EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY
FINAL FIELDWORK REPORT
VERSION II
PREPARED BY:
April 2003
1
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
1. EVALUATION OF THE FINAL STAGES OF FIELDWORK
FIELDWORK
Fieldwork was divided into two phases. The first phase ran from November 18th
to January 15th, with 1,515 interviews being completed in this time.
The second phase ran from January 15th to March 3rd, with a further 214
interviews being completed in this time, for a total of 1.729 interviews. In this
second phase, a total of 1,207 addresses were pursued in fieldwork, with 981
addresses being “re-issued” for further field trials. These addresses were chosen
according to the following criteria:
-
Cases of refusal by proxy
-
Cases of no-contact with four visits not well distributed along time.
-
Cases of no-contact with five visits not well distributed along time.
-
Cases of “individual will be absent temporarily”
-
Cases of “individual will be absent throughout the fieldwork period”
-
Cases of refusals or no-contact that dated from the beginning of the
fieldwork period (these were chosen selectively according to the
amount of effort dedicated at that time. That is, cases where many visits
had been made, or where the interviewer evaluation indicated that
they would “definitely not” participate in the future were not re-issued.)
These measures were discussed in a meeting held in mid-January between
Demoscopia and the National Coordinator. The number of addresses re-issued
actually turned out to be higher than the one estimated at that meeting. The
final fieldwork period was extended until the end of February.
The total fieldwork period spanned just over three months, the amount of time
initially foreseen (three months, from 15th October to 15th December). The final
2
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
result of fieldwork is positive in the sense that unprecedented efforts were made
in order to complete the highest possible number of interviews, and these
efforts have had a visible result on the fieldwork outcome. Of 1456 visits where
a refusal was received, up to 413 cases were recovered (28%), a very
significant recuperation rate given normal fieldwork practices in Spain.
Nevertheless, the ESS objectives of a 70% participation rate were not met, but
we believe that a longer fieldwork period would only affect the final
participation rate in the most marginal way.
A further note on the end of the fieldwork period. Although fieldwork formally
ended on March 3rd, and no new interviews were conducted after this date, in
a few cases some contacts continued to be pursued until the end of that
working week (Friday March 7th).
INCENTIVES
Upon first contact, all homes received a t-shirt and a baseball cap as an
incentive to participate. In cases of re-issued addresses with a second contact,
these were offered other presents such as calendars, pens, lighters, etc. with
the same monetary value as the initial present.
NEW CODES
As fieldwork progressed, it became necessary to create some additional codes
in certain variables of the contact forms:
Q.8a Why was the interview interrupted?
1 No time
2 Other obligations to attend to
3 Mistrust
4 Boring/ Not interested
7 Others
3
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
These were later recoded according to CCT guidelines.
Q.17 Reasons for no contact
6 House residents passed away
These cases were later recoded to “individual passed away” in Q.10.
Q.11 What language do they speak?
1 Arabic
2 German
3 English
4 Polish
7 Others (sign language, rumanian, french)
These cases were later recoded to “any other language” in Q.11.
Q.6 Result of visit
7 Interview annulled
MATERIALS SENT TO NATIONAL COORDINATORS
The following materials were sent on February 17th to the National Coordinators
for their revision:
-
Data archives of contact forms and questionnaires for the 3,020 cases
that had already been received by Demoscopia. These archives had
been verified, although they had not been cleaned for errors in data
processing.
-
Questionnaires and contact forms of those cases where the interview
had a duration of less than 30 minutes.
-
Questionnaires and contact forms of those cases that had been
annulled, re-issued, but not recuperated up until February 17th.
4
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
OTHER FIELDWORK PROBLEMS
Of the original 3,702 issued addresses, 53 contact forms corresponding to 53
addresses were lost in Valencia (the regional coordinator responsible for them
has been out of contact for over six weeks).
We think the possibility for
recovering these forms is very small.
In addition, 3 more cases from 3 different provinces have been “lost”, that is,
we have not received them and they are unaccounted for.
These cases have been included in the analysis as “other invalid addresses” in
Q.18.
A list of the municipality and electoral section codes is listed in the
appendix of this fieldwork report.
Also, in relation to the data itself, there are two cases of refusal that are not
clearly reflected because in each case more than four visits resulting in a
refusal were realised. However, for certain variables, the contact form only
contemplates up to three visits with refusal. This produces a difference of two
cases between variable 10 and variables 12-14.
