Living Standards Measurement Survey 2002 (Wave 2 Panel) - Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract
---------------------------

In 2001, the World Bank in co-operation with the Republika Srpska Institute for Statistics (RSIS), the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) and the Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina (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 is also providing funding for a further two years of data collection for a panel survey, to be known as the Household Survey Panel Series (HSPS). Birks Sinclair & Associates Ltd. are responsible for the management of the HSPS with technical advice and support being provided by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Essex, UK.

The aim of the panel survey is to provide longitudinal data through re-interviewing approximately half the LSMS respondents for two years following the LSMS, in the autumn of 2002 and again in 2003. The LSMS constitutes wave 1 of the panel survey so there will be three years of panel data available for analysis under current funding plans. For the purposes of this document 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 will allow 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 will provide 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.

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

National coverage.
Domains: Urban/rural/mixed; Federation, Republic

Analysis unit
---------------------------

- Households
- Individuals

Kind of data
---------------------------

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

The panel survey sample is made up of over 3,000 households drawn from the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) conducted by the World Bank in co-operation with the SIs in 2002. Approximately half the households interviewed on the LSMS were selected and carried forward into the panel survey. These households were re-interviewed in 2003 and will be interviewed for a third time in September 2004.

Sampling Frame

The 5,400 households interviewed on LSMS formed the sampling frame for the panel survey. The aim was to achieve interviews with approximately half of these (2,700) at wave 2 (1,500 in FBiH and 1,200 in RS). A response rate of 90% was anticipated (as the sample is based on households that have already co-operated with LSMS) and therefore the selected sample consisted of 3,000 households. Unlike the LSMS, the HSPS does not have a replacement element to the sample, only the original 3,000 issued addresses. This approach was new to the Supervisors and Interviewers and special training was given on how to keep non-response to a minimum.

The LSMS Sample

The LSMS sample design process experienced some difficulties which resulted in a sample with a disproportionately high number of households being selected in urban areas. Work by Peter Lynn from ISER identified the source of this problem by establishing the selection probabilities at each stage of the LSMS sampling process. Essentially, the procedures used for selecting households within municipalities would have been appropriate had municipalities been selected with equal probabilities. But in fact municipalities had been selected with probability proportional to size, and using different overall sampling fractions in each of three strata. The details are documented in a memo by Peter Lynn dated 25-3-2002. Consequently, household selection probabilities varied considerably across municipalities.

Compensating for the LSMS sample imbalance

Having established the selection probability of every LSMS household, it became possible to derive design-based weights that should provide unbiased estimates for LSMS. However, the considerable variability in these weights means that the variance of estimates (and hence standard errors and confidence intervals) is greatly increased. For the HSPS, there was an opportunity to reduce the variability in weights by constructing the subsample in a way that minimised the variability in overall selection probabilities. The overall selection probability for each household would be the product of two probabilities - the probability of being selected for LSMS, and the probability of being selected for HSPS, conditional upon having been selected for LSMS, i.e.
P(HSPS) = P(LSMS) * P(HSPS)/(LSMS)

Ideally, then, we would have set the values of P(HSPS)/(LSMS) to be inversely proportional to P(LSMS). This would have resulted in each HSPS household having the same overall selection probability, P(HSPS), so that there would no longer be an increase in the variance of estimates due to variability in selection probabilities. However, this was not possible due to the very considerable variation in P(LSMS) and the limited flexibility provided by a large overall sampling fraction for HSPS (3,000 out of 5,400).

The best that could be done was to minimise the variability in sampling fractions by retaining all the LSMS households in the (mainly rural or mixed urban/rural) municipalities where LSMS household selection probabilities had been lowest and sub-sampling only in the municipalities where LSMS selection probabilities had been much higher. In 16 of the 25 LSMS municipalities, all households were retained for HSPS. In the other 9 municipalities, households were sub-sampled, with sampling fractions ranging from 83% in Travnik to just 25% in Banja Luka and Tuzla.

