1 / 16

Saskia Ossen, and Piet Daas

Introduction in the Source and M etadata hyperdimension. Saskia Ossen, and Piet Daas. Content of this module. Introduction in Source and Metadata hyperdimension Introduction of quality checklist Theory and practical examples

laird
Download Presentation

Saskia Ossen, and Piet Daas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction in the Source andMetadatahyperdimension Saskia Ossen, and Piet Daas

  2. Content of this module • Introduction in Source and Metadata hyperdimension • Introduction of quality checklist • Theory and practical examples • Group exercise in which groups apply the checklist to an “imaginary” source

  3. Quality checklist • The quality checklist: • Can be used to evaluate the Source andMetadata hyperdimensions • Contains 34 indicators • 51 questions (measurement methods) • Takes around 2 hours per data source • Findings are expressed at the dimensional level • 5 for Source, 4 for Metadata • Can be found at: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/methoden/onderzoek-methoden/discussionpapers/archief/2009/2009-42-x10-pub.htm

  4. SOURCE Source hyperdimension SOURCE: - Focus on data source as a whole - Contact information related - Delivery related aspects - and more data source

  5. Evaluation of Source hyperdimension • Here the data source is viewed upon as a file delivered by thedata source holder to the NSI • Dimensions (5): • Supplier Contact information, purpose of use • Relevance NSI use, need, effect on response burden • Privacy and security Legal base, confidentiality, security • DeliveryCosts, arrangements, format, selection • Procedures Collection, changes, feedback, fall-back scenario

  6. Practical example, Source hyperdimension +, good; o, reasonable; -, poor; ?, unclear IPA: Insurance Policy records Administration; SFR: Student Finance Register; CWI: register of Centre for Work and Income; ERR: Exam Results Register; NCP: National Car Pass register; PR: Persons Register; VAT: Value Added Tax data; ICP: Intra-Community Product transactions (EU-countries); NHR: New Housing register;

  7. Practical example, Source hyperdimension • CWI scores ‘poor’ in Delivery • Result of delivery issues (delays) • These need to be solved (and have been solved) • VAT scores low in Procedures • Back-up scenario related, what to do when no or only part of the data is being delivered? • First research efforts purely focused on direct use, currently the back-up options are studied • Other data sources • Quite OK (there are always some things that can be improved)

  8. METADATA Metadata hyperdimension METADATA: Focuses on the (availability of the) information required to understand and use the data in the data source data source 8

  9. Evaluation of Metadatahyperdimension • Focuses on the conceptual metadata quality components of the datasource • Dimensions (4): • Clarity Of units, variables, time definitions and changes • Comparability Of units, variables, and time with those of NSI • Unique keys Presence, similarity to NSI, and alternatives • Data treatment Familiarity with checks and modifications • (by data source holder)

  10. Practical example, Metadata hyperdimension Must have a specific use in mind! +, good; o, reasonable; -, poor; ?, unclear IPA: Insurance Policy records Administration; SFR: Student Finance Register; CWI: register of Centre for Work and Income; ERR: Exam Results Register; NCP: National Car Pass register; PR: Persons Register; VAT: Value Added Tax data; ICP: Intra-Community Product transactions (EU-countries); NHR: New Housing register;

  11. Practical example, Metadata hyperdimension • CWI scores ‘poor’ in Clarity • Definitions used by data source holder are difficult to understand • CWI scores ‘poor’ in Comparability • Because of definitions that are incomparable (and inconvertible) to the once used by Statistics Netherlands • Other data sources • ? for Data treatment indicates that processing by data source keeper needs more attention! (has improved) • Others are quite OK (there are always some things that can be improved)

  12. Conclusions about the checklist • Checklist as a tool: • Good way to assist the user, quite fast • Quality information on a basic but essential (meta-)level • Prevents users from missing important quality components • Independent of the actual delivery of the data! • Nice feature, adds flexibility • A way to pre-evaluate data sources

  13. General remarks / tips • Use checklist to identify problems in Source and Metadata hyperdimension • Do not immediately dive into the data! • Problems in negative scoring dimensions need to be solved before studying the quality of the data • Other less problematic issues can be solved later (at less hectic times) • Considering the limited time needed to determine Source and Metadata it is recommended to always start with these • Repeat when needed

  14. Questions? Any questions or comments?

  15. Introduction in exercise • Let’s try to interpret the findings of a Dutch ‘checklist’

  16. Introduction in exercise • Participants will be split into groups and each group is provided with: • The Source and Metadata evaluation results for an administrative data source • An intended use • Each group will be asked to discuss: • whether the source could be used for the purpose intended • If yes, why is everything OK? • If not, what is the problem(s) that prevents its use and how can it be solved?

More Related