CESSDA Data Catalogue OAI-PMH Repository
Not a member yet
32838 research outputs found
Sort by
Increasing the Level of Reading Proficiency of Grade 7 Students Through the Implementation of English Reading Program
No full textThis study aim to know the Level of Reading Proficiency of Grade 7 Students through the Implementation of English Reading Program of 494 Grade 7 students at Bucal National Integrated School, finding that the intervention successfully led to measurable improvements and eliminated non-readers in the post-test assessment. It implied that improvements have occurred using the contextualized learning materials. At the end of the assessment indicated a move towards improvement of Grade 7 students reading comprehension. The study's findings revealed that Grade 7 students had the capability to read and comprehend what they read. There are no non-readers from the post-test with less frustration. Overall, this study aim to inform the educators, parents and the students about the importance of reading comprehension. By recognizing and addressing this challenges effectively, educational stakeholders can help improve the academic outcomes and overall well-being of Grade 7 students.This study aim to know the Level of Reading Proficiency of Grade 7 Students through the Implementation of English Reading Program of 494 Grade 7 students at Bucal National Integrated School, finding that the intervention successfully led to measurable improvements and eliminated non-readers in the post-test assessment. It implied that improvements have occurred using the contextualized learning materials. At the end of the assessment indicated a move towards improvement of Grade 7 students reading comprehension. The study's findings revealed that Grade 7 students had the capability to read and comprehend what they read. There are no non-readers from the post-test with less frustration. Overall, this study aim to inform the educators, parents and the students about the importance of reading comprehension. By recognizing and addressing this challenges effectively, educational stakeholders can help improve the academic outcomes and overall well-being of Grade 7 students
Effectivity of Promotion of Social Inclusion, Well-being, and Activeness: intreviews in Social Kitchens 2019
No full textAineisto koostuu kahden eri puolilla Suomea toimivan yhteisen keittiön osallistujien haastatteluista. Yhteinen keittiö on ihmisiä yhteen kokoava tila tai toiminta, jossa tarjotaan edullista ruokaa, yhdessäoloa ja mielekästä tekemistä. Haastatteluissa tarkastellaan osallistujien kokemuksia yhteisen keittiön toiminnasta ja sen vaikutuksista heidän hyvinvointiinsa, osallisuuteensa ja aktiivisuuteensa. Tavoitteena on ollut kerätä pieniä onnistumistarinoita, jotka kuvaavat toiminnan vaikutusmekanismeja ja osallisuuden kokemuksen vahvistumista. Haastateltavat ovat mukana toiminnassa joko vapaaehtoisina, työllistämistoimenpiteen kautta tai vakioasiakkaina. Aineisto on kerätty osana Sosiaalisen osallisuuden edistämisen koordinaatiohanke Sokraa (2014-2023). Haastattelut etenivät teemoittain. Aluksi kartoitettiin haastateltavan taustatietoja, kuten asuinpaikkaa, ikää, perhesuhteita, työmarkkina-asemaa ja koulutusta. Tämän jälkeen selvitettiin, miten haastateltava oli päätynyt mukaan toimintaan, ja millaisiin tehtäviin hän osallistuu. Haastateltavaa pyydettiin myös kuvailemaan kokemuksiaan toiminnasta, kuten osallistujien välisiä suhteita, yhteisöllisyyttä, mahdollisuuksia vaikuttaa toimintaan ja sen sisältöihin sekä mahdollisuuksia itsensä toteuttamiseen ja muiden auttamiseen. Seuraavaksi haastateltavalta kysyttiin toimintaan osallistumisen hyödyistä. Häntä pyydettiin kertomaan toiminnan vaikutuksista esimerkiksi arkeen, tulevaisuuden suunnitelmiin, terveyteen ja itseluottamukseen. Lisäksi kartoitettiin, onko osallistuminen lisännyt luottamusta muihin ihmisiin. Lopuksi haastateltavalta tiedusteltiin ajatuksia liittyen muiden osallistujien kokemuksiin toiminnasta. Haastateltavalta kysyttiin esimerkiksi, onko hän havainnut eroja miesten ja naisten osallistumisessa toimintaan. Taustatietoina aineistossa ovat haastateltavan sukupuoli ja toimintaan osallistumisen muoto, haastattelupäivämäärä sekä tieto yhteisen keittiön toimintatavasta ja paikkakunnasta karkeistettuna.The dataset consists of interviews with participants from two social kitchens operating in different parts of Finland. A social kitchen is a space or activity that brings people together by offering affordable food, social interaction, and meaningful activities. The interviews explore participants' experiences of the social kitchen and its effects on their well-being, inclusion, and activeness. The aim was to collect small success stories that illustrate the mechanisms of impact and the strengthening of the experience of inclusion. The interviewees are involved in the activity either as volunteers, through an employment support programme, or as regular customers. The data was collected as part of the Project to co-ordinate the promotion of social inclusion, Sokra (2014-2023). The interviews followed a thematic structure. First, background information was collected, such as the interviewee's place of residence, age, family relationships, labour market status, and education. Next, the interview focused on how the interviewee became involved in the activity and what kind of tasks they participate in. The interviewee was also asked to describe their experiences of the social kitchen, including relationships among participants, sense of community, opportunities to influence the activity and its content, and possibilities for self-expression and helping others. The next section addressed the benefits of participation. The interviewee was asked to describe the effects of the activity on their daily life, future plans, health, and self-confidence. In addition, the interview explored whether participation had increased trust in other people. Finally, the interviewee was asked to reflect on other participants' experiences of the activity, including whether they had observed differences in participation between men and women. Background information in the dataset includes the interviewee's gender and form of participation, the interview date, and a coarsened description of the social kitchen's operating model and location