To select the required number of households within each municipality, every group of enumeration districts (GND) was retained from LSMS. The sub-sampling took place within the GNDs. Households were sub-sampled using systematic random sampling, with a random start and fixed interval. For example, in Novo Sarajevo, where the sampling fraction was 1 in 2, 6 households were selected out of the 12 LSMS households in each GND by selecting alternate households. In Prijedor, where the fraction was 1 in 3, 4 out of 12 were selected by taking every third LSMS household. And so on.

The total selected sample for the HSPS consists of 3,007 households (1681 in the FBIH and 1326 in the RS).

The overall design weight for the HSPS sample will be the product of the LSMS weight for the household and this extra design weight (which will of course tend to increase the size of the smallest LSMS weights).

Panel design

Eligibility for inclusion

The household and household membership definitions are the same standard definitions as used on the LSMS (see Supervisor Instructions, Annex A). While the sample membership status and eligibility for interview are as follows:
i) All members of households interviewed at wave 1 (LSMS) 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.

Following rules and the definition of 'out-of-scope'

The panel design means that sample members who move from their previous wave address at either wave 2 or 3 must be traced and followed to their new address for interview. The LSMS sample was clustered and over the two waves of the panel some de-clustering will occur as people move. 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.

Following rules

All sample members, OSMs and NSMs, are followed at each wave and an interview attempted. This means that a four person household at Wave 1 could generate three additional households at wave 2 if three members, either OSMs or NSMs, move away to form separate households. 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 2 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.

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument
---------------------------

Approximately 80% of the questionnaire is based on the LSMS questionnaire, carrying forward core measures that are needed to measure change over time. There are also some additional items that were requested to be included to link with other DFID projects (the Qualitative Studies). The questionnaire was circulated to the Data User Group (DUG) and changes were made as a result of comments received.

Pretesting

Pretest briefings were undertaken on 21 June 2002 in Banja Luka, and on 24 June 2002 in Sarajevo. Three interviewers who had previously worked on the LSMS and all members of the SIG attended each briefing. The pretest sample consisted of 30 LSMS households who were not going to be selected for wave 2 (chosen in a non-random way). To test the questions, interviewers completed a Rating Form and a Debriefing Form capturing structured questions on how respondents reacted to the survey (did it seem too long, were they worried about confidentiality etc). The debriefings were held on 1 and 2 July 2002 in Banja Luka and Sarajevo respectively.

In relation to the questionnaire, the pretest went very smoothly with very few recommended changes to the questionnaire and no refusals from respondents. However procedures’ regarding movers were not tested as none of the sample members had moved during the year.

The pretest identified an average interview length of 43 minutes (34 cases). There is evidence that over-burdening respondents with very long questionnaires on a panel survey can lead to higher levels of non-response and attrition. The aim was to have an average interview length of 45 minutes. Following the pretest some questions were removed and a few added to keep the overall length about the same.

Issues arising from the pretest

Falsifying information: The pre-test found one rogue interviewer had falsified some LSMS interviews. This has not been found with any other interviewers during the panel fieldwork so it is not problematic. This has been verified through the quality control back-checks implemented for the panel.

Proxy information: In several cases all members of the household were interviewed at the same time, with much of the data taken by proxy rather than through direct interviewing. Therefore, it was emphasised during the Supervisor and Interviewer training that direct interviews must be achieved. A payment scheme to reward interviewers who took direct interviews with all household members was introduced for the main survey.

Consumption module: Prior to the pretest the World Bank made a case for module 11 from the LSMS (consumption) to be included in the questionnaire. Module 11 was given to the pretest interviewers, with time boxes, to test. Interviewers did not react to it very well and 2 out of 25 households refused to complete it. On average it took 34 minutes (22 cases) to complete. Based on its time consuming nature it was decided that it should not be included because of concerns about over-burdening respondents in the vital second wave. This module, possibly shortened, will be reconsidered for inclusion at wave 3.

