Generations and Gender Survey Hungary Wave 1 & Wave 2 & Wave 3

This item is deprecated.

Study

Title

^fr-FR

Alternate Title

GGS Hungary Wave 1 & Wave 2

^fr-FR

Source

Hungarian Demographic Research Institute

^fr-FR

Abstract

The Generations and Gender Survey (GGS) provides micro-level data with the aim of significantly improving the knowledge base for social science and policymaking in Europe and developed countries elsewhere. In Europe 2020, the European Union develops a strategy "to help us come out stronger from the crisis and turn the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion". The economic crisis affects not only day-to-day decisions, but also fundamental choices at all stages of people's lives: marriage and childbearing, the combination of employment and caring responsibilities for the young and the old, retirement, housing, and ageing well. The GGS has been developed to provide scientists with high-quality data to contribute scientifically grounded answers to these key policy questions. Survey content focuses on intergenerational and gender relations between people, expressed in care arrangements and the organization of paid and unpaid work. Key feature of the survey are:

Cross-national comparability. In each country data is collected on the basis of a common international questionnaire and guidelines about the methodology. Data processing includes central harmonization of national datasets.
A broad age range. It includes respondents between the ages of 18 and 80.
A longitudinal design. It has a panel design, collecting information on the same persons at three-year intervals.
A large sample size. It has an average of 9,000 respondents per country at Wave 1.
A theory-driven and multidisciplinary questionnaire. It provides data for policy relevant research by demographers, economists, sociologists, social policy researchers, social psychologists and epidemiologists. The questionnaire is inspired by the theory of planned behavior.
Possibility to combine the survey data with macro data provided by the GGP Contextual Database. This combination enables analyses of individuals and families in their cultural, economic, political, social and policy contexts.

^fr-FR

Universe

WAVE 1 Non-institutionalized Hungarian citizens living in Hungary, born between 1926-01-01 and 1983-12-31 (aged 21-78). WAVE 2 Non-institutionalized respondents who took part in wave 2 (aged 25-82). WAVE 3 Non-institutionalized respondents who took part in wave 3 (aged 29-86). ^fr-FR

Completeness

WAVE 1 The harmonised GGS dataset contains information from both the first and the second waves of the Hungarian study "Turning points of the Life-Course program (2001-)". WAVE 1, WAVE 2 AND WAVE 3 All data is coded and stored, with the exception of contact information and paradata.

StudyNumber

GGS.W1.W2.16

Related Materials

Website of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office - Demographic Research Institute - Page on Hungarian GGS

^fr-FR

Related Materials

Hungary_Questionnaire_W1_hu

^fr-FR

Related Materials

Hungary_Questionnaire_W2_en

^fr-FR

Related Materials

Hungary_AnswerSheetBooklet_W2_en

^fr-FR

Related References

Hungarian country presentations at the GGP International Working Group Meetings

^fr-FR

Related References

The research conception of the Hungarian Study "Turning points of the Life-Course program - 2001"

^fr-FR

Related References

The Sampling Method of First Wave of the Hungarian Study "Turning points of the Life-Course program - 2001"

^fr-FR

Coverage

Subjects

Keywords

Fertility
Partnership
Transition to adulthood
Work-family balance
Gender relations
Intergenerational exchanges
Informal and formal care
Well-being and health
Grandparenthood
Economic activity
Retirement

Geographical Coverage Description

The territory of Hungary

^fr-FR

Country

Hungary

Funding

Organization

KSH Népességtudományi Kutatóintézet / Hungarian Demographic Research Institute ^fr-FR

Organization

Központi Statisztikai Hivatal / Hungarian Central Statistical Office ^fr-FR

Organization

Hungarian State Budget ^fr-FR

Organization

Max Planck Demographic Research Insitute (Rostock) ^fr-FR

Data

Kinds of Data

Survey data

Analysis Unit

Individuals

Data Files

GGS_Wave1_Hungary_V.4.3. ^fr-FR

GGS_Wave2_Hungary_V.1.3. ^fr-FR

GGS_Wave3_Hungary_V.1.0 ^fr-FR

Data Collection

Instruments

Generations and Gender Survey Hungary Wave 1 & Wave 2 ^fr-FR

Collection Organization

Hungarian Central Statistical Office ^fr-FR

Collection Organization

Hungarian Demographic Research Institute ^fr-FR

Data Collection Date

Monday, November 1, 2004 - Saturday, January 15, 2005

Mode of Data Collection

Wave 1 Method: Face-to-Face (personal interview) Technique: Paper and pencil (PAPI)

Wave 2 Method: Face-to-face (personal interview), with a short self-administered on-site paper-and-pencil block on contraceptive use and family planning Technique: Paper and pencil (PAPI)

Wave 3 Method: Face-to-face (personal interview), with optional self-administered online blocks Technique: CAPI, with optional CAWI blocks

^fr-FR

Actions to Minimize Losses

WAVE 1 ACTIONS

Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, small gifts (a coffee cup and some coffee)
Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base.