BEWOHNT - The Importance of Living in the Neighbourhood for Healthy Ageing, Wave 1
No full textThe BEWOHNT project at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main aims to help ensure the best possible conditions for the large group of older people living in private accommodation to continue living in the district into old age. The main objectives of the project are to provide a detailed description of the everyday spatial and social situations in which older people in the district experience difficulties, where they see opportunities for improvement, and how living is related to aspects of healthy aging, as well as to develop and optimize a catalog of practical measures based on the findings and in close cooperation with planning officials, taking into account existing services. The publication of the data was financed by the Charlotte Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Cologne. During the survey period from September 20, 2010, to February 21, 2012, 595 women and men of various age groups (70-79 and 80-89 years) and living arrangements (living alone or not living alone) from three districts in Frankfurt am Main were visited at home and interviewed using standardized and semi-open methods. The participants also kept mobility diaries, the interviewers measured objective environmental data, and qualitative in-depth studies were conducted (the data from the qualitative in-depth studies are not available in the archive). The respondents were selected using a random sample based on the registration office.1. Housing: Length of residence in Frankfurt; name of district; length of residence in district; length of residence in current apartment; tenant or owner of apartment; stairs in apartment; type of heating; number of rooms; size of the apartment in square meters; apartment amenities (separate entrance to the apartment, WC/toilet, bathroom with toilet, bathroom without toilet, kitchen/kitchenette, dining area, storage room/basement); possibility of using a car (as a driver or passenger); other location (e.g., second home) for longer stays; number of weeks per year for longer stays at another location. 2. Health: Self-assessment of health status; falls in the last year (inside or outside the home) and frequency of falls; changes in the living environment; changes inside the home, in the entrance area, or outside the home. 3. Assistive devices: Type of assistive devices available or used: vision aids (e.g., glasses); hearing aids, walking aids inside and outside the home (e.g., walker), aids for performing everyday tasks (e.g., eating aids), other aids, other equipment (cell phone, internet access, home emergency call system). 4. Social situation and contacts: Number of children; number of children in the immediate vicinity, number of grandchildren; number of grandchildren in the immediate vicinity; frequency of contact with close relatives; desire for more frequent contact; frequency of telephone calls with close relatives; experience of loneliness (I have people I can talk to, but nobody really knows me). 5. Confidant: confidant available; support person nearby; relationship with this person (relative, family member, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, professional helper); form of help or support (functional, practical help, financial support, emotional support/social interaction, other help). 6. Restrictions experienced due to partner: consideration of partner´s restrictions (for activities outside the home and in relation to the type of activity). 7. Pet ownership: current pets in the household; importance of pet ownership for well-being; previous pets in the household; importance of pet ownership for well-being in the past; considerations about getting a pet (again); reasons against getting a pet (e.g., no longer physically able to meet the demands of a pet, etc.). 8. General memory and thinking skills: Repeating a list of ten words; converting numbers into words; supermarket task (naming items that can be bought in a supermarket (or hardware store) in one minute); counting backwards; repeating the word list. 9. Activities outside the home: Type of activities performed (private visits (relatives, friends, acquaintances), shopping (daily needs, retail, kiosk, bakery, butcher, etc.), shopping (bulk shopping, supermarket, shopping center, strolling, doctor´s visits, medical treatment (e.g., therapy, massage, pedicure, manicure), visits to government agencies and administrative offices (bank, post office, government offices), attending cultural and sporting events (e.g., games, movies, concerts, theater, opera), religious events (church attendance), visiting the cemetery, using a garden plot/allotment, participating in club activities (events, meetings, etc.), visiting restaurants (restaurants, cafes, kiosks, pubs), going on excursions on foot, going on excursions by bike, trips using public transport (train and bus), trips by car as a driver or passenger, other activities); frequency of each activity; activities undertaken alone or accompanied; location of each activity (neighborhood, district, wider area, other city, more than 30 km away); reported barriers (weather conditions, lighting conditions, no accompaniment, other). 10. Changes experienced in the district: Changes in the living environment over the last 5 to 10 years in the following areas: supply situation (shopping (range of shops, variety of shops), medical, nursing, social care, services for older people (special shops, authorities), other), infrastructure (pedestrian-friendliness, public transport connections, car connections, other) and social aspects (resident structure in the immediate neighborhood, activities for older citizens (offers), mood/atmosphere in the district (social climate), other); assessment of the changes as positive or negative. 11. Satisfaction with the neighborhood; type of residence (prefer to be at home or out and about); favorite place outside the home. 12. Social participation: Agreement with various statements on activities, involvement, and participation, especially in the neighborhood (satisfied with time management, satisfied with level of activity, generally enough to do, satisfied with opportunities to participate in public activities, aware of events in the neighborhood, talk to neighbors about events in the neighborhood, influence on events in the neighborhood); Frequency of joint activities with friends or relatives in the last 12 months involving production or organization for others (e.g., theater performance, crafts, or music concert), representing the interests of others, simply for the sake of community. 