Cleaning operations
---------------------------

CSPro was the chosen data entry software. This was the software used for the LSMS and considerable skill in programming this software had been acquired by some SIG members. 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).

Unlike the LSMS, where data entry was carried out simultaneously in the field, interviewers delivered their completed questionnaires to the Field Office in Banja Luka or Sarajevo for data entry. Ten computer staff were engaged in each Field Office to enter all questionnaires and Control Forms Two, one day, training events were held on October 3rd and 4th in the Chamber of Commerce in Banja Luka. Training was conducted by Fahrudin Memic, Donald Prohaska, Dario Lozancic and Vladan Sibinovic. A short introduction to the survey was delivered by the FBSTA.

Actual questionnaires returned from the field were entered by the DE operators during training. In this way it was possible to fine-tune the program and identify any problems with data entry personnel.

Data entry was completed by December 2003. A mission from December 8-13 was undertaken by Heather Laurie and Fran Williams (ISER) to identify what level of cleaning was required. A further mission undertaken by Fran Williams from 16-22 March examined what data cleaning had been carried out and what was yet to be completed. Fran Williams has completed substantial cleaning work and a clean version of data was ready by June 2003.

Response rate
---------------------------

The quality of panel data relies heavily on gaining high re-interview rates. High levels of attrition, especially differential attrition between sub-groups in the sample, can lead to bias and reduce the quality of the data.
The response rates for wave 2 are shown in Tables 3 and 4 below. The level of cases that were unable to be traced is extremely low as are the whole household refusal or non-contact rates.

At Wave 2, 3007 households were issued for interview, 1681 for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and 1326 for the Republika Srpska (RS). As the panel survey design allows for new households to be created as individuals from the original households move away to form their own household, 3086 households were identified during fieldwork. Of these, 3050 were potentially eligible for interview. That is 36 households had either moved out of BiH or were deceased.

The response rates at Wave 2 were high. By international standards, the expected response rates at wave 2 of a panel survey would be in the region of 88%, so the BiH panel has performed extremely well compared to other national panels.

In total, 9,708 individuals including children under 15 were enumerated within the sample households. Within the 3,050 interviewed households, 8060 individuals aged 15 or over were eligible for interview with 7527 (93.4%) being successfully interviewed in total, 209 of whom were new entrants to the survey at Wave 2. The household response rate for responding households was therefore high

摘要
---------------------------
2001年，世界银行与塞尔维亚共和国统计局（RSIS）、联邦统计局（FOS）以及波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那统计局（BHAS）合作，开展了生活水平测量调查（LSMS）。生活水平测量调查（LSMS）除了收集尽可能全面地衡量家庭生活水平基本维度的信息外，还设有三个基本目标，具体如下：
1. 为公共部门、政府、商业界、科研机构、国际捐赠组织和社会组织提供有关人口生活状况不同指标的信息，以及满足基本需求可利用资源的信息。
2. 为评估旨在提高人口生活水平的不同形式政府政策和项目的成果提供信息。该调查将能够分析特定时间点及家庭内部生活水平（住房、消费、教育、健康、劳动）的不同方面的相互关系。
3. 基于分析数据，为政府贫困减少战略文件的发展提供关键贡献。

英国国际发展部（DFID）为LSMS提供了资金，并为后续两年的数据收集提供资金，即家庭调查面板系列（HSPS）。Birks Sinclair & Associates Ltd. 负责HSPS的管理，技术建议和支持由英国埃塞克斯大学的社会和经济研究学院（ISER）提供。

面板调查的目的是通过在LSMS之后两年内重新访谈大约一半的LSMS受访者，提供纵向数据。LSMS构成面板调查的第1波，因此根据当前的资助计划，将有三年的面板数据可供分析。在本文档中，我们使用以下约定来描述面板调查的不同轮次：
第1波：2001年进行的LSMS构成面板的基线调查
第2波：2002年秋季/冬季对LSMS 50%受访者的第二次访谈
第3波：2003年秋季/冬季对子样本受访者的第三次访谈