5
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
2. QUALITY CONTROL
RESPONSE RATE
The final result of each address was considered. This means that previous visits
were “filtered out”.
This introduces certain distortions: for example, a
completed interview which is annulled is then re-issued. The final contact is a
refusal, but this hides the fact that the interview had been inappropriately
completed. For example, although a total of 12 interviews were annulled, only
10 cases have this as their final result because the other two cases finished in
some other situation (refusal, no contact, etc.).
We defined each category in the following way (the letters correspond to
categories in the National Technical Summary):
CATEGORY
DEFINITION
NUMBER
A) Total number of issued sample units (addresses, households or individuals)
Total sample
3702
INVALID ADDRESSES:
568
E) Address not residential (institution, business/industrial purpose)
P18 (4,5)
21
F) Address not occupied (not occupied, demolished, not yet built)
P18 (1,2,6)
249
G) Other ineligible address
P18 (3,7)
121
H) Respondent moved abroad, outside interviewer’s work area, to an
P19 (2,88)
institution, etc.
P10 (8) P20 (2)
70
I) Respondent deceased
P10 (7)
16
P10 (5,6,11)
75
J) Respondent mentally or physically unable to co-operate throughout the
fieldwork period. (expanded compared to NTS)
K) Respondent unavailable throughout the fieldwork period for other reasons P17 (6)
0
L) Language barrier.
16
P10 (10)
REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE:
1041
B) Refusal by respondent
P10 (2)
670
C) Refusal by proxy (or household or address refusal)
P10 (3)
371
P17(1-4) P10(4)
354
NO CONTACT:
D) No contacts (after at least 4 visits)
6
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
PARTICIPATION RATE:
M) Number of achieved interviews
P8 (1)
1729
ANNULLED INTERVIEWS:
Number of annulled interviews
10
Using this distribution, the response rate is 55% with a 33% refusal rate.
NUMBER OF VISITS IN GENERAL
We checked the work of the 3,657 completed fieldwork forms. In particular, we
checked the average number of visits.
By crossing the final result of each address with the number of visits, we
constructed a table which allows us to see how much relative effort was
invested in each address according to the outcome. This construction is simpler
and therefore different to the one used above. The outcomes contemplated
are the following:
•
Complete interview: includes invalidated interviews as well as complete
ones.
•
Invalid address: includes only contacts which concluded in item 5 in
question 6 of the Contact Form.
•
Individual refusal: addresses which conclude in item 2 of question 10.
•
Proxy refusal: addresses which conclude in item 3 of question 10.
•
Individual absent: includes addresses which conclude in item 4 of
question 10, ie. only includes temporary absences
•
Otherwise impossible to locate: includes addresses which conclude in a
permanent absence due to health, having moved, death, etc.
7
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
•
No contact 1: includes addresses which conclude in no contact
because no one is ever at home or household refuses to answer the door
(items 1 through 4 in question 17).
•
No contact 2: includes addresses which conclude in no contact
because the house is empty, ie. the household has moved or its
members have passed away (items 5 and 6 in question 17).
The average number of visits for the totality of the fieldwork conducted was
2.68, with the following distribution according to the final result of the address:
Completed interview (1736 cases): average 2.14 visits
Addresses that are ‘invalid’
Invalid address (B18)(338 cases): average 1.89 visits
No contact (items 5-6 in B17) (84 cases): average 1.89 visits
Otherwise impossible to locate (items 5, 7–11 in B10)(59 cases):
average 2.69 visits
Refusal categories
Selected individual refuses (item 2 in B10)(671 cases): average 2.61
visits
Proxy Refusal (item 3 in B10)(372 cases): average 3.23 visits
Individual temporarily absent (item 4 in B10)(40 cases): average 3.45
visits
No contact (items 1-4 in B17) (356 cases): average 5.74 visits
It is clear that no contact addresses and refusals required a more sustained
interviewer effort.
8
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
NUMBER OF VISITS BY REGION
If we look at the average number of visits by region, the following cases can be
identified as having an average that is exceptionally low (that is, below 2.50):
Galicia (2.37)
La Rioja (1.64)
Castilla y León (2.47)
Valencia (2.29)
We will explore each of these in greater detail:
Total Issued
sample
Invalid address rate Refusal rate
(B18; B17 5+6; B10 5,
(B10 2+3)
7-11)
No contact
Participation
rate
rate
(B17 1-4)
Galicia
227
15%
32%
9%
58%
La Rioja
22
14%
47%
--
53%
Castilla y León
249
24%
31%
9%
59%
Valencia
327
8%
30%
7%
63%
3656
14%
33%
11%
55%
Total National
average
As we can see from the rates calculated here, the percentages obtained in
these regions are very similar to those obtained for the national average.