13. Volunteering: performing voluntary work; reasons for ending voluntary work (no longer interested, health or mobility reasons, no opportunities in the neighborhood, other reasons); assessment of the current level of social engagement. 14. Neighborhood: Probability that neighbors will intervene if: children skip school and loiter on the streets, children spray graffiti on buildings in the neighborhood, children show disrespect to adults, a violent argument/fight breaks out in front of the house, or the nearest social facility is to be closed for financial reasons; Assessment of social interaction in the neighborhood (helpfulness, solidarity, trust, getting along well, sharing the same views and values); number of neighbors with whom you have a friendly conversation at least once a week; number of neighbors you know by name; number of neighbors who help with housework, gardening, or small favors; frequency of observations in the neighborhood (neighbors talking, helping each other, looking out for each other, traffic violations, unknown persons, poor lighting at night, sidewalks in poor condition, buildings and houses in poor condition, vandalism, trash and litter, violent arguments in front of the house, noise from neighbors, traffic, or other causes, feeling unsafe walking through the neighborhood); assessment of the residential area in terms of accessibility to everyday amenities, public transport stops, road network offers alternative routes, sufficient space for cyclists, well-lit streets and paths, pedestrians can get everywhere, traffic light green phases are long enough, safe crossings, sufficient green spaces and trees. enjoyable walking, many interesting things to see and discover, sufficient seating, traffic load, risk of accidents for pedestrians and cyclists, obstruction by parked cars, feeling of safety outside during the day and after dark. 15. Everyday activities: Frequency of various activities and perceived limitations in these activities (visiting friends and family, household matters and finances, leaving home and staying overnight away from home, inviting guests to visit or for dinner, going out to restaurants or the cinema, personal hygiene, running errands locally, preparing meals); general limitations due to a health problem; Questions about functionality: Difficulties with various everyday activities, such as opening the lid of an unopened jam jar without assistance, running 800 meters or more, holding a full glass of water in your hand, etc.). 16. Functional impairments and mobility aids: Difficulties with information processing, severe visual impairment, blindness, hearing impairment, balance problems, coordination problems, limited physical endurance, difficulties moving the head/arms, limited fine motor skills, loss of upper limb skills, difficulties bending over, kneeling, etc., dependent on walking aids/wheelchair; areas in which mobility aids are needed. 17. Assessment of current life: personal attitudes and beliefs (currently optimistic, many things to look forward to every day, feel my life is useful, my life is strongly influenced by religious/moral principles, currently have a strong will to live, life has meaning, achieving life goals, generally hopeful outlook on life, making the best of life, ideas for getting out of a difficult situation, many opportunities to achieve important things, finding ways to solve problems, achieving self-set goals). 18. Income satisfaction and income: satisfaction with current financial situation; paid employment; net household income (grouped); classification of household income. 19. Attitudes toward the future (life is becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to understand, less and less understanding for the views of the younger generation, feeling of missing out on the present day, fully up to date, finding it increasingly difficult to cope with today´s way of life); general life satisfaction. During a second visit, questions were asked on the following topics: personal resources (extent and satisfaction); emotional well-being; attachment to one´s own home and neighborhood; identification with the neighborhood; movement-related activities; beliefs about control in the living environment; everyday activities; subjective independence; other personal resources (losses and gains); mood; assessment of the future: assessment of one´s own future prospects; future plans with regard to living arrangements; expected and desired years of life; expectations of remaining in one´s own home: expected changes in living situation and neighborhood that will make it easy or difficult to remain in one´s own home (spatial aspects, social aspects, personal aspects, other reasons); assessment of remaining in the current home in five years´ time. In addition to the interview, the respondents kept a mobility diary about their mobility outside the home, their well-being, and their experience of aging. Demography: Sex; age (year of birth); marital status; in a stable relationship; household type (living alone, living with partner); education: last type of school attended; length of education in years; sense of ethnic affiliation (lived most of life in Germany, culturally predominantly German). Final assessment of the first and second interviews by the interviewer: participation of other persons; type of participation; presence of other persons influencing the responses of the interviewee; interruptions or disturbances during the interview; current condition of the house; current condition of the interviewee. In addition, the interviewer conducted an objective audit of the home and the immediately adjacent outdoor area (environmental inspection). The following additional data was encoded: personal ID; sex; age group and area of study according to the registration office; willingness to participate in the repeat survey; willingness to participate in a qualitative survey; weight in kilograms; participation in wave 1; participation