Representation of the National Panel (1) Characteristics of Panel Sampling Frame (Mobile Telecommunication network subscribers)
When comparing the data of the panel sampling frame, which consists of mobile telecommunication network subscribers,
with the data from a credit information company (KCB) holding credit information of over 40 million people and card companies,
there are similar distributions with little significant difference in income, occupation, consumption, and other factors.
- Income distribution
- Monthly card spending
- Occupation distribution
- No. of household members
*Source: Anonymously Linked Data between Panel Sampling Frame and KCB/Shinhan Card Members (2021)
Representation of the National Panel (2) - Recruitment Method of the KD Panel
The KD panel is constructed by stratified sampling from mobile telecommunication company subscribers across the nation,
with stratification based on residential districts, sex/age groups.
The panel's regional and age distributions are designed to closely resemble the population structure of the total census conducted by Statistics Korea.
Recruitment Method of the KD Panel
- Sampling Frame: Mobile telecommunication company subscribers who have provided consent for marketing purposes.
- The panel sampling design is based on the regional/sex/age distribution of the 2019 population census.
- Mobile telecommunication company subscribers are stratified by sex, age, and city/district units (250+ city/districts * sex/age = a total of 2,500 strata).
- Random sampling is conducted within each stratum. Samples are contacted from the entire pool of mobile telecommunication company subscribers, and efforts are made to encourage them to join the panel.
- Panel Enrollment
Age and Region Distribution
When allocating regional samples, a larger proportion of samples is drawn from smaller-sized regions to reduce the sampling
error by province (using the Kish allocation method).
-
Age distribution ratio
Population Census
KD Panel
-
Regional distribution ratio
Population Census
KD Panel
|
Population Census |
KD Panel |
| Seoul |
19 |
13 |
| Busan |
7 |
6 |
| Daegu |
5 |
5 |
| Incheon |
6 |
5 |
| Gwangju |
3 |
4 |
| Daejeon |
3 |
4 |
| Ulsan |
2 |
4 |
| Sejong |
1 |
4 |
| Gyeonggi |
25 |
17 |
| Gangwon |
3 |
4 |
| Choongbuk |
3 |
4 |
| Choongnam |
4 |
5 |
| Jeonbuk |
4 |
5 |
| Jeonnam |
3 |
5 |
| Gyeongbuk |
5 |
5 |
| Gyeongnam |
6 |
6 |
| Jeju |
1 |
4 |
Preliminary Study DB
| Personal Demographics |
| 1 Name |
- |
| 2 Birth year |
- |
| 3 Mobile number |
- |
| 4 Gender |
- |
| 5 Marrital status |
- |
| 6 Address |
Administrative District Unit |
| 7 Hometown |
- |
| 8 Form of employment |
- |
| 9 Personal Income |
- |
| Household Demographics |
| 1 No. of houshold |
- |
| 2 members Sex/age of members |
- |
| 3 Type of house owned |
- |
| 4 House owned status |
- |
| 5 Household income |
- |
| 6 Key income of household |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perception of Individual/Social Situation |
| 1 Class consciousness |
High-low (10 levels) |
| 2 Ideological orientation |
Progressive-Conservative (10 levels) |
| 3 Quality of life |
- |
| 4 Social consciousness |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 5 Perception of economic conditions |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 6 Perception of political situation |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 7 Evaluation of government policies |
Economy, work, real-estate, etc. |
| 8 Perception of public opinion survey results |
- |
|
|
| Perceived Economy |
| 1 Perception of economic changes in the past 6 months |
Domestic economy, employment, inflation, etc. |
| 2 Perception of changes in the quality of life in the past 6 months |
- |
| 3 Perception of asset management strategies(preferences) |
Deposits/savings, stocks, funds, etc. |
| 4 Experience of asset management in the past 6 months |
- |
| 5 Anticipated expenses for the next 6 months |
Durable goods, clothing expenses, dining-out expenses, etc. |
| 6 Intention and purpose of loans |
- |
| 7 Evaluation of financial well-being |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perception of social conflict |
| 1 Gender relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| 2 Youth-elderly generation relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| 3 Capital region-local relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| 4 Worker-employer relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| 5 Poor-rich relationship (Income disparity) |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| 6 Conservative group-progressive group relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
| Ruling party supporter-opposition party supporter relationship |
Good-Bad (5 pts. Scale) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Perception of national ranking |
| 1 Level/Ranking of Economic Prosperity |
High-low (10 levels) |
| 2 Level of Political/Social Democracy |
Progressive-Conservative (10 levels) |
| 3 Degree of Press Freedom |
- |
| 4 Level of Business Freedom |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 5 Degree of Religious Freedom |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 6 Level of Respect for Human Rights |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 7 Level/Extent of Income Inequality |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 8 Degree of Absence of Corruption |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 9 Degree of Separation of Powers |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| 10 Level of Rule of Law Implementation |
Good-bad (10 levels) |
| Youth Panel |
| 1 Current School |
6 Study Hours |
11 Health Assessment |
| 2 Grade |
7 Study Motivation |
12 Sleep Time |
| 3 School Characteristics (Class size, Number of students, etc.) |
8 Parent-School Education Alignment |
13 Activity Time |
| 4 School Life Satisfaction |
9 Perception of Problem Behaviors among Students at School |
14 Experience with Drinking and Smoking |
| 5 Evaluation of the School |
10 Lifestyle Changes due to COVID-19 |
15 Relationship with Parents |