Fieldwork results are very similar despite seemingly less effort having been
invested in the fieldwork (as measured by the number of visits).
In effect, the
no contact rate, which correlates most strongly with the visits rate, is below
average in all four regions.
9
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
NUMBER OF VISITS BY INTERVIEWER
If we look at the average number of visits by interviewer, we can identify the
following cases with too few visits:
INTERVIEWER
Nº
ID
ADDRESSES
27001
33003
6003
36001
15003
29007
38001
14004
46001
28001
8003
46002
11002
21001
2002
37001
8001
17001
24001
45002
38002
26001
5001
35001
28003
36005
45001
48004
24002
36003
11003
11001
27
30
26
13
16
12
12
20
68
115
29
100
30
32
11
34
151
26
39
19
52
12
30
30
54
39
14
23
35
19
30
38
AVG. VISITS
COMPLETED
INTERVIEWS
PARTICIPATION
RATE
1,74
1,63
1,58
1,46
1,44
2,25
1,92
1,35
1,19
2,21
2,21
1,3
1,9
2,41
1,09
2,38
2,34
2,23
2,36
1,05
1,48
1,5
1,3
1,67
2,33
1,46
1,21
2,22
1,71
2,21
1,43
1,39
21
23
19
9
11
8
8
13
44
73
17
58
17
18
6
18
79
13
19
9
24
5
12
12
21
15
5
8
12
6
9
9
78%
77%
73%
69%
69%
67%
67%
65%
65%
63%
59%
58%
57%
56%
55%
53%
52%
50%
49%
47%
46%
42%
40%
40%
39%
38%
36%
35%
34%
32%
30%
24%
10
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
48003
36002
48002
38
11
11
2,39
2,27
1,55
6
1
1
16%
9%
9%
Of a total of 35 cases, there are a 17 cases with success (participation) rates
below 50%.
Of these 17 cases, 11 have an average of fewer than two visits,
which is really a very low proportion. Their work accounts for 13% of issued
addresses and for 10% of completed interviews.
DURATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Concern was also raised about the duration of some questionnaires. While the
most worrying cases turned out to be errors (results were given before
verification of the punching was completed), the main problem here has to do
with a lack of attention paid by interviewers to these variables.
Verification is a standard procedure whereby every questionnaire and contact
form is punched twice in order to detect errors in the first punching procedure.
The computer programme alerts us of the error, the data is double-checked,
and the correct data is punched in.
After all questionnaires were verified, the
number of interviews with a duration of less than 30 minutes fell considerably.
Nevertheless, some errors persisted and these were corrected by hand after
being revised by the National Coordinators.
Those cases which were seen to be errors were corrected accordingly. Cases
which were not errors and which were attributed to interviewer carelessness
were recoded to “no answer”.
Concerning the remaining cases of “abnormally short interviews”, after
speaking with several interviewers we have been able to confirm our hypothesis
in this sense. Due to a lack of practice or custom, some interviewers have
written down wrong or estimated times. Normally questionnaires here require
11
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
the interviewer to write down the total time the interview took, not the
beginning and end time. In our conversations with interviewers many admitted
they had not paid attention to the time so their annotations on the
questionnaire could only be interpreted as approximate.
After this experience, we proceeded to verify 100% of questionnaires and
contact forms.
FIELDWORK DATES
Some cases were observed with fieldwork dates (visits) occurring outside the
range of November 18 to March 3.
In the case of those visits conducted
between March 3rd and March 7th, this is due to certain cases were fieldwork
efforts continued although no interviews were completed later than March 3rd.
Those cases with dates prior to November 18th were corrected for errors, and in
the case were it was not attributable to an error the day of the month was
recoded as “no answer”.
INTERVIEWERS’ WORK LOAD
In early progress reports an error in the PDF data tables gave the impression that
there were fewer interviewers working than was actually the case. A limitation
of the STAR programme led to interviewers’ data being confused and summed
into one.
As a result, there appeared to be several cases of interviewers
working over 48 addresses, and even over 100 or 200 addresses.
After detecting and correcting this error, we can see that only 13 interviewers
(out of 168 in total) have actually worked on more than 48 addresses.
