
79.6
76.5
-3.1
-3.6
55-64 ani
45.3
38.0
-7.3
35.9
-9.4
Urban/ rural area
Urban
62.8
64.0
1.2
63.5
0.7
Rural
64.1
49.0
-15.1
50.8
-13.3
Sex
Masculin
69.9
65.6
66.0
Feminin
57.0
51.5
-5.5
51.7
-5.3

13. Main results Comparison between new and old definition (on VP/VPT)
Employment rate (V2/VPT – new definition versus old definition) in the 8 counties included in the test, by age groups, urban/ rural area and gender
V2 new
V2 old
Diff. new-old
VPT new
VPT old
Total
58.5
65.2
-6.7
58.8
65.3
-6.5
Age groups
15-24 ani
16.2
18.9
-2.7
16.8
19.9
-3.1
25-34 ani
75.6
82.0
-6.4
74.6
80.2
-5.6
35-44 ani
79.5
85.2
-5.7
79.1
84.9
-5.8
45-54 ani
76.5
84.0
-7.5
76.0
81.6
55-64 ani
38.0
47.8
-9.8
35.9
46.3
-10.4
Urban/ rural area
Urban
64.0
64.6
-0.6
63.5
-0.5
Rural
49.0
66.2
-17.2
50.8
67.5
-16.7
Sex
Masculin
65.6
72.4
-6.8
66.0
72.3
-6.3
Feminin
51.5
58.3
51.7
58.4

14. Main results Comparison between LFS (current definition) and V2/VPT (old definition)
Employment rate (LFS-current definition versus V2/VPT – old definition) in the 8 counties included in the test, by age groups, urban/ rural area and gender
LFS V2
Diff. V2-LFS
VPT
Diff. VPT-LFS
Total
63.3
65.2
1.9
65.3
2.0
Age groups
15-24 ani
20.1
18.9
-1.2
19.9
-0.2
25-34 ani
76.0
82.0
6.0
80.2
4.2
35-44 ani
83.8
85.2
1.4
84.9
1.1
45-54 ani
79.6
84.0
4.4
81.6
55-64 ani
45.3
47.8
2.5
46.3
1.0
Urban/ rural area
Urban
62.8
64.6
1.8
64.0
1.2
Rural
64.1
66.2
2.1
67.5
3.4
Sex
Masculin
69.9
72.4
72.3
2.4
Feminin
57.0
58.3
1.3
58.4

15. Conclusions and recommendations
Quantitative results shows that the two questionnaires, despite of having different flow and wording of questions, gives close values of employment rates. This of course may not be true in each country and it may depend on the employment pattern. Since the two questionnaires seem to provide similar results, our recommendation is for VPT which is simpler from the design point of view and less burdensome for the respondents.
As an overall effect of using the new definition of employment and the model questionnaire/ flow chart, employment rate is expected to decrease by 4.5 – 4.8 p.p. However, the magnitude of change, as it can be measured using additional question EPG3a in module “Producing goods” overestimate this impact up to p.p. Thus, we do not recommend this solution which will overestimate the magnitude of the break in series.