United States 

Department of

Agriculture

National

Agricultural

Statistics

Service

Research and

Development Division

Washington DC 20250

RDD Research Report

Number RDD-11-05

September, 2011

National Agricultural 

Statistics Service:

Research and 

Perspective on the Use

of Previously Reported

Data During Data 

Collection

Michael W. Gerling 

HoaiNam N. Tran 

Terry P. O’Connor

This document was prepared for limited distribution to the research community outside the United States 

Department of Agriculture. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service or of the United States Department of Agriculture. 

1

National Agricultural Statistics Service: Research and Perspective on the Use 

of Previously Reported Data During Data Collection

Michael W. Gerling, HoaiNam N. Tran, Terry P. O’Connor1

Abstract

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys farmers and ranchers across the 

United States and Puerto Rico in order to estimate crop production and number of livestock, to 

assess production practices, and to identify economic trends. This report is a culmination of 

NASS research over the years on the use of previously reported data (PRD) in an attempt to 

improve the data collected.

Key Words: Agriculture, Data Collection, Previously Reported Data, Surveys

1. INTRODUCTION

Effectively and efficiently utilizing previously reported data (PRD) to improve data quality and 

reduce respondent burden continues to generate much discussion within the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The potential benefits of expanding the use of PRD are 

to improve data consistency and reduce respondent burden. However, if PRD is used 

improperly, it may increase respondent burden and measurement error, leading to biased survey 

results. This document provides an overview of NASS past research and current operational 

uses of PRD during data collection. This topic was previously discussed at the March 2006 

NASS Program Planning Council (see Appendix A).

2. A COMPILATION OF NASS’ PREVIOUSLY REPORTED DATA RESEARCH

The National Agricultural Statistics Service has conducted several studies over the years 

focusing on previously reported data. Table 1 summarizes the history of this research. 

Gottschall (2009) includes a summary of NASS uses of PRD and recommendations addressing 

the potential future directions of PRD within NASS. 

___________________ 

1/ Michael W. Gerling and HoaiNam N. Tran, are Mathematical Statisticians and Terry P. O’Connor is Deputy Chief

of the Survey Methodology and Technology Branch for the National Agricultural Statistics Service - Research &

Development Division, located at 3251 Old Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22030.
2

Table 1: Previously Reported Data Research within the National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service 

Unpublished Previously Reported Data Research - 2010, Tran, H., Gerling, M., Research and Development Division, 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Based on the report Using Previously Reported Acreage in Data Collection, the authors decided to see if additional 

items (grain storage capacity, land owned, land rented to, and land rented from) were examined to determine the 

stability of the individual operations‘ values between June and September Agricultural Surveys. The authors decided 

to discontinue the research when they found that these values, which have been thought to be fairly stable, turned 

out to be very unstable even over the course of a few months. Percentage changes between quarters for storage 

capacity percentage changes range from 0.2% to 38.2%. Between-quarter percentage changes for land owned, land 

rented from, and land rented were extreme, ranging from 0.2% to 3917%.

Using Previously Reported Cropland Acreage in Data Collection, - 2009, Tran, H., Gerling, M., Research and 

Development Division, RDD-09-01, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

In an effort to reduce respondent burden, NASS‘ Research and Development Division examined the relationship 

between the June and September Agricultural Surveys‘ data to determine whether certain questions (cropland, land 

owned, land rented to, land rented from, and storage capacity) could be dropped from the September survey if the 

respondent had already answered the same question in June. 

Five states, representing high, middle, and low agricultural production were selected for a detailed analysis of the 

potential results of carrying forward the previously reported data. Cropland was the first item analyzed since it is 

asked on most surveys that NASS conducts and is one of the questions that respondents complain about being 

asked repeatedly. The June and September Agricultural Survey questions on cropland acreage operated were 

examined and the differences between June and September responses for the same operation were measured. 

The initial results for cropland data varied by state, so to obtain a broader view across states, a less detailed analysis

based solely on the change in aggregate results was done for all states. Outliers were reviewed and found that most 

of the extreme outliers were either data collection or data editing errors. Excluding these erroneous records from the 

analysis, it shows that June‘s total cropland could be carried forward to the September for four of the five states, with 

the fifth state being questionable. 

Broadening the total cropland analyses to all states, showed that June Agricultural Survey data could be carried

forward to the September Agricultural Survey for the following twenty-two states: Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, 

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. However, for this to occur, the quality 

of June data needs to be improved. 

One of the recommendations was to develop an analysis table in NASS' Interactive Data Analysis System (IDAS). 

This analysis table would indicate all of the operations with positive values for those items reported in June that were 

also sampled for September. The table would also display the operations' expansion weights for September, their

reported values for these items in June, and the resulting indications derived by multiplying these two items. 

Statisticians would then be able to see the impact of carrying the June data forward and identify operations that may 

be problematic.

Previously Reported Data Usage in NASS Field Offices - 2009, Gottschall, C., Census and Survey Division, DCB-09-

01, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Using previously reported data (PRD) in surveys has long been an intriguing topic in the survey community. A variety 

of survey organizations, including the USDA ̳s, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) have experimented 

with and/or currently use PRD in establishment surveys. At the present, NASS uses previously reported data (PRD) 

in variety of nationally administered surveys. The data are primarily used for edit checks in headquarters (HQ) 

developed computer assisted telephone instruments (CATI) and interactive editing systems, but are also used to 

reduce contacts or in lieu of asking certain questions. 
3

Table 1: Previously Reported Data Research within the National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service (Continued)

Continued...

NASS Field Offices (FOs) also reported using additional PRD for both pre-response prompts as well as postresponse check/verification in select surveys. Some FOs also provided PRD as background information or interview 

preparation for enumerators. The most intense uses reported were on smaller, state-oriented surveys where 

variables were expected to be largely unchanged (fruit acres); there were multiple contacts in a cycle (potatoes); or 

where the data were used, not only for the current survey, but also as a source of control data verification and 

updates. 