In all
cases these are expert interviewers working in urban settings over a long period
12
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
of time. This accounts for 9% of the total number of interviewers assigned to the
project. The average number of addresses per interviewer is 22.
13
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
3. EVALUATION OF CERTAIN SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS
INTERVIEWER’S WORKING CONDITIONS
Working conditions for interviewers in terms of pay were comparably better in
the case of the ESS. Given that the sample size is not too large, a pay-perinterview system worked effectively. This is because the ESS in its current design
is not too difficult to complete – the questionnaire is within a reasonable length,
the topics covered are not sensitive in nature, the sample size is not excessively
large, and selection procedures are not complex. With these characteristics,
given sufficient fieldwork time, the survey is well received by interviewers given
that the effort necessary to complete one interview is worth the pay received
for the completed interview.
Abandoning such a system in favour of fixed pay system, which is more
expensive, should only really occur if the sample size increased or the interview
structure changed (ie. longer interview, complicated selection procedures,
more sensitive information covered), thus negatively affecting the participation
rate.
The sample size is important because if it is too large, interviewers
invariably become ‘burned out’ leading to a reduction in fieldwork effort. If the
survey characteristics change so as to increase the amount of effort required to
complete one interview, it would be worth considering the possibility of a fixed
pay system in order to prevent interviewers abandoning the survey (a problem
which often leads to permanent fieldwork control problems and extends
fieldwork well beyond a reasonable time-table).
MATERIALS – USE OF CAPI VS. PAPER
The current survey was conducted entirely on paper, without use of CAPI.
14
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
The advantages of using paper include the following:
-
For a long questionnaire, it is simpler for interviewers to use paper
because they avoid problems with the battery supply.
-
For a survey with dispersed sampling points, CAPIs are complicated to
manage, interviewers run into equipment problems, power supply
problems, etc.
-
In general, interviewers are still fairly recalcitrant to using CAPI and prefer
to work on paper.
In particular, the CAPI system was not used for the ESS in Spain for the further
following reasons:
-
The questionnaire has a simple structure, with few filters and no
numerical data.
-
A sample management system (SMS) was not contemplated in the initial
planning stages, and given that this type of system is one of the prime
benefits of CAPI, it was difficult to justify the CAPI system.
In sum, the advantages of CAPI have to do with how the sample is managed
and fieldwork progress recorded. Also, if the questionnaire is very complicated,
covering numerical and financial data, with simultaneous interviewing, etc.
then it is also recommendable to use CAPI. As this was not the case with the
ESS, we opted to use paper.
For a survey such as the ESS, the use of CAPI would only be recommendable if
all fieldwork material was recorded by the CAPI in order to have timely
fieldwork information, an aspect that proved to be a problem in this wave of
the ESS.
15
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
MATERIALS – PROBLEMS WITH THE CONTACT FORMS
Without a doubt the most problematic aspect of this wave of the ESS was the
contact form. This proved to be highly complex, lengthy, unclear, with seeming
contradictions, overwhelming both our quality control/ codification and data
processing departments, as well as many interviewers.
Before going into the details of the problems presented by the contact forms, it
is important to remember that it is very difficult to design a good and effective
contact form.
There is a direct negative relationship between amount of
information collected and effectiveness, as measured by the accuracy of the
data collected and effort required. This is true to the extent that we have been
unable to find a “model” contact form, as used in other studies. For this reason,
we have made proposals for improvements based on the ESS contact form.
In the following pages we detail many of the problems presented by the
contact forms.
1) Confusing for interviewers.
Interviewers had several problems with the contact forms, which were not
appropriately resolved in briefing sessions or during the pilot study. This has led
to errors in some information.
The aspects interviewers had most difficulty with are the following:
•
Filters used in B6.
•
The concept of re-issuing and how to reflect this on the form.
•
When the individual should be selected, and how to reflect this. For
example, if B6. was “2 Contact with selected individual” then B5b.
necessarily had to be “1 Yes”. These types of inconsistencies were not
fully understood or followed.
16
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
•
Question 12 was sometimes skipped because some interviewers did not
see it. This information was recovered through supervision procedures.
•
A lot of problems were observed when registering a home or individual
which had moved address.
Often, in B6. there would appear a “5
Invalid address” and then in P17. “5 Individual has moved”.
•
Many interviewers found the contact form too labour intensive and in
consequence did not spend enough time and attention filling it in.
2) Complicated for the coding process.