in visit 1 or 2; for visit 1 and 2 respectively: questionnaire version; number of variables with missing values; interview duration; total duration of both interviews in minutes; interval between visit 1 and visit 2 (in days); exact age at the time of recording; marital status: time since widowhood (in years); age of the building; time since the last modernization (in years); auxiliary tools sum values and mean values; experience of loneliness; thinking: Subtests word list, numbers, supermarket task, number sequence backwards, delayed recall, total score, DemTect classification; activities outside the home: sum values and mean values accompaniment, location, barriers; perceived changes in the care situation: sum values and mean values; sum values and mean values social participation, neighborhood; various other sums and mean values.Das Projekt BEWOHNT der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main soll einen Beitrag dazu leisten, bestmögliche Bedingungen für ein Wohnen im Stadtteil bis ins sehr hohe Alter für die große Gruppe der privat wohnenden älteren Menschen zu gewährleisten. Wesentliche Projektziele sind die detaillierte Beschreibung, in welchen alltäglichen räumlich-sozialen Situationen alte Personen im Stadtteil Schwierigkeiten erleben, wo sie Möglichkeiten der Verbesserung sehen und wie Wohnen mit Aspekten gesunden Alterns zusammenhängt, sowie die Entwicklung und Optimierung eines Katalogs von Praxismaßnahmen auf der Basis der Befunde und in enger Zusammenarbeit mit Planungsverantwortlichen und unter Berücksichtigung bereits bestehender Angebote. Die Datenveröffentlichung wurde von der Charlotte-Fresenius-Hochschule, Köln finanziert. Im Erhebungszeitraum 20.09.2010 bis 21.02.2012 wurden im Rahmen der ersten Erhebungswelle 595 privat wohnende Frauen und Männer verschiedener Altersgruppen (70-79 bzw. 80-89 Jahre) und Wohnformen (alleinlebend bzw. nicht alleinlebend) aus drei Stadtteilen in Frankfurt am Main zu Hause besucht und mit standardisierten und halb-offenen Verfahren befragt. Die Teilnehmer/-innen führten zudem Mobilitätstagebücher, die Interviewer/-innen maßen objektive Umweltdaten und es wurden qualitative Vertiefungsstudien durchgeführt (Die Daten der qualitativen Vertiefungsstudien liegen dem Archiv nicht vor). Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine meldeamtsbasierte Zufallsstichprobe.1. Wohnen: Wohndauer in Frankfurt; Nennung des Stadtteils; Wohndauer im Stadtteil; Wohndauer in der jetzigen Wohnung; Mieter oder Eigentümer der Wohnung; Treppen in der Wohnung; Heizungsart; Anzahl der Wohnräume; Größe der Wohnung in Quadratmetern; Ausstattung der Wohnung (eigener Eingang zur Wohnung, WC/Toilette, Bad mit Toilette, Bad ohne Toilette, Küche/Kochnische, Essbereich, Abstellkammer/ Keller); Möglichkeit zur Autonutzung (als Selbstfahrer oder Mitfahrer); anderer Ort (z.B. Zweitwohnung) für längeren Aufenthalt; Anzahl Wochen pro Jahr für längeren Aufenthalt an einem anderen Ort. 2. Gesundheit: Selbsteinschätzung des Gesundheitszustands; gestürzt im letzten Jahr (innerhalb oder außerhalb der Wohnung) und Häufigkeit der Stürze; Veränderung der Wohnumgebung; Veränderung innerhalb der Wohnung, im Eingangsbereich oder außerhalb der Wohnung. 3. Hilfsmittel: Art der vorhandenen bzw. genutzten Hilfsmittel: Sehhilfen, (z.B. Brille); Hörhilfen, Gehhilfen innerhalb und außerhalb der Wohnung (z.B. Rollator), Hilfen zur Durchführung von Aufgaben des alltäglichen Lebens (z.B. Esshilfen), andere Hilfsmittel, andere Ausstattung (Mobiltelefon, Internetzugang, Hausnotrufsystem). 4. Soziale Situation und Kontakte: Anzahl der Kinder; Anzahl der Kinder in der näheren Umgebung, Anzahl der Enkelkinder; Anzahl der Enkelkinder in der näheren Umgebung; Kontakthäufigkeit zu nahestehenden Personen; Wunsch nach häufigerem Kontakt; Häufigkeit von Telefonaten mit nahestehenden Personen; Einsamkeitserleben (ich habe Menschen, mit denen ich sprechen kann, niemand kennt mich wirklich). 5. Vertrauensperson: Vertrauensperson vorhanden; Unterstützungsperson in der Nähe; Beziehung zu dieser Person (Verwandte/r, Familie, Freund/in, Bekannte/r, Nachbar/in, professionelle/r Helfer/in); Form der Hilfe oder Unterstützung (funktionelle, praktische Hilfe, finanzielle Unterstützung, emotionale Unterstützung/ sozialer Austausch, andere Hilfe). 6. Erlebte Einschränkungen durch den Partner/ die Partnerin: Rücksichtnahme auf Einschränkungen des Partners/ der Partnerin (bei Aktivitäten außer Haus und bezogen auf die Art der Aktivität. 7. Haustierhaltung: derzeit Haustiere im Haushalt; Bedeutung der Haustierhaltung für das Wohlbefinden; früher Haustiere im Haushalt; Bedeutung der Haustierhaltung für das Wohlbefinden früher; Überlegungen, sich (wieder) ein Haustier anzuschaffen; Gründe gegen die Anschaffung eines Haustieres (z.B. den Anforderungen eines Haustiers körperlich nicht mehr gewachsen, etc.). 8. Allgemeine Gedächtnisleistung und Denkfähigkeit: Wiederholen einer Wortliste mit zehn Wörtern; Zahlen in Worte umwandeln; Supermarktaufgabe (in einer Minute Nennung von Dingen, die man im Supermarkt (oder Baumarkt) kaufen kann); Zahlenfolge rückwärts; erneute Abfrage der Wortliste. 9. Außerhäusliche Aktivitäten: Art der ausgeübten Aktivitäten (private Besuche (Verwandte, Freunde, Bekannte), Einkauf (täglicher Bedarf, Einzelhandel, Kiosk, Bäcker, Metzger, etc.), Einkauf (Großeinkauf, Supermarkt, Einkaufszentrum, Bummeln, Arztbesuche, medizinische Behandlung, (z.B. Therapie, Massage, Pediküre, Maniküre), Behörden und Verwaltungsgänge (Bank, Post, Ämter), Kultur- und Sportveranstaltungen besuchen (z.B. Spiel, Kino, Konzert, Theater, Oper), religiöse Veranstaltungen (Kirchgang), Friedhofsbesuch, Nutzung eines Gartengrundstücks / Schrebergartens, Teilnahme an Vereinsaktivitäten (Veranstaltungen, Sitzungen, etc.), Gastronomiebesuch (Restaurant, Café, Kiosk, Kneipe), Ausflüge unternehmen zu Fuß, Ausflüge mit dem Rad, Ausflüge mit dem ÖPNV (Bahn und Bus), Ausflüge mit dem PKW als Selbstfahrer oder Mitfahrer, sonstige Aktivitäten); Häufigkeit der jeweils ausgeübten Aktivitäten; Aktivitäten jeweils alleine oder in Begleitung; Ort der jeweiligen Aktivität (Nachbarschaft, Stadtteil, weitere Umgebung, andere Stadt, mehr als 30 km entfernt); berichtete Barrieren (Witterungsbedingungen, Lichtverhältnisse, keine Begleitung, sonstige). 