FOs also expressed interest in employing more PRD in a variety of situations. Most suggested using PRD for preresponse prompts (verification) or to skip questions entirely in follow-on surveys. FOs also acknowledged concerns or 

challenges in utilizing PRD, including confidentiality issues, possible differing usages across modes, and introducing 

potential biases into the response process.

Based on these suggestions for expanded PRD uses, an analysis was conducted into the amount of change actually 

occurring in static variables over a crop year. The results were mixed. There did appear to be a fair amount of change 

or difference in the variables tested from quarter to quarter. Additionally, there were a fairly limited number of 

complete, useable records for which data could be pulled forward and used as PRD. Finally, there were actually very 

few directly comparable variables that can utilize PRD in a given crop year.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Utilizing PRD as a pre-response prompt must be consistent across modes. Currently, there are significant 

logistic/operational difficulties in printing PRD on paper questionnaires using externally printed instruments (QAS, 

livestock surveys, etc.). Furthermore, there may be a difference in mental response processes used to analyze a 

follow-up clarification question (e.g. a built in Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) edit check) as opposed 

to answering an open ended question or confirming/updating PRD pre-printed or asked as a pre-response prompt 

(Sudman, et al 1996; Kalton and Schuman, 1982). This concept needs to be thoroughly tested prior to a large scale 

rollout. 

2. The literature is not as rich regarding possible differences between providing PRD in a Web survey as compared to 

a paper instrument. Most researchers agree that a Web instrument, all things equal, is largely equivalent to its 

corresponding paper questionnaire (Dillman and Smyth, 2007). This raises the question of how PRD would be used 

in a Web instrument: 

a.) As a type of built in edit check. This becomes inconsistent with the paper version (which has no interactive 

ability), may prove frustrating to respondents, could possibly slow down the Web interaction, and could lead to

more break-offs. 

b.) Simply as a pre-response prompt for confirmation or clarification. Several questions arise (and, at least 

currently, tend to be minimally researched): how will respondents react to seeing their personal PRD on a Web 

instrument—is it a different emotion than seeing PRD on a paper survey; will respondents be more, less or 

equivalently likely (or less likely) to update data on the Web compared to paper; and finally, how are 

inconsistent data handled—will respondents expect automated summations, tabulations, etc. in a Web version 

and how will they react to discrepancies and/or lack of expected built-in operations? 

3. For all surveys that have an Electronic Data Reporting (EDR) and CATI component, and the CATI instrument 

utilizes PRD for built in skips of certain static variables already reported in the current survey cycle, EDR should 

incorporate the same skips as CATI. This design has already been built into the Quarterly Labor Survey and 

additional implementation is slated for additional surveys, beginning with the Quarterly Agricultural Survey. 

4. Using pre-response prompts may reduce cognitive burden and develop or improve some respondent goodwill. 

However, for many of the proposed variables it seems unlikely to reduce overall interview time.
4

Table 1: Previously Reported Data Research within the National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service (Continued)

Continued ...

5. Providing previously reported expected yields as a pre-response prompt and asking if anything had changed 

appears to expose the data collection to possible measurement error due to faulty cognitive heuristics (Kalton and 

Citro, 1993). 

6. Detailed operation profiles could be developed for more surveys and all States using Data Warehouse current crop 

year information. Several FOs currently use prototypes that they have developed for use in their State ̳s data 

collection. These profiles would be tailored to a specific survey and could be either electronic or printed on paper. 

7. As already noted, a fair number of FOs utilize PRD for a variety of non-probability, specialty commodity surveys 

(potatoes, fruit, etc.). Given the structure and process of editing, summarizing, and estimating for these unique 

variables, this seems like an appropriate utilization of PRD and a possible area of expansion. 

8. Finally, the effects of using PRD to skip questions should be back tested using historical datasets, such as from a 

year ̳s worth of Quarterly Agricultural Surveys. This would provide conclusive evidence as to the possible value or 

shortcomings PRD. However, even if testing shows current data to be consistent with PRD, caution must be 

exercised in using PRD to skip follow-on questions, given the nature of crop and livestock growing cycles. 

The Effect of Different Methods of Providing Previously Reported Data on Current Reports of Cattle on Feed 

Inventory - 1995, Stanley, J. S., Survey Management Division, DCB-94-01, United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service.

This study investigated if using PRD in CATI edits for the Cattle on Feed Survey would reduce respondent burden. 

CATI respondents in South Dakota‘s April 1993 Cattle on Feed (COF) Survey were randomly assigned to three 

groups. One group was provided with their previous COF inventory number when their current total inventory, minus 

placements, plus disappearances did not equal their previous number (this is the approach used on the current 

operational survey). A second group was asked the same questions as the first group (total inventory, followed by 

placements and marketings) but was provided with their previous inventory number before they provided any current 

information. The third group was also provided with their previous number up front but was next asked for 

placements and marketings followed by current total inventory. The number of times data were edited during the 

interview was the largest for the first group which received the previously reported data as an edit check. This group 

also had the highest number of edits to the data after the interview. Differing administrations of previous quarter data 

appeared to have no significant effect on the total inventory reported with both the mean inventory reported and the 

change in total inventory from the previous to current quarter being the same for all groups. The results indicated that 

using PRD for Cattle on Feed CATI edits reduced respondent burden and had a minor impact on the numbers 

reported. The study also found that enumerators did not like using PRD as an edit check since they felt 

uncomfortable telling respondents that they were ―wrong‖ after the respondents provided their answers. Enumerators 

preferred to provide the respondents with the PRD up front.

Result: Several previously reported data items are used as edit checks for Cattle on Feed including capacity and 

 inventory.