The coding and supervision processes have taken much longer than foreseen
because of the number of inconsistencies, filters, routes, etc. that are collected
in the forms. Furthermore, interviewers mistakes, or omission of data, coupled
with the circularity of the forms, led to real detective work being carried out by
the coding department in order to make useful sense of forms.
On average each contact form required up to 20 minutes of coding work,
compared to 4 minutes required for the contact forms used in similar studies,
notably ‘Familitur’.
The coding department has complained of interviewers’ lack of care or
comprehension of the form, of the excessive and incoherent use of filters, and
the amount of information required. In effect, there is quite a large amount of
duplication of data which not only is time consuming but also leads to the
existence of an unnecessary amount of inconsistencies.
3) Difficult for data processing.
Filtering out non-final results in order to work with the final result of each address
was a difficult and unsure process. As can be seen from the table in the above
17
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
section, defining the categories the CCT asked for was a patchwork procedure
where a huge amount of variables and half variables were involved.
Due to the complicated nature of the contact form, and the information
categories managed by the CCT, we are not absolutely sure to have
calculated participation rates according to CCT guidelines. In this sense, we
recommend that the National Coordinators revise all data given to make sure it
responds appropriately to the requirements and definitions of the ESS.
In improving the contact form, we would emphasize two aspects: reducing the
information collected to a minimum and eliminating as many filters as possible.
In the first grid that appears, we would reform it thus:
VARIABLE
COMMENT
Nº of visit
Repeated where the number of the interviewer is
collected. But important here in order to keep order.
Question 1: date
Important in order to re-issue addresses
Question 2: day of the week
Eliminate – this can be deduced from Q1.
Question 3: time of visit
Use closed categories: morning, afternoon, night.
This
would require less interviewer effort and is more
comfortable when analysing fieldwork data.
Question 4: type of visit
Eliminate – in a face to face survey 99% of visits are face
to face. This adds very little information.
Eliminate – this is known by the grid collecting visits per
Question 5: re-issue
interviewer.
Question
5b:
selected Eliminate – this is known by section B where the visit when
individual
the individual is selected is taken down.
18
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
Question 6: result of visit
Expand to include the following:
Completed interview
Uncompleted interview
Refusal by respondent (filter to motives)
Refusal by proxy (filter to motives)
Individual temporarily absent or unable to participate
Individual permanently absent
Individual/ household has moved
Language barrier
Invalid address (filter to ask why)
No contact
In this way, the interviewer would have to answer only three questions per visit
(when and what happened) rather than the current six. The result of each visit
would still be recorded, but in a simpler way (fewer filters, fewer possible
inconsistencies, etc.). Analysing the data would require a frequency count of
Q6. which could easily be filtered for “last visit” so as to know the final result of
each address.
Other information collected includes the grid collecting interviewer code and
the visits he/she realized, section B for selecting the individual, section 7, section
12, section 18, section 19, and section N.
19
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the ESS 2002-2003 from the point of view of the fieldwork in Spain
are on balance positive even when the response target rates have not been
met.
The results are positive in the sense that the only material which presented some
comprehension and application problems is the contact form, which as stated
earlier is usually difficult to design appropriately.
Although response targets have not been met, the methods and design used
have supposed an improvement with respect to normal practices in Spain, as
the following results summarise:
SAMPLE DESIGN
FAMILITUR
Address listing built by private
company with substitutions;
no individual selection;
SIZE
METHOD
1.000 new Face to
homes
face on
TIME
2
Invalid
Non
Rejec-
Res-
contact
tion
ponse
31%
10%
43%
47%
24%
30%
55%
15%
12%
10%
55%
35%
14%
12%
33%
55%
weeks
per wave paper
sample not self-weighted
BIOTECH-
Random route meted with
NOLOGY
Face to
8
sex and age quotas; sample
face on
weeks
self-weighted.
paper
BANCO DE
INE provided nominal address
ESPAÑA
1.500
Face to
+12
listing with substitutions; no
face on
weeks
individual selection; sample
Capi
7.000
not self-weighted.
ESS
INE provided nominal address
listing without substitutions;
individual selection with last-
3.657
Face to
15
(1.729)
face on
weeks
paper
birthday method; sample selfweighted.
This table has been extracted from the document “Report on Response Rates” prepared by
Demoscopia in March 2003.
20
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
From the table we see that response rates are higher for the ESS than for any
other survey while rejections rates are lower. The No contact rate is slightly
higher than in Familitur or the Banco de España, but in both of these cases
there is no selection of the individual because the household is the basic unit of
analysis.