10. Erlebte Veränderungen im Stadtteil: Veränderungen im Wohnumfeld in den letzten 5 bis 10 Jahren in den folgenden Bereichen: Versorgungssituation (Einkauf (Angebote, Vielfalt der Geschäfte), medizinisch, pflegerische, soziale Versorgung, Angebote für Ältere (spezielle Geschäfte, Behörden), Sonstiges), Infrastruktur (Fußgängerfreundlichkeit, Anbindung an den ÖPNV, Anbindung mit dem PKW, Sonstiges) und Soziales (Bewohnerstruktur in der unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft, Aktivitäten für ältere Bürger/innen (Angebote), Stimmung / Atmosphäre im Stadtteil (Soziales Klima), Sonstiges); Bewertung der Veränderungen jeweils zum Guten bzw. zum Schlechten. 11. Zufriedenheit mit dem Stadtteil; Wohntyp (lieber zu Hause oder lieber draußen unterwegs); Lieblingsplatz außerhalb der Wohnung vorhanden. 12. Soziale Teilhabe: Zustimmung zu verschiedenen Aussagen zu Aktivitäten, Mitwirken und Teilhabe insbesondere in der Nachbarschaft (zufrieden mit der Zeiteinteilung, zufrieden mit dem Maß an Aktivität, im Allgemeinen genug zu tun, zufrieden mit Teilnahmemöglichkeiten an öffentlichen Aktivitäten, Geschehnisse in der Nachbarschaft mitbekommen, mit Nachbarn über Geschehnisse in der Nachbarschaft reden, Einfluss auf Geschehnisse in der Nachbarschaft); Häufigkeit von gemeinsamen Unternehmungen mit Freunden oder Angehörigen in den letzten 12 Monaten mit Produktion oder Ausrichtung für Andere (z.B. Theateraufführung, Handwerksarbeiten oder Musikkonzert), Interessen von Anderen vertreten, einfach nur wegen Gemeinschaft. 13. Ehrenamt: Ausübung eines Ehrenamtes; Gründe für die Beendigung der ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeit (kein Interesse mehr, gesundheitliche oder Mobilitätsgründe, keine Möglichkeiten in der Wohngegend, andere Gründe); Bewertung des gegenwärtigen Ausmaßes an sozialem Engagement. 14. Nachbarschaft: Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Nachbarn eingreifen, wenn: Kinder Schule schwänzen und auf der Straße herumlungern, Kinder Graffiti an Gebäude in der Nachbarschaft sprühen, Kinder sich gegenüber Erwachsenen respektlos zeigen, vor dem Haus ein heftiger Streit/ Kampf entflammt oder die nächstgelegene soziale Einrichtung aus finanziellen Gründen geschlossen werden soll; Beurteilung des sozialen Miteinanders in der Nachbarschaft (Hilfsbereitschaft, aufeinander eingeschworen, Vertrauen, gut miteinander auskommen, teilen dieselben Auffassungen und Werte); Anzahl Nachbarn für ein nettes Gespräch mindestens einmal in der Woche; Anzahl Nachbarn, die mit Namen bekannt sind; Anzahl Nachbarn für Hilfe bei Haus- und Gartenarbeit oder einen kleinen Gefallen; Häufigkeit von Beobachtungen in der Nachbarschaft (Unterhaltung von Nachbarn, gegenseitiges Helfen, aufeinander aufpassen, Verkehrsüberschreitungen, unbekannte Personen, wenig Beleuchtung bei Nacht, Fußwege in schlechtem Zustand, Gebäude und Häuser in schlechtem Zustand, Vandalismus, Müll und Unrat, heftiger Streit vor dem Haus, Lärm durch Nachbarn, Verkehr oder andere Ursachen, unsicheres Gefühl durch die Nachbarschaft zu laufe
English Housing Survey: Fuel Poverty Dataset, 2023: Special Licence
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The English Housing Survey (EHS) Fuel Poverty Datasets are comprised of fuel poverty variables derived from the EHS, and a number of EHS variables commonly used in fuel poverty reporting. The EHS is a continuous national survey commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG) that collects information about people's housing circumstances and the condition and energy efficiency of housing in England. Safeguarded and Special Licence Versions Similar to the main EHS, two versions of the Fuel Poverty dataset are available from 2014 onwards. The Special Licence version contains additional, more detailed, variables, and is therefore subject to more restrictive access conditions. Users should check the Safeguarded Licence (previously known as End User Licence (EUL)) version first to see whether it meets their needs, before making an application for the Special Licence version. The English Housing Survey: Fuel Poverty Dataset, 2023: Special Licence is the outcome of analysis conducted to produce estimates of fuel poverty in England in 2023 undertaken by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).Fuel poverty in England is measured using the Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) indicator, which considers a household to be fuel poor if:it is living in a property with an energy efficiency rating of band D, E, F or G as determined by the most up-to-date Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating (FPEER) Methodology; andits disposable income (income after housing costs (AHC) and energy costs) would be below the poverty line. The poverty line (income poverty) is defined as an equivalised disposable income of less than 60 per cent of the national median in Section 2 of the ONS publication 'Persistent poverty in the UK and EU: 2017'.The Low Income Low Energy Efficiency model is a dual indicator, which allows us to measure not only the extent of the problem (how many fuel poor households there are), but also the depth of the problem (how badly affected each fuel poor household is). The depth of fuel poverty is calculated using the fuel poverty gap. This is the reduction in fuel costs needed for a household to not be in fuel poverty. This is either the change in required fuel costs associated with increasing the energy efficiency of a fuel poor household to a Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating (FPEER) of band C or reducing the costs sufficiently to meet the income threshold.The fuel poverty dataset is derived from the English Housing Survey, 2023 database created by the MHCLG. This database is constructed from fieldwork carried out between April 2022 and March 2024. The midpoint of this period is April 2023, which can be considered as the reference date for this dataset.Main Topics:A brief summary of each of the variables included in the English Housing Survey: Fuel Poverty Dataset, 2023: Special Licence dataset is included in the study documentation. The variables can be grouped into the following categories:Low Income Low Energy Efficiency fuel poverty indicator variablesincome and fuel costs variables10 per cent affordability indicator variablesadditional fuel poverty variablesEnglish Housing Survey variablespolicy eligibility flagsincome split variables energy cost variablesenergy use variablesweightsvariables introduced in 2015 data release (first published 2017)</ul