Evaluation of Using Previously Reported Data in the 1993 Agricultural Yield Surveys - 1994, Bailey, J. T., Research 

Division, SRB-94-02, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

This study examined the use of PRD for winter wheat, corn, and soybeans in CATI edit checks for the 1993 

Agricultural Yield Surveys. During the interviews, respondents‘ answers for planted acres and yield were compared 

with PRD obtained from previous months‘ Ag. Yield Surveys. Respondents were asked to verify acreage and yield 

responses that were outside the prescribed range from the PRD. The results concluded that PRD should be used for 

acreage edit checks in the Agricultural Yield Surveys. 

Result: Previously reported data are used for acreage and yield as edit checks.
5

Table 1: Previously Reported Data Research within the National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service (Continued)

An Examination of the Cognitive Process Involved in Grain Stocks and Storage Capacity Reporting - 1993, Stanley, 

J. S., Survey Management Division, DCB-93-02, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service.

This study investigated how respondents arrived at their answers for reported corn and soybean stocks inventory and 

grain storage capacity during the Quarterly Agricultural Survey. The study used a sub-sample from Ohio‘s 1993 

March QAS and PRD from the December 1992 QAS.

The results indicated that respondents were generally unable to re-report their last quarter‘s stocks inventory and 

storage capacity correctly and did not think that having their previously reported numbers would increase the ease of 

reporting or the accuracy of their current report. When provided with their PRD on storage capacity and asked about 

the accuracy of these numbers, very few respondent felt the numbers were exactly correct. However, the results also 

suggest that supplying PRD on storage capacity to respondents may improve the quality for this item.

Evaluation of Historical Data Use in the 1992 August Yield Survey - 1993, Bailey, J. T., Research Division, SRB-93-

02, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

This study examined the use of PRD for corn harvested acres and soybean planted acres in CATI edit checks for the 

1992 Agricultural Yield Survey. During the interviews, respondents‘ answers for planted acres and yield were 

compared with PRD obtained from previous months‘ Ag. Yield Surveys. Respondents were asked to verify acreage 

and yield responses that were outside the prescribed range from the PRD. 

The results showed that, in about half of the states, there was a statistically significant difference between the initial 

and final August responses (as modified from the PRD edits) for both corn harvested acres and soybean planted 

acres. Soybean planted acres were significantly different at the US level; however, corn harvested acres were not.

The Effect of Using Historical Data in CATI Grain Stocks Enumeration in the March 1988 Agricultural Survey -1992, 

Mergerson, J. W. and O‘Connor, T., Research and Applications Division, SRB-92-01, United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

This 14-state study investigated whether using corn, soybean, and all wheat historical data in data collection edits for 

on-farm grain stocks and on-farm storage capacity would reduce respondent burden by minimizing the number of call 

backs to clarify questionable reports. The results showed that historical data may improve the quality of grain stocks 

data. After being prompted with the PRD edits, respondents tended to increase their original responses upward, 

resulting in survey indications being closer to the Agricultural Statistics Board balance sheet indications. However, 

some respondents did not like knowing that we have their historical data. These respondents were under the 

impression that all past questionnaires were shredded.

The Influence of Using Previous Survey Data in the 1986 April ISP Grain Stocks Survey - 1988, Pafford, B., Research 

and Applications Division, Research and Applications Division, SRB-88-01, United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service.

A research study was undertaken for the April 1986 Integrated Survey Program (ISP) Survey (now called the 

Quarterly Agricultural Survey Program) in Califomia, Georgia, and Nebraska to study the effect of previously reported 

grain stocks data in a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) environment. The effect of providing 

January ISP grain stocks data in the grain stocks portion of the April survey was measured through split sample 

testing procedures. A control group (no use of prior data, which is the operational survey procedure) was compared 

against an experimental group (direct use of prior data). Analysis simultaneously evaluated the historical data 

treatment effect with effects due to the interviewer and size of the farm operation. Reasons for changes in stocks and 

capacity were evaluated by analyzing data from CATI probing questions, and from enumerator post-survey 

comments. The effects of changing respondent between quarterly surveys were studied. It was found that the 

experimental group's stocks estimates were significantly larger than those for the control group for some crops, and 

that this supported the research hypothesis. This hypothesis was that the experimental group would more than likely
6

Table 1: Previously Reported Data Research within the National Agricultural Statistics 

 Service (Continued)

Continued ...

to report closer to their January response than the control group, and this should produce a higher response since the 

January 1 stocks levels are, on average, larger than in April. Further analyses revealed that these differences 

occurred mostly in one stratum, which represented large farm operations. Also, interviewers, on average, obtained 

the same mean farmer responses, and this relationship was the same no matter whether they interviewed with the 

control or experimental group samples. In essence, there were no consistent effects due to the interviewer. Reasons

for com storage increases from January to April were investigated. When this occurs during a survey, the respondent 

often needs to be re-called to resolve the apparent discrepancy. It was found in a large percentage of cases that 

when com storage increased these may not have been real increases. That is, problems in getting the correct 

January com stocks were noted from answers to standard CATI probes. The same relationship existed for changes in 

storage capacity. For example, in over three· fourths of the cases when storage capacity changed from January to 

April, the reasons for these changes could be classified as "problematic." Problematic responses were ones where 

the accuracy of the January report was questioned by the respondent, or a comment was given indicating incorrect 

reporting in either survey. Responses classified as problematic were compared with changes in respondents 

between surveys. Significantly more problematic responses were found when the respondent changed between the 

two quarterly surveys, compared with when the same respondent reported. Finally, CATI office experience played a 

role in the reaction of the enumerators to use of historical data in the interview process. It is recommended that prior 

grain stocks data not be used directly in the current grain stocks interview, and that research focus on use of these 

data as an editing tool to be used after an initial response is obtained. In addition, it is recommended that more use 

be made of prior information interview, such as who the respondent was in the previous quarter's survey.