Response rates for Familitur and Banco de España are calculated in the
following way:
ISSUED SAMPLE – INVALID ADDRESSES = VALID ISSUED SAMPLE
VALID ISSUED SAMPLE = [NO CONTACT + REJECTION + RESPONSE]
[NUMBER COMPLETED INTERVIEWS/ VALID ISSUED SAMPLE]*100 = RESPONSE RATE
INVALID ADDRESSES: this includes the same categories as in the ESS, except
categories which pertain to individuals (temporary absence, inability, etc.) as
these surveys had no selection of the individual. In the case of Familitur, this
rate is very affected by the existence of commercial or empty buildings in the
sample (which was not provided by INE). In general, the categories used are
simpler and have a higher level of aggregation than those used in the ESS.
Data for Familitur in this respect pertains only new recruits and not panellised
homes.
NO CONTACT: The Banco de España requires a minimum of four visits spread
out over days of the week and time of day (including at least one weekend
and night time visit). Familitur on the other hand only requires a minimum of
three visits, spread out over the days of the week.
REJECTION RATE: No distinction is made between refusal by selected individual
or proxy. In any case, this item collects all explicit refusals to participate.
21
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
With respect to future waves of the ESS, it is important to analyse the structure
and content of contact forms and revise the sample size according to the
desired number of completed interviews.
22
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
APPENDIX: LOST ADDRESSES AND CONTACT FORMS.
PROV.
MUN.
DIST.
SECC.
TOWN NAME
REF. Nº
CUEST. Nº
31
109
01
001
GALAR
310011
2491
08
187
06
009
SABADELL
80401
0825
27
028
04
006
LUGO
270031
1761
46
031
03
002
ALGINET
460014
3242
46
031
03
002
ALGINET
460016
3244
46
031
03
002
ALGINET
460017
3245
46
031
03
002
ALGINET
460019
3247
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460023
3251
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460024
3252
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460025
3253
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460026
3254
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460027
3255
46
070
01
001
BETERA
460028
3256
46
078
02
014
BURJASSOT
460035
3263
46
078
02
014
BURJASSOT
460036
3264
46
083
04
004
CARCAIXENT
460043
3271
46
083
04
004
CARCAIXENT
460046
3274
46
083
04
004
CARCAIXENT
460050
3278
46
102
01
015
QUART DE POBLET
460051
3279
46
102
01
015
QUART DE POBLET
460054
3282
46
102
01
015
QUART DE POBLET
460059
3287
46
131
05
007
GANDIA
460062
3290
46
131
05
007
GANDIA
460063
3291
46
131
05
007
GANDIA
460064
3292
46
131
05
007
GANDIA
460068
3296
46
169
01
001
MISLATA
460087
3315
46
169
01
001
MISLATA
460089
3317
46
171
02
003
MONCADA
460091
3319
46
171
02
003
MONCADA
460098
3326
46
171
02
003
MONCADA
460099
3327
46
193
01
006
PICANYA
460108
3336
46
193
01
006
PICANYA
460109
3337
46
199
01
001
POBLA DE FARNALS
460115
3343
46
199
01
001
POBLA DE FARNALS
460116
3344
46
235
02
001
SUECA
460132
3360
46
235
02
001
SUECA
460134
3362
46
235
02
001
SUECA
460136
3364
46
235
02
001
SUECA
460138
3366
46
235
02
001
SUECA
460139
3367
46
244
02
006
TORRENT
460142
3370
46
250
07
016
VALENCIA
460171
3399
46
250
08
007
VALENCIA
460173
3401
46
250
08
007
VALENCIA
460178
3406
46
250
08
007
VALENCIA
460183
3411
46
250
09
009
VALENCIA
460185
3413
23
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003
46
250
09
009
VALENCIA
460191
3419
46
250
09
009
VALENCIA
460193
3421
46
250
09
017
VALENCIA
460197
3425
46
250
09
017
VALENCIA
460204
3432
46
250
12
002
VALENCIA
460211
3439
46
250
12
002
VALENCIA
460219
3447
46
250
12
006
VALENCIA
460221
3449
46
250
12
006
VALENCIA
460224
3452
46
250
12
006
VALENCIA
460227
3455
46
250
12
006
VALENCIA
460231
3459
46
250
12
006
VALENCIA
460232
3460
24
European Social Survey
Final Fieldwork Report
March 2003