Study 2 Validation Study - The Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World
No full textThe data and syntaxes provided here refer to Study 2, which is part of the project “The Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World”, encompassing three studies in total. Study 1 and Study 3 are also available in the GESIS repository. The data and syntaxes presented here originate from the second study (Study 2), in which we developed and evaluated the new research instrument Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale (MaC-DRS). In this study, the MaC-DRS is empirically tested and compared with two leading measures in moral psychology: the Moral Foundations Questionnaire 1 (MFQ-1) and the Morality as Cooperation Questionnaire (MaC-Q). The dataset is based on a quota sample from Germany comprising N = 2,326 participants. Both raw (N = 2,362) and cleaned datasets (N = 2,326) are provided. Psychometric analyses were conducted on the latter using model-based approaches, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as reliability assessments. In addition, data preparation procedures and syntaxes for Stata 13 and Mplus (version 8.10) are made available. Further keywords: Moral Foundations Theory; Morality as Cooperation Theory; Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ-1); Morality as Cooperation Questionnaire (MaC-Q)The data and syntaxes provided here refer to Study 2, which is part of the project “The Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale: A Self-Report Instrument to Capture Moral Pluralism Beyond the WEIRD World”, encompassing three studies in total. Study 1 and Study 3 are also available in the GESIS repository. The data and syntaxes presented here originate from the second study (Study 2), in which we developed and evaluated the new research instrument Morality as Cooperation–Deviance Relevance Scale (MaC-DRS). In this study, the MaC-DRS is empirically tested and compared with two leading measures in moral psychology: the Moral Foundations Questionnaire 1 (MFQ-1) and the Morality as Cooperation Questionnaire (MaC-Q). The dataset is based on a quota sample from Germany comprising N = 2,326 participants. Both raw (N = 2,362) and cleaned datasets (N = 2,326) are provided. Psychometric analyses were conducted on the latter using model-based approaches, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as reliability assessments. In addition, data preparation procedures and syntaxes for Stata 13 and Mplus (version 8.10) are made available. Further keywords: Moral Foundations Theory; Morality as Cooperation Theory; Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ-1); Morality as Cooperation Questionnaire (MaC-Q
Insights into the Querdenken Scene 2021: Attitudes, Motives and Political Orientation
No full textThe dataset ´Insights into the Querdenken scene 2021: Attitudes, motives and political orientation´ was collected with the support of the Department of Political Science at the University of Bremen. It examines the Querdenken scene, which emerged in response to protests against the protective measures introduced in Germany to combat the spread of the COVID-19 protective measures. Data were collected via a standardised, quantitative online survey (CAWI) on the social media platform Telegram, with the aim of mapping the Querdenken scene as a potential recruitment target group. The survey aimed to shed light on the motivations and various aspects of the protest movement. As well as general and protest-related opinions and attitudes, the survey also recorded personality traits and the tendency to identify with political parties and social movements associated with the protest scene. The survey is also focused on populist and conspiracy-ideological worldviews, criticism of the government, and disaffection with the CDU/CSU and SPD. The survey was conducted over a period of one week in August 2021. A total of 5,543 interviews were completed, of which 4,748 were full responses (85.68% completion rate).Coronavirus measures and their consequences; satisfaction with coronavirus policy; democratic freedom; attitudes towards politics and society; personality traits (Big 5); Political right-left self-assessment; party choice; understanding of politics and political effectiveness; conspiracy theories; attitudes towards immigration policy; social impact of the coronavirus pandemic in Germany and other parts of the world; trust in institutions; participation in protests; personal consequences of the pandemic: financial losses. Demography: sex; age; education; occupation; federal state.Der Datensatz „Einblicke in die Querdenken-Szene 2021: Einstellungen, Motive und politische Orientierung“ wurde mit Unterstützung des Fachbereichs Politikwissenschaft der Universität Bremen erhoben und untersucht die Querdenken-Szene, die sich im Zuge der Proteste gegen die COVID-19-Schutzmaßnahmen in Deutschland herausgebildet hat. Die Datenerhebung erfolgte mittels einer standardisierten quantitativen Online-Befragung (CAWI) auf der Social-Media-Plattform Telegram und zielte auf eine Abbildung der Querdenken-Szene als Rekrutierungszielgruppe ab. Ziel der Erhebung war es, die Beweggründe und unterschiedlichen Facetten der Protestbewegung zu beleuchten. Dazu wurden neben allgemeinen und protestbezogenen Meinungen und Einstellungen auch Persönlichkeitsmerkmale sowie die Identifikationsneigung gegenüber politischen Parteien und der Protestszene zugeschriebenen gesellschaftlichen Strömungen erfasst. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt lag auf der Erhebung von Aspekten populistischer und verschwörungsideologischer Weltsicht, Regierungskritik sowie der Dissimilation von Union und SPD. Die Erhebung fand über einen Zeitraum von einer Woche im August 2021 statt. Das Gesamtsample umfasst eine Nettobeteiligung von 5543 Interviews, von denen 4748 vollständig abgeschlossen wurden (Beendigungsquote: 85,68 %).Corona-Maßnahmen und deren Folgen; Zufriedenheit mit der Corona-Politik; demokratische Freiheit; Einstellungen zu Politik und Gesellschaft; Persönlichkeitsmerkmale (Big-5); Politische Rechts-Links Selbsteinschätzung; Parteiwahl; Politikverständnis und politische Wirksamkeit; Verschwörungsgedanken; Einstellung zur Einwanderungspolitik; Gesellschaftliche Auswirkungen der Corona-Pandemie in Deutschland und anderen Teilen der Welt; Vertrauen in Institutionen; Teilnahme an Protesten; persönliche Folgen der Pandemie: finanzielle Einbußen. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; Schulbildung; berufliche Stellung; Bundesland