Response Errors in NASS Surveys: The Effect of Using Previous Survey Data in the 1985 California Fall Acreage 

and Production Survey – 1986, Pafford, B., Research and Applications Division, SF&SRB-86-99, United States 

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

This study examined the effects of using planted acreage from the 1985 June Acreage Survey on responses to 

planted acreage on the 1985 Fall Acreage & Production Survey (CATI only in California). This study used four 

treatment groups: a.) no PRD, b.) enumerators had access to PRD to use as they liked. c.) PRD was worded directly 

in the questions d.) when PRD were present, ―planted acre‖ questions were skipped and respondents were asked 

only harvested acre questions.

The author recommended cautious use of historical data until further studies can be done. The author did not 

recommend showing PRD on the CATI screen for the enumerator to decide whether and how to use the data. 

Respondents who were not presented with any PRD under reported their crop acreage. However, when the 

respondents were provided with PRD embedded in the questions there was considerable re-reporting of the same 

numbers.

1980 - The Effects of Omitting Acreage Questions and Modifying the Operation Description Section in Cattle Surveys 

(SRD Working Paper) - 1980, Nealon, J., Statistical Research Division, SRD Working Paper, United States 

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Results indicated that the removal of the "acres in operation" question did not significantly increase the refusal rate. 

The estimate of the proportion of zero cattle operations and the estimates of the four selected survey items were 

rarely significantly different between the operational and test questionnaires. Finally, the proportion of individual 

operations reporting partnership arrangements was not significantly different between the operation description 

sections. Therefore, the acreage questions can probably be removed from the operational questionnaire and the test 

version of the operation description section implemented without significantly affecting the survey estimates. This 

statement implies only that the estimates should not change significantly and not that the estimates are or are not 

accurate.
7

3. CURRENT USES OF PRD DURING DATA COLLECTION AT NASS

Table 2 summarizes NASS’ most wide-spread uses of PRD during data collection. This table 

originated from Beckler and Farrar in a proposal to the NASS Program Planning Committee in 

March 2006. Details of the proposal are shown in Appendix A. Gottschall (2009) also discusses 

several of these uses.
8

Table 2: Current Uses of Previously Reported Data during Data Collection within NASS.

Mode Usage Category Survey Description

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, 

October Quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July quarter then the following 

questions are skipped (July data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Gross Value of Sales (or points)

▪ Farm Type

▪ Peak Hired Workers

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, 

January quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July or October quarters the 

following questions are skipped (July/October data 

are brought forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, April 

quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July quarter the following questions 

are skipped (July data are brought forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the January quarter the following 

questions are skipped (January data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Gross Value of Sales (or points)

▪ Farm Type

▪ Peak Hired Workers

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions Agricultural Yield Survey

Commodity questions are skipped in the CATI 

instrument if the respondent did not indicate those 

crops were planted on the Crops/Stocks Survey.

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Crops/Stocks Surveys, 

September, December, 

and March quarters

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the June quarter the following 

questions are skipped (June data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Acres Operated
9

Table 2: Current Uses of Previously Reported Data during Data Collection within NASS. 

 (Continued)

Mode Usage Category Survey Description

Continued from previous page.

Note: If the operation is a refusal or inaccessible in 

the follow-on quarters, Cropland, All Land 

Operated, and Total Storage Capacity are pulled 

from the sample master.

CATI In lieu of a contact Crops/Stocks Survey, 

September quarter

Operations in the September Crops/Stocks Survey 

sample are not contacted if they were also in the 

June Crops/Stocks Survey and reported no items 

of interest (for the September Survey) in June.

CATI CATI edits

Milk Production Survey, 

Cattle on Feed, Bee and 

Honey, Ag Labor, Maple 

Syrup, Ag Yield, 

Quarterly Hogs, Layers 

and Eggs

Various previously reported data items are used as 

edit checks and consistency edits for the 

respondent, interviewer and during interactive 

editing.

EDR1 PRD supplied in 

current question

Crop Progress & 

Condition

Respondents see their previous week‘s response 

before answering current week conditions.

Paper PRD supplied in 

current question

Crops/Stocks Surveys, 

Cattle on Feed Survey, 

Chickens Survey

Some FOs provide enumerators with PRD either 

printed on the label, hand written elsewhere on 

questionnaire, or on supplemental sheets of paper. 

It should be noted that most, if not all, of these 

practices are likely in violation of (Policy and 

Standards Memo – 47: Data Collection Policy and 

Standards).

Paper PRD supplied in 

current question

Cold Storage Biennial 

Capacity Survey

Each facility‘s capacity is preprinted on the 

questionnaires; this capacity came from a previous 

Capacity Survey.

CATI 

and 

Paper

PRD supplied to 

enumerator Cattle on Feed Survey Enumerators are provided with the previous month‘s reported cattle on feed inventory.

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Monthly Chickens and 

Eggs

The Chickens and Eggs questionnaire contains 

questions pertaining to table egg flocks, broilertype hatchery supply flocks, and egg-type hatchery 

supply flock. Operations do not tend to switch 

between types of birds raised; therefore, historical

reporting is used during interviews to only ask 

questions relating to the given operation‘s bird 

type.

CATI In lieu of a contact Monthly Chickens and 

Eggs

If the operation reports as out-of-scope for the 

current survey and does not plan on being in 

scope (greater than or equal to 30,000 table egg 

layers), operation is not contacted for future 

months, instead is included in the less than 30,000 

estimate.

1 EDR: Electronic Data Reporting or web base questionnaire.
10

4. FUTURE USES OF PRD DURING DATA COLLECTION

Table 3 summarizes additional potential future uses of PRD during data collection by NASS. 

Specific implementations of any method would require empirical evidence to justify the benefit. 

This table was based on the 2006 presentation to the Program Planning Council.