面板数据将允许分析在此期间的关键过渡和事件，如劳动力市场或地理流动性，并观察对调查中个人和家庭福祉的后续影响。

面板数据将在FBiH和RS内提供有关收入和劳动力市场动态的信息。关键政策领域是制定减少FBiH和RS贫困的战略。面板将提供有关不同类型的家庭和个人在三年期间连续遭受贫困的程度的信息。最重要的是，可以评估进入和退出贫困以及不同人群的相对贫困风险。因此，面板旨在提供数据，这些数据将在社会改革和快速变革时期为FBiH和RS的政策辩论提供信息。

地理覆盖范围
---------------------------
全国覆盖。
领域：城市/农村/混合；联邦，共和国

分析单位
---------------------------
- 家庭
- 个人

数据类型
---------------------------
样本调查数据 [ssd]

抽样程序
---------------------------
面板调查样本由2002年世界银行与SIs合作进行的LSMS中超过3000个家庭组成。大约一半的LSMS受访家庭被选中并纳入面板调查。这些家庭在2003年进行了重新访谈，并将第三次访谈安排在2004年9月。

抽样框架

在LSMS中接受采访的5400个家庭构成了面板调查的抽样框架。目标是实现大约一半的这些家庭（2700家）在第2波（FBiH中1500家，RS中1200家）进行访谈。预计响应率为90%（因为样本基于已经与LSMS合作的家庭），因此选定的样本由3000个家庭组成。与LSMS不同，HSPS没有替换样本的元素，只有最初的3000个发出地址。这种方法对于监督员和访谈员来说是新的，因此对他们进行了如何将非响应降到最低的特殊培训。

LSMS样本

LSMS样本设计过程中遇到了一些困难，导致在城区选定的家庭数量不成比例。ISER的Peter Lynn的工作确定了这一问题的根源，通过确定LSMS抽样过程中的每个阶段的选取概率。本质上，用于在市政区域内选择家庭的程序如果市政区域以相等的概率被选中将是合适的。但实际上，市政区域是以规模成比例的概率被选中的，并且在三个层中使用不同的总体抽样比例。详细信息记录在Peter Lynn于2002年3月25日签署的备忘录中。因此，家庭选取概率在市政区域之间差异很大。

补偿LSMS样本不平衡

在确定了每个LSMS家庭的选取概率后，就有可能推导出应提供LSMS无偏估计的设计权重。然而，这些权重的巨大变异性意味着估计的方差（因此标准误差和置信区间）大大增加。对于HSPS，有机会通过以最小化总体选取概率的方差的方式来构建子样本，从而减少权重的变异性。每个家庭的总体选取概率将是两个概率的乘积——被选中进行LSMS的概率，以及在已选中LSMS的条件下被选中进行HSPS的概率，即
P(HSPS) = P(LSMS) * P(HSPS)/(LSMS)

理想情况下，我们将把P(HSPS)/(LSMS)的值设置为与P(LSMS)成反比。这将导致每个HSPS家庭具有相同的总体选取概率P(HSPS)，这样就不会因为选取概率的变异性而导致估计方差的增加。然而，这不可能实现，因为P(LSMS)的巨大变异性以及HSPS提供的总体抽样比例（3000个中的5400）的有限灵活性。

所能做到的最佳做法是通过保留在LSMS家庭选取概率最低的（主要是农村或混合城市/农村）市政区域中的所有LSMS家庭，以及只在LSMS选取概率远高于其他地区的市政区域中进行子抽样，来最小化抽样比例的变异性。在25个LSMS市政区域中的16个中，保留了所有家庭进行HSPS。在其他9个市政区域中，家庭进行了子抽样，抽样比例从特拉夫尼克（83%）到巴尼亚卢卡和图兹拉（仅为25%）不等。

