1. Trends in Inequality of Educational Opportunity in the Netherlands 1900-1980: The Effect of Missing Data Maarten L. Buis & Harry B.G. Ganzeboom Department of Social Research Methodology Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam RC28, Oslo, May 6-8 2005

2. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20052 Conclusions (1) A steady trend towards less IEO in the Netherlands remains visible throughout the 20th century. However, on closer scrutiny there appears to be evidence of a slower trend or even stability for the earlier and most recent cohorts. Spline analyses of trends confirms this.

3. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20053 Conclusions (2) Missing data in father’s occupation vary by education of respondent: MV are about 3 times more prevalent among the lowest educated than among the highest educated. One would hypothesize that this mitigates measures of IEO and the historical trend therein. Multiply imputed data for FISEI: –Level of IEO increases –(Linear) trends in IEO becomes steeper

4. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20054 Previous research IEO = Inequality of Educational Opportunity = association between father’s occupation and respondent’s education. Previous research: long-term linear trend towards less IEO: –Cohorts 1900-1960: Ganzeboom & De Graaf, 1989, De Graaf & Ganzeboom, 1990a, 1990b. –Cohorts 1900-1980: Ganzeboom & Luijkx, 2004. This holds for both linear regression models en sequential logits (first two transitions).

5. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20055 ISMF Now 51 studies on the Netherlands, collected between 1958 and 2004, N > 104.000 men and women 25+. Recent additions (since 2002 and Breen 2004): 16 studies, appr. 30% of the N. Father: FISEI – International Socio-economic Index of Occupational Status. Education: level of education scaled relative to benchmarks: primary = 6, highest secondary = 12, university complete = 17.

6. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20056

7. 7 Research questions How do trend and level estimates of IEO depend upon data qualities: –Measures used –Quality and nature of the sample –Non-response –Missing values

8. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20058 Missing values MCAR = Missing Completely at Random MAR = Missing at Random: missingness is random given the values of control (X) variables. NMAR: Not Missing at Random: missingness depends upon values of Y-variable. Rubin 1987, Little & Rubin 2002, Allison 2002. Multiple hotdeck imputation in STATA.

9. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 20059 Complete case analysis (listwise deletion) OK, if MCAR. Biased if MAR. Inefficient (too large standard errors – this can be quite dramatic. Linear trend: –EDU = 8.4 + 6.4*FIS – 5.3*FIS*COH etc. (Men) (.17) (.08) (.45) –EDU = 6.5 + 5.6*FIS – 3.3*FIS*COH etc. (Women) (.17) (.08) (.44)

10. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200510

11. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200511 Hot deck imputation Classify all cases by combinations of predictor variables (COH, FED, MED, ISEI). Stratify the cases by these combinations. Substitute the missing FISEI by valid FISEI of random (nearest) neighbor. Key idea: do not only borrow the systematic (predicted) part, but also the error term.

12. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200512 Multiple hot deck imputation Do hot deck imputation several times (10- 20). Bootstrap from each stratum a sample (with replacement) of stratum size. Random selection of neighbor varies by imputation cycle. Key idea: Rubin (1987): pp. 122-124. Get the variance-covariance estimation right.

13. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200513 Key results FISEI predicted by COH (4), FED (7), MED (7), ISEI (8). 10 imputations Linear trend result: –EDU = 8.6 + 6.9*FIS – 6.1*FIS*COH etc. (Men) (.33) (.12) (.64) –EDU = 6.7 + 5.9*FIS – 3.7*FIS*COH etc. (Women) (.46) (.12) (.64)

14. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200514 Non-linearities Linear splines Estimates with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. knots (and a uniform distribution). We were happy with the result with 3 knots. Test of equality of slopes: –Between trajectories –Between men and women

15. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200515

16. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200516 Results Complete case analysis finds: –Decline in IEO occurs between cohorts 1920 and 1960. Before 1920 and after 1960, the trend can be assumed to be flat. –There is a constant difference in IEO between men and women: women’s educational attainment appr. 10% less dependent on FIS than men’s.

17. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200517

18. Buis & Ganzeboom, Oslo 200518 Multiple hot deck imputed data Finds pattern very similar to complete case analysis. But decline of IEO between 1920 and 1960 is steeper! However, standard errors of effects have increased (despite inclusion of more information).