Statistical analysis of survey-based event history data with application to modeling of unemployment duration

Longitudinal surveys are increasingly used to collect event history data on person-specific processes such as transitions between labour market states. Surveybased event history data pose a number of challenges for statistical analysis. These challenges include survey errors due to sampling, non-response, attrition and measurement. This study deals with non-response, attrition and measurement errors in event history data and the bias caused by them in event history analysis. The study also discusses some choices faced by a researcher using longitudinal survey data for event history analysis and demonstrates their effects. These choices include, whether a design-based or a model-based approach is taken, which subset of data to use and, if a design-based approach is taken, which weights to use. The study takes advantage of the possibility to use combined longitudinal survey register data. The Finnish subset of European Community Household Panel (FI ECHP) survey for waves 1–5 were linked at person-level with longitudinal register data. Unemployment spells were used as study variables of interest. Lastly, a simulation study was conducted in order to assess the statistical properties of the Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting (IPCW) method in a survey data context. The study shows how combined longitudinal survey register data can be used to analyse and compare the non-response and attrition processes, test the missingness mechanism type and estimate the size of bias due to non-response and attrition. In our empirical analysis, initial non-response turned out to be a more important source of bias than attrition. Reported unemployment spells were subject to seam effects, omissions, and, to a lesser extent, overreporting. The use of proxy interviews tended to cause spell omissions. An often-ignored phenomenon classification error in reported spell outcomes, was also found in the data. Neither the Missing At Random (MAR) assumption about non-response and attrition mechanisms, nor the classical assumptions about measurement errors, turned out to be valid. Both measurement errors in spell durations and spell outcomes were found to cause bias in estimates from event history models. Low measurement accuracy affected the estimates of baseline hazard most. The design-based estimates based on data from respondents to all waves of interest and weighted by the last wave weights displayed the largest bias. Using all the available data, including the spells by attriters until the time of attrition, helped to reduce attrition bias. Lastly, the simulation study showed that the IPCW correction to design weights reduces bias due to dependent censoring in design-based Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard model estimators. The study discusses implications of the results for survey organisations collecting event history data, researchers using surveys for event history analysis, and researchers who develop methods to correct for non-sampling biases in event history data.

St. Petersburg Court Chant and the Tradition of Eastern Slavic Church Singing

The present study examines the repertory of liturgical chant known as St. Petersburg Court Chant which emerged within the Imperial Court of St. Petersburg, Russia, and appeared in print in a number of revisions during the course of the 19th century, eventually to spread throughout the Russian Empire and even abroad. The study seeks answers to questions on the essence and composition of Court Chant, its history and liturgical background, and most importantly, its musical relationship to other repertories of Eastern Slavic chant. The research questions emerge from previous literary accounts of Court Chant (summarized in the Introduction), which have tended to be inaccurate and generally not based on critical research. The study is divided into eight main chapters. Chapter 1 provides a survey of the history of Eastern Slavic chant and the Imperial Court Chapel of St. Petersburg until 1917, with special emphasis on the history of singing traditional chant in polyphony, the status of the Court Chapel as a government authority, and its endeavours in publishing church music. Chapter 2 deals with the liturgical background of Eastern chant, the chant genres, and main repertories of Eastern Slavic chant. Chapter 3 concentrates on chant sources: it introduces the musical notations utilised, after which a typology of chant books is presented. The discussion continues with a survey of the sources of Court Chant and their content, the specimens selected for closer analysis, the comparative materials from other repertories, and ends with a commentary on some chant sources that have been excluded. The comparative sources include a specimen from around the beginning of the 12th century, a few manuscripts from the 17th century, and printed and manuscript chant books from the early 18th to early 20th century, covering the geographical area that delimits to the western Ukraine, Astrakhan, Nizhny Novgorod, and the Solovetsky Monastery. Chapter 4 presents the approach and methods used in the subsequent analytical comparisons. After a survey of the pitch organization of Eastern Slavic chant, the customary harmonization strategy of traditional chant polyphony is examined, according to which a method for meaningful analysis of the harmony is proposed. The method is based on the observation that the harmonic framework of chant polyphony derives from the standard pitch collection of monodic chant known as the Church Gamut, specific pitches of which form eight harmonic regions that behave like the usual tonalities of major and harmonic minor. Because of the considerable quantity of comparative chant forms, computer-assisted statistical methods are applied to the analysis of chant melodies. The primary chant forms and their respective comparative forms have been pre-processed into reduced chant prototypes and divided into redactions. The analyses are carried out by measuring the formal dissimilarities of the primary chant forms of the Court Chant repertory against each comparative form, and also by measuring the reciprocal dissimilarities of all chant versions in a redaction, the results of which are subjected to agglomerative hierarchical clustering in order to find out how the chant forms relate to each other. The dissimilarities are determined by applying a metric dissimilarity function that is based on the Levenshtein Distance. Chapter 5 provides the melodic and harmonic analyses of generic chants (chants used for multiple texts of different lengths), i.e., chants for stichera samoglasny and troparia, Chapter 6 of pseudo-generic chants (chants that are used for multiple texts but with certain restrictions), i.e., chants for heirmoi, prokeimena, and three other hymns, and Chapter 7 of non-generic chants, covering nine chants that in the Court repertory are not shared by multiple texts. The results are summarized and evaluated in Chapter 8. Accordingly, it can be established that, contrary to previous conceptions, melodically, Court Chant is in effect a full part of the wider Eastern Slavic chant tradition. Even if it is somewhat detached from the chant versions of the Synodal square-note chant books and the local tradition of Moscow, it is particularly close to chant forms of East Ukraine and some vernacular repertories from Russia. Respectively, the harmonization strategies of Court Chant do not show significant individuality in comparison with those of the available polyphonic comparative sources, the main difference being the part-writing, which generally conforms to western common practice standard, whereas the deviations from this tend to be more significant in other analysed repertories of polyphonic chant. Thus, insofar as the subsequent prevalence of Court Chant is not based on its forceful dissemination by authorities (as suggested in previous literature but for which little tangible evidence could be found in Chapter 1), in the present author’s interpretation, Court Chant attained its dominance principally because musically it was considered sufficiently traditional, and as a chant body supported by the government, was conveniently available in print in serviceable harmonizations.