为了在每个市政区域内选择所需数量的家庭，保留了LSMS中每个统计区域（GND）的所有组。子抽样在GND内进行。使用系统随机抽样，随机起点和固定间隔进行家庭子抽样。例如，在抽样比例为1/2的诺沃萨拉耶沃，从每个GND的12个LSMS家庭中选出6个家庭（每隔一个选出），在抽样比例为1/3的普里耶多尔，从12个LSMS家庭中选出4个（每隔第三个选出）。依此类推。

HSPS的总选定样本由3007个家庭组成（FBiH中1681个，RS中1326个）。

HSPS样本的整体设计权重将是家庭LSMS权重与这个额外的设计权重的乘积（这个额外的设计权重当然会倾向于增加最小的LSMS权重的规模）。

面板设计

资格

家庭和家庭成员的定义与LSMS上使用的标准定义相同（参见监督员指南，附件A）。而样本成员资格和访谈资格如下：
i) 第1波（LSMS）中采访的所有家庭成员都被指定为原始样本成员（OSM）。OSM包括家庭中的儿童，即使他们年龄太小而不能接受访谈。
ii) 任何加入包含至少一个OSM的家庭的新成员都有资格被纳入，并被指定为新样本成员（NSM）。
iii) 在每一波中，所有OSM和NSM都有资格被纳入，除了那些超出范围的成员（见以下讨论）。
iv) 所有15岁及以上的家庭成员都有资格接受访谈，包括OSM和NSM。

遵循规则和“超出范围”的定义

面板设计意味着在波2或波3从之前波次的地址搬家的样本成员必须被追踪并跟随到他们新的地址进行访谈。LSMS样本是成簇的，在面板的两次波次中，随着人们的搬家，将发生一些解簇。在某些情况下，整个家庭会一起搬家，但在其他情况下，一个家庭成员可能从之前波次的家庭中搬出，形成他们自己的独立分裂家庭。

遵循规则

所有样本成员，包括OSM和NSM，在每一波都会被追踪，并尝试进行访谈。这意味着一个在波1有4人的家庭在波2可能会产生3个额外的家庭，如果3个成员（无论是OSM还是NSM）搬出去形成单独的家庭。这种方法的好处是保持面板中尽可能多的受访者，并且相对简单地在现场实施。

“超出范围”的定义

保持搬家者在样本中对于保持样本量和减少流失以及进行关于地理流动性和移民模式的实质性研究非常重要。确定受访者何时“超出范围”的规则如下：
i. 完全搬出国家，即FBiH和RS以外的国家
这一类搬家者很明确。搬出到FBiH和RS以外的其他国家的样本成员将不适用于该年的调查，并且无资格接受访谈。
ii. 在实体之间搬家
搬家者在实体之间被追踪进行访谈。受访者的个人信息在统计机构之间传递，并在该实体分配一个新的访谈员。
iii. 搬入机构
尽管机构的地址没有包含在原始LSMS样本中，但波2的个人后来搬入某些机构也被追踪。有关哪些机构被包含在监督员指南中的定义。
iv. 搬入布科维纳区
搬入布科维纳区的搬家者将被追踪进行访谈。

数据收集方式
---------------------------
面对面 [f2f]

研究工具
---------------------------
大约80%的问卷基于LSMS问卷，保留了需要测量时间变化的核心措施。还有一些额外的项目被要求包含在内，以与其他DFID项目（定性研究）相联系。问卷已分发给数据用户组（DUG），并根据收到的评论进行了修改。

预测试

2002年6月21日在巴尼亚卢卡，以及6月24日在萨拉热窝进行了预测试简报。每位简报都有之前参与LSMS的三位访谈员和SIG的所有成员参加。预测试样本由30个LSMS家庭组成，这些家庭不会被选中进行第2波（以非随机方式选择）。为了测试问题，访谈员填写了评分表和总结表，捕捉了有关受访者对调查反应的结构化问题（调查是否太长，他们是否担心保密等）。总结会在2002年7月1日和2日在巴尼亚卢卡和萨拉热窝分别举行。