Italian Labour Force Survey – July (2024)
No full textThe Italian Labour Force Survey is the main source of statistical information on the Italian labor market. The information gathered from the population constitutes the basis on which official estimations of employment and unemployment are calculated, as well as information on the main job’s issues –occupation, the sector of economic activity, hours worked, contracts’ type and duration, training. The survey data are used to analyze a number of individual, family and social factors too, such as the increasing labor mobility, changing professions, the growth in female participation, etc.., which determine the difference in labor participation of the population. Starting from the first quarter of 2021, the indications of European Regulation 1700/2019 have been transposed, which concern in particular the changes in the definitions of family and employee, and a new questionnaire has been adopted (see notes). The questionnaire is divided into several sections. In particular, in addition to the first socio-demographic information, the first section covers the employment status during the interview’s week, dealing with questions about the type of work, hours worked, reasons for not working. The second section – reserved for employed people – covers the main job, investigating, in particular, the position in the profession, the industry in which he works, the company he works for, the type of contract, working full-time or part-time and reasons for his selection, working hours, overtime hours, shift work, night and weekend work, job transfer, salary, job satisfaction. The third section – always reserved for employed people – concerns the secondary work (if any). It’s exclusively addressed to respondents who carry out another activity compared to the main one and only detects certain information such as the type of activity, type of contract, occupation, the economic sector he works in, hours worked. The fourth section – for unemployed people – collects information about previous work experiences: last work, type of contract, occupation, economic sector, the reasons for the interruption of work. The fifth section deals with the job search. It investigates the reason for seeking a job, the actions put in place to look for it, the channels used to look for and the type of work sought. The sixth section deals with self-perceived employment conditions, and retirement. The seventh section concerns employment services and employment agencies, and investigates their use by the respondents: quantity of contacts, reason for contact, services required. The eighth section concerns education and training: degree obtained, course of study currently attended, professional training. The last section focuses on the self-perception of the employment status, compared to the previous year
Participation Survey, 2024-2025: Open Access
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Participation Survey is a continuous push-to-web survey of adults aged 16 and over in England. It serves as a successor to the Taking Part survey, which ran for 16 years as a continuous face to face survey. Paper surveys are available for those not digitally engaged. Fieldwork started in October 2021 and it is envisaged that the survey will be a key evidence source for Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and its sectors by providing statistically representative national estimates of adult engagement with the DCMS sectors. The survey’s main objectives are to: Provide a central, reliable evidence source that can be used to analyse cultural, digital, and sporting engagement, providing a clear picture of why people do or do not engage. Provide data at a county level to meet user needs, including providing evidence for the levelling up agenda. Underpin further research on driving engagement and the value and benefits of engagement.Further information on the survey can be found on the gov.uk Participation Survey webpage.For 2024-2025 annual data the fieldwork period was from 10th April 2024 - 2nd April 2025. Participants in the survey are randomly selected from addresses from the Post Office’s list of addresses in England. This ensures results reflect the experiences and views of the whole population.Main Topics:The Participation Survey collects data on engagement in: the arts libraries heritage museums and galleries tourism major cultural events major sporting events sport gambling digital sectors The survey includes information on frequency of participation, reasons for participating, barriers to participation and attitudes to the sectors. Information is also gathered on demographics (e.g. age, education), and related areas including wellbeing, loneliness, and use of digital technology.</p
Annual Population Survey Two-Year Longitudinal Dataset, January 2023 - December 2024
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Annual Population Survey (APS) is a major survey series, which aims to provide data that can produce reliable estimates at local authority level. Key topics covered in the survey include education, employment, health and ethnicity. The APS comprises key variables from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), all its associated LFS boosts and the APS boost.The APS allows for analysis to be carried out on detailed subgroups and below regional level. In recent years (particularly with the sample size of the LFS 5 quarter dataset reducing) there has been some interest in producing a two year APS longitudinal dataset to look at any trends that may occur over a year. The APS Two-Year Longitudinal Datasets, covering 2012/13 onwards, have been deposited as a result of this work. Person- and Household-level APS datasets are also available. For further detailed information about methodology, users should consult the Labour Force Survey User Guide, included with the APS documentation.Occupation data for 2021 and 2022The ONS has identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. None of ONS' headline statistics, other than those directly sourced from occupational data, are affected and you can continue to rely on their accuracy. Further information can be found in the ONS article published on 11 July 2023: Revision of miscoded occupational data in the ONS Labour Force Survey, UK: January 2021 to September 2022Main Topics:Topics covered include: household composition and relationships, housing tenure, nationality, ethnicity and residential history, employment and training (including government schemes), workplace and location, job hunting, educational background and qualifications. Many of the variables included in the survey are the same as those in the LFS