Table 3: PRD Usage During Data Collection

Usage Category Description Potential Data 

Quality Effect1/

Potential 

Respondent 

Burden Effects1/

EDR edits2/

Reported values are compared with 

PRD; if the currently reported value is 

deemed inconsistent with the PRD, the 

respondent is asked to verify the current 

answer or explain the situation. 

Improve Lessen

In lieu of a 

contact3/

PRD are used to avoid contacting an 

operation. This may take two forms: (a) 

the PRD are brought forward and used 

to help model data for the current 

survey, or (b) the PRD may be used to 

determine that the operation is out-ofscope for the current survey (i.e., a 

survey zero). 

Worsen Lessen

In lieu of asking 

questions3/

PRD are used to avoid one or more 

questions. This may take two forms: (a) 

the PRD are brought forward and used 

for the current survey, or (b) the PRD 

may be used to determine that the 

operation has no pertinent data for one 

or more questions in the current survey 

(i.e., used in branching/skip patterns). 

Worsen Lessen

PRD supplied in 

current question 

(or to 

enumerator)

PRD are provided to respondents to 

assist with answering current questions. 

This may be: (a) to verify a previously 

reported answer, (b) to make providing 

a current answer easier, or (c) as a 

starting point for a balance sheet.

Unknown

Worsen or Lessen 

(Situational

Dependent)

Tailoring data 

collection

PRD are used to improve the data 

collection process. Includes such things 

as altering question includes/excludes 

or providing more/fewer prompts to the 

enumerator.

Unknown Lessen

1/ The potential effects are based on research conducted by NASS.

2/ EDR edits would reduce respondent burden if they prevented a call-back. These edits, however, may also 

 increase respondent burden if resolving errors/warnings lengthen the interview time.

3/ H. Tran and M Gerling 2009 and 2010, found that bringing forward (cropland, total land, land rented from, land 

 rented to, and/or storage capacity) from the June Agricultural Survey to September’s Agricultural Survey can 

 have a negative impact on the data.
11

5. CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCREASING THE USE OF PRD IN NASS SURVEYS

Increasing the use of PRD, requires NASS policy to be re-evaluated and current procedures 

revised. To expand the use of PRD, the following issues need to be addressed:

a.) While providing PRD to respondents may lessen response burden for some respondents, 

it will decrease the ability to detect true change or detect reporting errors in the items 

targeted.

1. NASS would also have to decide whether PRD will be shared with respondents 

other than the one who reported the PRD. This requires revision to NASS’ 

confidentiality of data clause. If not, procedures to enable identification of the 

person reporting an item to be used as PRD would have to be developed.

b.) The availability of current PRD to be used in survey data collection is limited. NASS’ 

sampling approach is to minimize the number of times any particular agricultural 

operation is sampled across surveys. This methodology is in direct opposition to having 

an abundant and current pool of PRD to utilize. Also, Field Office’s special handling of 

large operations to collect data only 1-2 times a year, significantly limits the amount of 

PRD available for these operations. 

c.) Since PRD is not available for a given item for all operations, survey questions which 

incorporate PRD as well as questions that do not have PRD would have to be developed 

and used as appropriate. This would require developing and conducting usability testing 

on the appropriate way to incorporate PRD across each survey mode.

d.) NASS currently retains the data passed on to the summary and does not keep the 

originally reported value when data are edited. The final values retained are a 

combination of respondent, edited, and imputed. Hence, NASS would have to decide 

what data would be used as PRD and if reported data is defined as PRD then NASS 

would have to start capturing and storing reported data before it is edited. In addition, 

NASS would have to decide on whether respondent PRD or edited PRD would be used in 

edit checks.

e.) Procedures for capturing and retaining any PRD that were corrected by respondents 

would have to be developed and incorporated into NASS’ systems.

f.) As documented in H. Tran, M. Gerling (2009, 2010) and C. Gottschall (2009), the quality 

of the data collected needs to be improved. Adding additional edit checks at the time the 

data are being collected and at the time of editing would need to be enhanced. 
12

6. CONCLUSION

The National Agricultural Statistics Service has done substantial research and examination into 

using previously reported data during data collection. In general, using accurate, previously 

reported data has the potential to reduce respondent burden. However, using previously reported 

data also has the potential to adversely affect data quality. As discussed in Section 5, substantial 

altering of NASS current processes, policies and systems are needed to fully implement the use 

of previously reported data. This would not only be a paradigm shift for NASS but also requires 

staffing resources to complete. 

7. RECOMMENDATION

The National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Strategic Planning Council decide whether the 

agency is willing to significantly revise current NASS policies, processes, systems, and 

operations to increase the use of PRD to reduce response burden for a subset of respondents, 

while at the same time accepting a potential decrease in data quality. 
13

Appendix A 

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan

March 2006 Program Planning Council Meeting
14

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan

March 2006 Program Planning Council Meeting

1. Background

The use of previously reported data (PRD) during data collection may improve data quality as well as 

reduce respondent burden. However, used improperly, PRD may also increase measurement error, 

leading to biased survey results and even increase respondent burden. This document summarizes NASS‘ 

past research and current operational uses of PRD during data collection. It also presents a plan to expand 

the use of PRD. This plan is based on the premise that the primary motivation to expand the use of PRD 

during data collection is to reduce respondent burden (as measured by our Joint Burden Indicators). 

Throughout this document ―PRD‖ refers only to data previously provided to NASS; this definition is 

consistent with PSM-47. The use of administrative data – those obtained from non-NASS sources – is not 

addressed.

2. Possible PRD Usage During Data Collection

Table 1 briefly summarizes the various ways PRD may be used during data collection. The Potential 

Benefit column identifies whether each method would primarily be used to improve data quality or reduce 

respondent burden. Specific implementations of any method would require empirical evidence to justify the 

benefit.

Table 1: PRD Usage During Data Collection

Usage Category Description

Potential Benefit

Data Quality Respondent 

Burden

CATI/EDR edits

Reported values are compared with PRD; if the currently reported 

value is deemed inconsistent with the PRD, the respondent is asked 

to verify the current answer or explain the situation. 