WAVE 2 ACTIONS

Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, a small gift (a bar of chocolate)
Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base.

WAVE 3 ACTIONS

Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, a small gift (foldable tote bag). Respondents who completed the CAWI were eligible to win a pen drive
Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base.

^fr-FR

fr-FR	WAVE 1 ACTIONS Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, small gifts (a coffee cup and some coffee) Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base. WAVE 2 ACTIONS Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, a small gift (a bar of chocolate) Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base. WAVE 3 ACTIONS Dealing with nonresponse 1.1 Screening: No 1.2 Refusal conversion: No special methods besides usual interviewer techniques 1.3 Incentives: Yes, a small gift (foldable tote bag). Respondents who completed the CAWI were eligible to win a pen drive Tracking of sampled units 2.1 Respondent contact information: Yes, contact details of the respondent were collected: name, address and phone number. 2.2 Other contact information: Yes, contact details of one or more proxies (such as a parent, a friend) were collected or updated: name, address, phone number. 2.3 Cards: A thank you letter was sent after the fieldwork, together with a "change-of-address-notification" card that respondents could send back free of charge if their contact details changed (they could report a change in their contact details through an online form). A colorful brochure with some interesting results of the previous wave was also sent. 2.4 Additional surveys: No 2.5 Administrative records: Before each wave, contact details were retrieved from the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office to update our data base.

Collection Situation

WAVE 1 DATA COLLECTION

Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 500 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement.
Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency); sending short a questionnaire to all respondents after the fieldwork about the interview experience. 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point.
Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, an advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The letter described the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable (for Wave 1 of the national survey, they were contacted face-to-face). 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No
Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: On average 110 minutes

WAVE 2 DATA COLLECTION

Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 510 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement.
Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency). 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point.
Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, an advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The letter reminded respondents of the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No
Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: n.a.

WAVE 3 DATA COLLECTION

Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 325 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement.
Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency). The CAPI software also performed lots of automatic checks. 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point.
Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, two advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The first letter included a leaflet with some interesting results, a feedback option, and information that the survey would continue. The second letter reminded respondents of the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview, the possibility to answer some of the question on the web, and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No
Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: n.a.

^fr-FR

fr-FR	WAVE 1 DATA COLLECTION Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 500 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement. Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency); sending short a questionnaire to all respondents after the fieldwork about the interview experience. 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point. Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, an advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The letter described the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable (for Wave 1 of the national survey, they were contacted face-to-face). 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: On average 110 minutes WAVE 2 DATA COLLECTION Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 510 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement. Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency). 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point. Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, an advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The letter reminded respondents of the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: n.a. WAVE 3 DATA COLLECTION Interviewers 1.1 Total number of interviewers: 325 1.2 Number of interviewers in the field: Interviewers had a certain number of interviews to carry out during a set amount of time. They worked individually so it is not possible to specify how many of them were in the fields at the same time. 1.3 Network organization: One field coordinator in each of the 19 regional agencies of HCSO (one for each county and one for the capital) 1.4 Working arrangement of interviewers: contracted - other 1.5 Payment of interviewers: Per interview, reimbursement for travel expenses, extra payment if they found respondents who moved and if only 1-3 respondents lived in the same settlement. Interviewer training: 2.1 General interviewing: The interviewers had worked in other data collections of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and they were already trained in general interviewing techniques. 2.2 Survey specific: Yes, the training was carried out in two phases: first, training for field coordinators; second, they trained the interviewers (the researchers of HDRI participated in all of these trainings). Both theoretical and practical guidelines were provided. A detailed guidebook was developed for the interviewers. 2.3 Length: One day for field coordinators and also one day for interviewers. 2.4 Control of performance: Yes, there were different forms of control: telephone contact with interviewers during the fieldwork; centralized control of the first two questionnaires for each interviewer (the research group of HDRI checked the quality of their work and provided feedback); manual controlling of all questionnaires (some critical points and consistency). The CAPI software also performed lots of automatic checks. 2.5 Interviewer survey: No, but they were free to give feedback at any point. Contact protocols 3.1 Advance letter: Yes, two advance letter was sent to sample members to ask them to participate in the survey before the interviewer's visit. The first letter included a leaflet with some interesting results, a feedback option, and information that the survey would continue. The second letter reminded respondents of the main topics of the survey, the time period of the interviews, the estimated duration of interview, the possibility to answer some of the question on the web, and information on data protection. 3.2 Cold contacts: Not applicable 3.3 Scheduling / scattering: Yes, interviewers were asked to scatter contacts attempts over different days of the week and different parts of the day. 3.4 Contact history: Yes, for each contact attempt, the interviewer had to report the date, the time and the outcome in a grid. 3.5 Min number of contacts: Yes: 3 3.6 Max number of contacts: No Questionnaire localization 4.1 Validation: HDRI researchers translated the questionnaire (each researcher of the team was responsible for one section), then discussed its linguistic and cultural validity. The questionnaire was tested in a small pilot and focus groups. 4.2 Pre-test: The questionnaire was pretested with a small pilot (using a convenience sample) and focus group discussions. 4.3 Length of interview: n.a.