在问卷方面，预测试进行得很顺利，几乎没有建议修改问卷，也没有受访者拒绝。然而，关于搬家者的程序没有测试，因为在该年没有样本成员搬家。

预测试确定了平均访谈长度为43分钟（34个案例）。有证据表明，在面板调查中给受访者施加非常长的问卷会导致更高的非响应率和流失率。目标是平均访谈长度为45分钟。在预测试之后，一些问题被删除，一些问题被添加，以保持整体长度大致相同。

预测试中出现的問題

伪造信息：预测试发现一位不良访谈员伪造了一些LSMS访谈。在面板实地工作期间，没有发现其他访谈员有任何此类行为，因此这不会成为问题。这已经通过为面板实施的质控回查得到了证实。

代理信息：在几个案例中，家庭的所有成员都在同一时间接受采访，大部分数据都是通过代理而不是直接采访获得的。因此，在监督员和访谈员培训期间强调了直接访谈的必要性。引入了一个支付方案，以奖励与所有家庭成员进行直接访谈的访谈员。

消费模块：在预测试之前，世界银行提出将LSMS的第11个模块（消费）包含在问卷中。第11个模块被分发给预测试访谈员进行测试，并设置了时间框。访谈员对它反应不佳，25个家庭中有2个拒绝完成它。平均完成时间为34分钟（22个案例）。鉴于其耗时性质，它决定不包含它，因为担心在至关重要的第二波中给受访者带来过度负担。这个模块，可能缩短，将在第3波重新考虑。

数据清理操作
---------------------------
选择了CSPro作为数据输入软件。这是用于LSMS的软件，一些SIG成员已经获得了编程此软件的相当技能。CSPro程序有两个主要功能，用于减少按键错误数量并减少数据输入后的编辑：
- 包含所有跳转模式的输入屏幕。
- 每个问题的范围检查（允许三个例外，不适当、不知道和缺失代码）。

与LSMS不同，LSMS的数据输入是在现场同时进行的，访谈员将完成的问卷交给巴尼亚卢卡或萨拉热窝的现场办公室进行数据输入。每个现场办公室有10名计算机工作人员负责输入所有问卷和控制表二。10月3日和4日在巴尼亚卢卡商会举行了为期一天的训练活动。培训由Fahrudin Memic、Donald Prohaska、Dario Lozancic和Vladan Sibinovic进行。FBSTA提供了对调查的简要介绍。

在培训期间，DE操作员输入了从现场返回的实际问卷。这样，就有可能微调程序并确定数据输入人员可能存在的问题。

数据输入在2003年12月完成。12月8日至13日的一项任务由Heather Laurie和Fran Williams（ISER）进行，以确定需要何种程度的数据清理。Fran Williams于3月16日至22日进行的另一项任务检查了已经进行的数据清理以及尚未完成的数据清理。

Fran Williams已经完成了大量清理工作，到2003年6月，数据已经准备好进行清理。

响应率
---------------------------
面板数据的质量在很大程度上取决于获得高重新访谈率。高水平的流失率，特别是在样本子群体之间的差异流失率，可能导致偏差并降低数据的质量。
下表3和4显示了第2波的响应率。无法追踪的案例数量极低，整个家庭的拒绝或无法联系率也极低。

在第2波中，共发放了3007个家庭进行访谈，其中FBiH有1681个，RS有1326个。由于面板调查设计允许在原始家庭中的个人搬出去形成他们自己的家庭时创建新的家庭，因此在现场工作中确定了3086个家庭。其中，3050个家庭有资格接受访谈。这是36个家庭要么搬出了BiH，要么已经去世。

第2波的响应率很高。根据国际标准，面板调查第2波的预期响应率将在88%左右，因此与其他国家面板相比，BiH面板表现非常出色。

在样本家庭中，共登记了9708个人，包括15岁以下的儿童。在3,050个被访谈的家庭中，8060名15岁及以上的个人有资格接受访谈，其中7527人（93.4%）被成功访谈，其中209人是第2波新加入调查的人。因此，响应家庭的家庭响应率很高。