● ● 1/

In lieu of a contact

PRD are used to avoid contacting an operation. This may take two 

forms: (a) the PRD are brought forward and used to help model data 

for the current survey, or (b) the PRD may be used to determine that 

the operation is out-of-scope for the current survey (i.e., a survey 

zero). 

●

In lieu of asking questions

PRD are used to avoid one or more questions. This may take two 

forms: (a) the PRD are brought forward and used for the current 

survey, or (b) the PRD may be used to determine that the operation 

has no pertinent data for one or more questions in the current survey 

(i.e., used in branching/skip patterns).

●

PRD supplied in current 

question (or to 

enumerator)

PRD are provided to respondents to assist with answering current 

question(s). This may be: (a) to verify a previously reported answer, 

(b) to make providing a current answer easier, or (c) as a starting 

point for a balance sheet.

● ●

Tailoring data collection

PRD are used to improve the data collection process. This may 

include such things as altering question includes/excludes or 

providing more/fewer prompts to the enumerator.

● ●

1/ CATI/EDR edits reduce respondent burden if they prevent a call-back. CATI/EDR edits may also increase respondent burden if resolving 

errors/warnings lengthen the interview time.

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
15

3. Past NASS PRD Research

Table 2 summarizes NASS‘ research reports on using PRD. (This table has been excluded from the body 

of Appendix A since this is similar to Section 1 of this report).

4. Current NASS Uses of PRD During Data Collection

Table 3 provides examples of NASS‘ most wide-spread uses of PRD during data collection. The 

Operations Affected column shows the number of operations for which PRD was used in the manner 

described for the indicated survey date.

Table 3: Current NASS PRD Usage During Data Collection

Mode Usage Category Survey Description Operations Affected 1/

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, 

October quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July quarter the following 

questions are skipped (July data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Gross Value of Sales (or points)

▪ Farm Type

▪ Peak Hired Workers

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

3,011

(Oct. 2005)

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, 

January quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July or October quarters the 

following questions are skipped (July/October 

data are brought forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

2,608

(Jan. 2004)

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Labor, 

April quarter

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the July quarter the following 

questions are skipped (July data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

For those done in CATI, if a completed report was 

received in the January quarter the following 

questions are skipped (January data are brought 

forward):

▪ Screening questions

▪ Gross Value of Sales (or points)

▪ Farm Type

▪ Peak Hired Workers

▪ Reporting Unit

▪ Partner information

▪ Additional operation information

4,945

(Apr. 2005)

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
16

Table 3: Current NASS PRD Usage During Data Collection (Continued)

Mode Usage Category Survey Description Operations Affected 1/

CATI In lieu of a contact

Crops/Stocks 

Survey, September 

quarter

Operations in the September Crops/Stocks 

Survey sample are not contacted if they were also 

in the June Crops/Stocks Survey and reported no 

items of interest (for the September Survey) in 

June.

8,365

(Sept. 2005)

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Agricultural Yield 

Survey

Commodity questions are skipped in the CATI 

instrument if the respondent did not indicate those 

crops were planted on the Crops/Stocks Survey.

24,869

(Aug. 2005, largest AY 

sample)

CATI CATI edits

Milk Production 

Survey, Cattle on 

Feed, Bee and 

Honey, Ag Labor, 

Maple Syrup, Ag 

Yield, Quarterly 

Hogs, Layers and 

Eggs

Various previously reported data items are used 

as edit checks and consistently edits for the 

respondent, interviewer and during interactive 

editing.

N/A

EDR PRD supplied in 

current question

Crop Progress & 

Condition

Respondents see their previous week’s response 

before answering current week conditions. N/A

Paper PRD supplied in 

current question

Crops/Stocks 

Surveys, Cattle on 

Feed Survey, 

Chickens Survey

Some FOs provide enumerators with PRD either 

printed on the label, hand written elsewhere on 

questionnaire, or on supplemental sheets of 

paper. It should be noted that most, if not all, of 

these practices are likely in violation of PSM-47.

N/A

Paper PRD supplied in 

current question

Cold Storage 

Biennial Capacity 

Survey

Each facility’s capacity is preprinted on the 

questionnaires; this capacity came from a 

previous Capacity Survey.

N/A

CATI and 

Paper

PRD supplied to 

enumerator

Cattle on Feed 

Survey

Enumerators are provided with the previous 

month’s reported cattle on feed inventory. N/A

CATI In lieu of asking 

questions

Monthly Chickens 

and Eggs

The Chickens and Eggs questionnaire contains 

questions pertaining to table egg flocks, broilertype hatchery supply flocks, and egg-type 

hatchery supply flock. Operations do not tend to 

switch between types of birds raised; therefore, 

historic reporting is used during interviews to only 

ask questions relating to the given operation’s 

bird type.

N/A

CATI In lieu of a contact Monthly Chickens 

and Eggs

If the operation reports as out-of-scope for the 

current survey and does not plan on being in 

scope (greater than or equal to 30,000 table egg 

layers), operation is not contacted for future 

months, instead is included in the less than 

30,000 estimate.

N/A

1/ Reflects the number of operations to which PRD was used in the manner described for the indicated survey date.

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
17

5. Availability of PRD

NASS‘ data warehouse may eventually contain all data that are used as PRD. While the data warehouse 

currently contains literally billions of rows of data, for a variety of reasons, much of these data may not be 

useful as PRD. Perhaps the foremost reason why warehouse data may be inappropriate for PRD is the 

lack of sufficiently current data for operations in current survey samples.

Determining exactly how much usable PRD data are available is difficult; however, the following two 

examples offer some insight into how much might be available.