Growing Up in Scotland: Cohort 1: Sweep 11, 2021-2023, School Leaver Destinations Data: Secure Access
No full textAbstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study is a large-scale longitudinal social survey which follows the lives of several groups of Scottish children from infancy through childhood and adolescence, and aims to provide important new information on children and their families in Scotland. The study forms a central part of the Scottish Government's strategy for the long-term monitoring and evaluation of its policies for children, with a specific focus on the early years. Unlike other similar cohort studies, this survey has a specifically Scottish focus. A key objective of GUS is to address a significant gap in the evidence base for early years policy monitoring and evaluation. The study seeks both to describe the characteristics, circumstances and experiences of children in their early years (and their parents) in Scotland and, through its longitudinal design, to generate a better understanding of how children's start in life can shape their longer term prospects and development.Since 2005, study design and data collection have been undertaken by ScotCen Social Research with collaborations with the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, based at the University of Edinburgh and the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit over certain periods of the project. The survey design consisted of recruiting an initial total of 8,000 parents in 2005, comprising two cohorts of children (5,000 from birth, 3,000 from age two years and ten months), and then interviewing parents annually until their child reached age five years ten months. Further fieldwork was undertaken with the birth cohort when the children were around eight, ten, twelve and fourteen years old. A boost sample of 500 children from predominantly high deprivation areas was added to the cohort as part of the age 12 fieldwork.For sweeps 1 to 9 data were collected via an in-home, face-to-face interview with self-complete sections. Fieldwork for sweeps 10 and 11 were disrupted due to the COVID pandemic. As a result, portions of the data were collected via web and telephone questionnaires whilst others involved face-to-face interviews where they were permitted. The study user guides provide further details.Special Licence data:The main survey data are available under Special Licence:SNs 9373-9383 and 9386-9387 - Growing Up in Scotland: Cohort 1SN 7432 - Growing Up in Scotland: Cohort 2SN 8366 - Growing Up in Scotland: Cohort 1, Primary 6 Teacher SurveySecure Access Geographic Data:Geographic data are available under Secure Access and are separated by cohort, sweep and type of geographic variable. Information is available on the GUS Access Data web page. Users must also include the main Growing Up in Scotland Special Licence data in the Accredited Researcher Proposal form and add it to their projects (please note there is no need for Secure Access users to complete a separate Special Licence application).Secure Access Early Learning and Childcare Administrative Data:Care Inspectorate quality information on the settings which provided children in Birth Cohort 1 and Birth Cohort 2 with their state-funded early learning and childcare (pre-school) entitlement when they were aged between 3 and 5 years old is available under SN 8543 (Birth Cohort 1) and SN 8544 (Birth Cohort 2).Secure Access Linked Administrative Data:A data matching exercise was was undertaken using the Scottish Government Pupil Census at Birth Cohort 1 Sweep 11 and participants were linked with their Scottish Candidate Number (SCN). The SCNs were then supplied to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), who were able to provide the attainment records for participants (available under SN 9447). The SCNs were then supplied to Skills Development Scotland (SDS), who were able to provide the school leaver destinations record for participants (available under SN 9448).SN 9448 - Growing Up in Scotland: Cohort 1: Sweep 11, 2021-2023, School Leaver Destinations Data: Secure AccessUsing GUS participants date of birth, postcode and school SEED code, a data matching exercise was undertaken using the Scottish Government Pupil Census. Using these identifiers, participants were linked with their Scottish Candidate Number (SCN). SCNs are allocated to pupils at school and in further-education colleges who undertake Scottish Qualification Authority courses. re allocated to pupils at school and in further-education colleges who undertake Scottish Qualification Authority courses.Once the matching exercise was complete, over 90% of Sweep 11 GUS participants were matched with their SCN. The pupil census only includes pupils at Local Authority funded schools in Scotland. Therefore, of those that could not be matched, the majority are most likely pupils at independent or private schools. The SCNs were then supplied to Skills Development Scotland (SDS), who were able to provide the school leaver destinations record for participants. SCNs have since been removed from the dataset.When researchers are approved/accredited to access this study, the GUS Cohort 1, Sweep 11 study (SN 9383) will be automatically provided alongside.Main Topics:This dataset contains five additional variables included from the SDS Opportunities for All dataset, along with a GUSID to link with GUS survey responses.</p