Improving the Labor Force Questions in the American Community 

Survey: The Results of the 2006 ACS Content Test1 

David A. Raglin and Kelly A. Holder 

David Raglin, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233 

Kelly A. Holder; Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division; US. Census Bureau; Washington, DC 20233 

david.a.raglin@census.gov and kelly.a.holder@census.gov 

Key Words: Employment status, questionnaire design, net difference rate, gross difference rate, reinterview 

Introduction 

In January through March of 2006, the American Community Survey (ACS) conducted the 2006 ACS Content Test, the first test 

of new and modified content since the ACS reached full implementation levels of data collection.  The purpose of the test was 

to produce improvements to the ACS questionnaire to be implemented in January 2008.2  This test consisted of testing new 

versions of some questions as well as testing questions on new topics.  A new version of the employment status series of questions 

was included in the test, and that testing is the topic of this paper.  

Through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Interagency Committee on the ACS, the Census Bureau included subject 

matter experts and key data users from other federal agencies in identifying questions for inclusion in the 2006 ACS Content Test. 

Analysis of employment data from Census 2000, which used the same employment status questions as ACS, reveals that 

employment levels are underestimated and unemployment levels are overestimated relative to benchmark data from the Current 

Population Survey (CPS) (Palumbo, Siegel, and Weismantle, 2004).3   Comparisons of ACS and CPS data by Census Bureau 

subject matter experts found the same problems with the ACS employment and unemployment estimates. Extensive analysis of 

the nature and probable causes of the CPS to Census 2000 differences revealed areas where changes to the questions or approach 

might reduce the gaps.  The results of the exact­match study of the CPS to Census 2000 were useful in guiding  the Content Test 

question wording changes (Palumbo, Siegel, and Weismantle, 2004). 

Research into the improvement of the ACS battery of questions also included expert review of the existing questions by survey 

methodologists from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Justice Department; ACS interviewer debriefings; 

behavior coding of computer­assisted telephone interviews (CATI); and 40 cognitive interviews (Rothgeb, 2007). 

Three of the six ACS employment status questions were modified for the test teratment  The at work last week and temporarily 

absent questions are key components in the measurement of employed people and people who are not in the labor force, while 

the looking for work question is a component in the measurement of unemployed people.  The test versions of these ACS 

questions were designed to improve the measurement of employment status by addressing several deficiencies that the research 

mentioned above suggested are present in the current question wording.  

1  This report is released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion.  Any views 

expressed on statistical, methodological, technical, or operational issues are those of the authors and not necessarily 

those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 

2

 The Census Bureau submitted the results of the Content Test, and proposed questions to be included on 

the 2008 ACS questionnaire based on the test results, to the Office of Management and Budget in Spring 2007. The 

Office of Management and Budget used these findings, along with input from Federal agencies and other sources, to 

choose the final set of questions that will be on the 2008 ACS. 

3  There are three possibilities for employment status: employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force.  A 

person who has a job but was not working during the week he or she was surveyed is considered employed.  A 

person is unemployed if he or she was actively looking for a job or was on layoff from a job with a reasonable 

expectation of recall to that job.  If those factors are not present, the person is not in the labor force. Only people 15 

years of age or older are in scope for employment status. 
               

  

     

        

   

                                    

     

               

Research Questions 

1.  Do the changes to the employment series questions increase the percentage of employed people and decrease the percentage 

of unemployed people? 

2.  Do the changes to the employment series questions reduce the estimate of the civilian unemployment rate? 

3.  Do the changes to the employment series questions reduce response error (bias) in the individual categories of the 

employment status estimates? 

4.  Do the changes to the employment series questions reduce the response variability in the individual categories of the 

employment status estimates? 

5.  Is there a difference in the employment status item nonresponse rates between the control version and the test version? 

Methodology 

The 2006 ACS Content Test Design 

The 2006 ACS Content Test consisted of a national sample of approximately 62,900 residential addresses in the contiguous United 

States (the sample universe did not include Puerto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii). To meet the primary test objective of evaluating 

question wording changes, approximately half of the sample addresses were assigned to a test group which received the test 

version of the questions (31,450) and the other half to a control group which got the current questions (31,450).  