Example 1

This example looks at how many list frame records were contacted for major sample surveys between 

January 2000 and December 2003. Table 4 was recreated from Suzette Qualey‘s 2005 research report, 

Accumulated Respondent Burden and Response Rates in Surveys by USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. The list frame Blue Books show that there were approximately 1.8 million active farms 

on the frame during the period summarized in Table 4. Therefore, excluding data from ―small surveys‖, 

approximately 1⁄3 of the active list frame records could potentially have reasonably current PRD (579,531 

out of 1.8 million). In fact, this is generous because Table 4 does not consider nonresponse.

Table 4: Frequency of Operations by Number of Major Survey Contacts 1/ (Jan. 2000 – Dec. 2003)

Number of Surveys Frequency of Operations Percent of Operations

1 – 5 467,662 80.70

6 – 10 72,642 12.53

11 – 15 24,773 4.27

16 – 20 8,115 1.40

21 – 25 2,118 0.37

26 – 30 826 0.14

31 – 35 491 0.08

36 – 40 439 0.08

41 – 45 460 0.08

46 – 50 211 0.04

51 – 55 190 0.03

56 – 60 932 0.16

61 – 65 374 0.06

66 – 70 161 0.03

71 – 75 68 0.01

76 – 80 36 0.01

81 – 85 13 < 0.01

86 – 90 9 < 0.01

91 – 95 4 < 0.01

96 – 100 4 < 0.01

101 – 105 3 < 0.01

Total 579,531 100.00

1/ Excludes the 2002 Census of Agriculture

Example 2

Another example that shows the potential availability of PRD is shown in Table 5. This table shows the 

amount of sample overlap between each quarter‘s Crops/Stocks Survey and any previous quarter for 

classify year 2005. (The amount of sample overlap is controllable.) While this table does not consider 

nonresponse, it is clear that for the Crops/Stocks Survey, the majority of operations sampled may have 

PRD from a previous quarter for the same crop year (considering only winter wheat for March).

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
18

Table 5: Classify Year 2005 Crops/Stocks Survey Sample Overlap

Quarter Sample Size Samples in Any Previous Quarter1/

Count Percent

June 2005 74,026 2/– –

September 2005 60,098 39,949 66.5

December 2005 79,191 61,085 77.2

March 2006 79,565 2/ 79,565 100

1/ In Classify Year 2005 Crops/Stocks Survey quarters.

2/ Includes Agricultural Yield samples.

6. PRD Expansion Plan

The following six-part plan is offered to expand the use of previously reported data. In 

accordance with PSM-47, the effects of PRD usage (during data collection) on survey 

indications, respondent burden, and response rates must be evaluated prior to full program 

implementation. The following plan provides for this evaluation, when appropriate, as well as an 

implementation strategy.

Part 1: Determine Specific PRD Goals and Definitions

As stated earlier, it is assumed that the primary motivation to expand the use of PRD during 

data collection is to reduce respondent burden (as measured by our Joint Burden Indicators). 

However, there are at least two meanings of ―respondent burden reduction‖. One meaning is to 

reduce, on average, the amount of NASS-imposed respondent burden for each individual 

operation. Basically, this amounts to some combination of fewer surveys, fewer (or perhaps 

easier) questions, or fewer contacts for each individual operation. The second meaning of 

respondent burden reduction is to reduce the total respondent burden for the population. 

By increasing the amount of sample overlap between surveys, more PRD would likely be 

available for more individual operations. This would allow for the maximum use of data 

collections strategies employing PRD, and would thus reduce the overall Joint Burden Indicator 

for ―amount of time‖ for the population. Greater overlap between samples could also reduce 

some sample sizes by benefiting from stronger c/c indications. Obviously, though, increasing 

sample overlap would increase the burden to some extent on specific individual operations.

Hence, NASS should consider what the overall goal is for PRD: (1) to reduce individual 

respondent burden, or (2) to reduce overall respondent burden for the population. PRD 

strategies employed may differ depending on the goal.

Another issue that should be addressed is to define exactly what data may be considered 

usable PRD. PSM-47 provides some guidance on using PRD, but it does not provide enough 

detail. Specific questions concerning what may be considered usable PRD include:

Should only current crop year information be considered for PRD? (Example: should 

three year old corn planted acres be used as PRD?)

Should PRD be limited to items that are ―static‖? If so, how is ―static‖ defined? Is the 

Table 5: Classify Year 2005 Crops/Stocks Survey Sample Overlap

Quarter Sample Size Samples in Any Previous Quarter1/

Count Percent

June 2005 74,026 2/– –

September 2005 60,098 39,949 66.5

December 2005 79,191 61,085 77.2

March 2006 79,565 2/ 79,565 100

1/ In Classify Year 2005 Crops/Stocks Survey quarters.

2/ Includes Agricultural Yield samples.

6. PRD Expansion Plan

The following six-part plan is offered to expand the use of previously reported data. In accordance with 

PSM-47, the effects of PRD usage (during data collection) on survey indications, respondent burden, and 

response rates must be evaluated prior to full program implementation. The following plan provides for 

this evaluation, when appropriate, as well as an implementation strategy.

Part 1: Determine Specific PRD Goals and Definitions

As stated earlier, it is assumed that the primary motivation to expand the use of PRD during data 

collection is to reduce respondent burden (as measured by our Joint Burden Indicators). However, there 

are at least two meanings of ―respondent burden reduction‖. One meaning is to reduce, on average, the 

amount of NASS-imposed respondent burden for each individual operation. Basically, this amounts to 

some combination of fewer surveys, fewer (or perhaps easier) questions, or fewer contacts for each 

individual operation. The second meaning of respondent burden reduction is to reduce the total 

respondent burden for the population. 

By increasing the amount of sample overlap between surveys, more PRD would likely be available for 

more individual operations. This would allow for the maximum use of data collections strategies 

employing PRD, and would thus reduce the overall Joint Burden Indicator for ―amount of time‖ for the

population. Greater overlap between samples could also reduce some sample sizes by benefiting from 

stronger c/c indications. Obviously, though, increasing sample overlap would increase the burden to 

some extent on specific individual operations.