Methodology

Time Method

Panel

^fr-FR

Sampling Procedure

WAVE 1 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

Sampling frame 1.1 Type of frame: GGS Wave 1 corresponds to the 2nd wave of the "Turning Points of the Life Course" national survey. Sampling took place in 2001, before wave 1 of the national survey. All information on sampling refers to wave 1 of the national survey in 2001!!! The sampling frame of Wave 1 of the national survey used the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office (name list). 1.2 Frame coverage: The frame contains all Hungarian citizens. 1.3 Frame size: 7454196 1.4 Level of units available: Individuals
Sampling method 2.1 Sampling method type: A multistage, stratified sampling was used for Wave 1 of the national survey. Settlements were ordered according to their number of inhabitans and divided into deciles, with about the same number of residents in each decile. Individuals living in settlements in the 6-10th population deciles (larger settlements) were randomly sampled (SRS). Multistage sampling was used for individuals living in smaller settlements. 2.2 Sampling stage definition

PSU: Settlements (if in 1-5th deciles - see 2.1.)
SSU: Individuals (if in 1-5th settlement deciles - see 2.1.)
TSU: - 2.3 Sampling stage size
PSU: 3036 (370 were selected)
SSU: 5007817
TSU: - 2.4 Unit selection: Random number generator 2.5 Final stage unit selection: SRS 2.6 Within household unit selection: not applicable 2.7 Stratification: Explicit stratification was used based on age group (18-29 and 30-75), settlement size (10 deciles) and region (NUTS 2 level, 7 regions). 2.8 Sample size:
Starting size sample: 25510 (in 2001, in wave 1 of the national survey)
Aimed total size at Wave 1: 15200 (in 2001, in wave 1 of the national survey)
Aimed total size at Wave 3: 8200 (for GGS wave 3, which is actually wave 4 of the national survey) 2.9 Estimated Non-response
Initial non-response: 40%
Yearly attrition: 6,5%
Non response measures: Respondents aged below 30 and living in larger settlements were oversampled because they had been found to be more likely to drop out of a panel.
Within household non-responses measures: not applicable.

WAVE 2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE Not applicable (no sampling took place, respondents were sampled before W1). Estimated yearly attrition: 6,5%.

WAVE 3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE Not applicable (no sampling took place, respondents were sampled before W1). Estimated yearly attrition: 6,5%.

^fr-FR

fr-FR	WAVE 1 SAMPLING PROCEDURE Sampling frame 1.1 Type of frame: GGS Wave 1 corresponds to the 2nd wave of the "Turning Points of the Life Course" national survey. Sampling took place in 2001, before wave 1 of the national survey. All information on sampling refers to wave 1 of the national survey in 2001!!! The sampling frame of Wave 1 of the national survey used the Hungarian population register of the National Election Office (name list). 1.2 Frame coverage: The frame contains all Hungarian citizens. 1.3 Frame size: 7454196 1.4 Level of units available: Individuals Sampling method 2.1 Sampling method type: A multistage, stratified sampling was used for Wave 1 of the national survey. Settlements were ordered according to their number of inhabitans and divided into deciles, with about the same number of residents in each decile. Individuals living in settlements in the 6-10th population deciles (larger settlements) were randomly sampled (SRS). Multistage sampling was used for individuals living in smaller settlements. 2.2 Sampling stage definition PSU: Settlements (if in 1-5th deciles - see 2.1.) SSU: Individuals (if in 1-5th settlement deciles - see 2.1.) TSU: - 2.3 Sampling stage size PSU: 3036 (370 were selected) SSU: 5007817 TSU: - 2.4 Unit selection: Random number generator 2.5 Final stage unit selection: SRS 2.6 Within household unit selection: not applicable 2.7 Stratification: Explicit stratification was used based on age group (18-29 and 30-75), settlement size (10 deciles) and region (NUTS 2 level, 7 regions). 2.8 Sample size: Starting size sample: 25510 (in 2001, in wave 1 of the national survey) Aimed total size at Wave 1: 15200 (in 2001, in wave 1 of the national survey) Aimed total size at Wave 3: 8200 (for GGS wave 3, which is actually wave 4 of the national survey) 2.9 Estimated Non-response Initial non-response: 40% Yearly attrition: 6,5% Non response measures: Respondents aged below 30 and living in larger settlements were oversampled because they had been found to be more likely to drop out of a panel. Within household non-responses measures: not applicable. WAVE 2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE Not applicable (no sampling took place, respondents were sampled before W1). Estimated yearly attrition: 6,5%. WAVE 3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE Not applicable (no sampling took place, respondents were sampled before W1). Estimated yearly attrition: 6,5%.