Hence, NASS should consider what the overall goal is for PRD: (1) to reduce individual respondent 

burden, or (2) to reduce overall respondent burden for the population. PRD strategies employed may 

differ depending on the goal.

Another issue that should be addressed is to define exactly what data may be considered usable PRD. 

PSM-47 provides some guidance on using PRD, but it does not provide enough detail. Specific questions

concerning what may be considered usable PRD include:

Should only current crop year information be considered for PRD? (Example: should three year 

old corn planted acres be used as PRD?)

Should PRD be limited to items that are ―static‖? If so, how is ―static‖ defined? Is the definition of 

―static‖ different for different items?

Are any categories of data off limits? (Example: should price data ever be used as PRD?)

 definition of ―static‖ different for different items?

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
19

What items within what surveys should be considered for PRD usage? What research is needed?

Part 2: Implement Existing CATI Uses of PRD Into EDR

NASS‘ electronic data reporting (EDR) system allows conditional question routing and the use of data 

from an external file (that was loaded with the EDR sample). Since the capability exists for EDR to 

incorporate all existing usages of PRD, and since these usages are already being used for CATI, the 

uses of PRD as documented in Table 3 will be incorporated into the EDR instruments by the next 

practicable instance of each survey.

Part 3: Reusing ―Planted Acres‖

Research Step

Identify all surveys that ask ―Planted Acres‖ for any commodity. Perform ―simulation studies‖ with 

the past 2-3 years of the September and December Crops/Stocks Surveys where direct 

expansions are compared from the individual Crops/Stocks Surveys against direct expansions 

obtained from substituting previously reported commodity-level acres planted data from the same 

crop year (collected earlier than the Crops/Stocks Survey quarter being considered).

Example: For the 2005 September Crops/Stocks Survey obtain the direct expansions for each 

commodity‘s planted acres using the reported survey data. Next, use the same 2005 September 

Crops/Stocks direct expansion weights, calculate new direct expansions where September data 

are substituted with 2005 June Crops/Stocks Survey reported planted acres for all records that 

were in both the June and September quarters (September data would be used for all operations 

not in June). The two sets of direct expansions would be compared to determine the effect of 

using PRD in the 2005 September Crops/Stocks Survey.

Impact Step

Assuming the direct expansion comparisons in the Research Step yield acceptable PRD effects, 

the impact on respondents will be estimated. This will involve estimating how many total burden 

hours are saved, based on how many questions are ―skipped‖ due to using PRD.

Previously Reported Data (PRD) Action Plan
20

Implementation Step

Assuming the direct expansion comparisons in the Research Step yield acceptable PRD effects, 

research will be conducted to determine the most effective way to utilize the planted acres PRD. 

The following approaches will be considered:

1. Skip the ―planted‖ questions for each commodity and simply ask for the number of acres 

harvested. This approach has three advantages: (1) it maximizes respondent burden 

savings, (2) it avoids the issue of ensuring that the PRD are revealed only to appropriate 

respondents, and (3) it avoids the issue of ensuring that only actually reported data are 

provided to the respondent. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that harvested 

acres may exceed the PRD planted acres. When/if this occurs we could modify our edits to 

address such situations.

2. Provide the PRD planted acres in the ―harvested‖ question and allow the enumerator to 

change them only if the respondent indicates the PRD are incorrect. (Example: Our records 

indicate you have 1,000 acres of oats; how many acres of oats have you harvested or intend 

to harvest? Only if the respondent indicates the 1,000 acres of oats is incorrect would the 

respondent be asked to provide a revised figure.) The advantage of this approach is greater 

savings in respondent burden; the disadvantage is this approach may miss some changes to 

PRD (however, the ―research step‖ presumably showed such changes did not dramatically 

affect survey indications anyway).

3. Provide the PRD planted acres and ask the respondent if they are correct; if incorrect, the 

respondent would be asked to provide revised values otherwise, the respondent would be 

asked for acres harvested. 

Once the specific approach to using the planted acres PRD is determined, PRD will be used for planted 

acres on the next practicable instance of the September and December Crops/Stocks Surveys. 

Part 4: Capturing Reported, Edited, Imputed, and Final Data

According to PSM-47, only reported (i.e., keyed) data may be provided back to respondents. Often, data 

are hand edited by SSO staff before they are keyed. Some mechanism needs to be in place to distinguish 

data that came directly from a respondent from data that are estimated, changed or removed during a prekeying SSO hand editing operation. Such a mechanism is currently not in place. In order to ensure that all 

surveys are capable of supplying PRD that may be provided back to respondents, steps will be taken to 

ensure that all surveys (and censuses) loaded to the data warehouse include at least the following data 

types: data as it is provided by the respondent, reported (keyed), imputed, edited, and final. This will 

involve modifications to Blaise CATI/IE instruments and to SPS for each survey. These modifications are 

anticipated to require a fairly large amount of time. Hence, surveys will be ―retrofitted‖ as time permits. 

Part 5: Electronic Data Reporting Risk Assessment

A risk assessment will be done to ensure that NASS meets Departmental cyber security standards when 

providing PRD to respondents in EDR.

Part 6: Research 2012 Census of Agriculture

The EDR instrument for the 2012 Census of Agriculture may provide PRD for each commodity‘s 2012 

harvested acres to Web respondents. This could be simulated in a similar way to that described in Part 3 of 

Section 6 of this document using 2007 Census of Agriculture data. Harvested acres data from the most 

recent survey year would be substituted for the harvested acres data collected on the Census for a sample 

of Census records. Direct expansions would then be calculated and compared for the ―real‖ Census data 

and the ―simulated‖ Census data. This simulation study may have to be limited in scope, however, because 

the complex Census calibration and estimation processes would have to be used on both samples.