The ACS Content Test used a similar data collection methodology as the current ACS, though cost and time constraints resulted 

in some deviations.  The Content Test implemented the same mail methodology as in ACS production (i.e., a pre­notice letter, 

an initial questionnaire packet, a reminder postcard, and a replacement questionnaire packet), mailing each piece on the same dates 

as the corresponding production sample in the ACS.  However, there were a few differences from production ACS.  First, we did 

not provide a phone number for assistance on the questionnaire and cases that provided incomplete information on a mail form 

were not subjected to the Failed Edit Followup operation.  Also, while in ACS production, the mail phase is followed by CATI 

and CAPI (computer­assisted personal interview) phases, the Content Test did not have the CATI phase due to competing time 

and resource constraints for the field data collection staff.  While skipping the CATI phase changes the data collection methods 

as compared to the ACS, eliminating CATI allowed us to meet the field data collection constraints while also maintaining the 

entire mail nonrespondent universe for possible CAPI follow­up.  Using CATI alone for follow­up would have excluded 

households for whom we do not have a phone number. 

The Content Test mailed questionnaires to sampled households on December 27, 2005, coinciding with the mailing for the ACS 

January 2006 regular production panel.  The Content Test used an English­only mail form but the CAPI instrument included both 

English and Spanish versions.  Beginning February 2006, a sample of households that did not respond by mail was visited by 

Census Bureau field representatives in attempt to collect the data. The CAPI operations ended March 2, 2006. 

Content Follow-up Reinterview 

The other operation in the Content Test was a CATI­based reinterview of responding households called the Content Follow­up 

(CFU).  The CFU reinterview, conducted by the Census Bureau’s three telephone centers, provided a method for measuring 

response error.  About two weeks after receiving the returned questionnaire or completed CAPI interview, the responding unit 

entered the CFU operation.  Telephone staff completed the CFU interviews between January 17 and March 17, 2006.  At the first 

contact with a household, interviewers asked to speak with the original respondent.  If that person was not available, interviewers 

scheduled a callback at a time when the household member was expected to be home.  If, at the second contact, we could not reach 

the original respondent, interviewers completed the interview with another adult household member.  

We asked a series of 28 labor force questions from the Current Population Survey in the CFU.  We considered the CPS questions 

our “gold standard” for two reasons: first, one reason we were looking at this series was the difference in the numbers between 

the CPS and the ACS, and second, the CPS is able to ask many more detailed questions about employment status than the ACS. 

By having questions in the CFU that we felt would get us closer to the truth, we could look for response error or bias in the control 

and test versions of the ACS questions.  
                   

         

   

  

   

         

     

                

                                  

Sample Design 

The sample design for the ACS Content Test consisted of a multi­stage design, with the first stage following the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey (C2SS) design for the selection of Primary Selection Units (PSUs) defined as counties or groups of 

counties.  The result was 413 PSUs or approximately 900 counties being selected into the Content Test. 

Within sampled PSUs, households were stratified into high and low response strata based on tract­level mail response rates to 

the Census 2000 long form and a stratified systematic sample of households was selected.  The strata were defined such that the 

high response stratum contained 75 percent of the housing units that reside in tracts with the highest mail response rate.  The 

balance of the tracts was assigned to the low response stratum. To achieve similar expected number of mail returns for the high 

and low response strata, 55 percent of the sample was allocated to the low response strata and 45 percent to the high response 

strata.  To contain field costs for CAPI data collection, only a subset of 151 PSUs were eligible for CAPI.  The 20 PSUs with the 

highest percentage of foreign­born population were included with certainty into CAPI and the remaining PSUs were sampled at 

a rate of 1 in 3.  Mail nonresponding households were sampled at a rate of 1 in 2 within the top 20 PSUs and at a sampling rate 

of 2 in 3 within the remaining CAPI PSUs. 

It is important to note that, unlike the production ACS operation, these data were neither edited nor was imputation performed 

for missing data, and no adjustments were made for unit nonresponse.  Because of the design of the test, the production edit and 

imputation methodology, and the design of the production nonresponse methodology, there was no way to duplicate those 

operations for the test without raising concerns that those procedures, rather than the responses, were causing differences between 

the two versions. 

Control and test treatments groups obtained equivalent response rates overall, and for each mode of collection.  Overall, the unit 

response rate for the control treatment was 95.8 percent and 95.5 percent for the test treatment (difference: 0.3 percent, standard 

error: 0.5 percent, not significant at the 90 percent confidence level).  The CFU rates were 75.9 for control cases and 76.4 percent 

for test cases (difference: 0.5 percent, standard error: 1.0 percent, not significant at the 90 confidence level). 

Design of the Test Version of the Employment Series Questions 

The test version of the employment series questions was designed based on the results of the CPS­Census 2000 match (Palumbo, 

Siegel, and Weismantle, 2004) and cognitive interviewing conducted by the Census Bureau’s Center for Survey Methods Research 

(Rothgeb, 2007).  Figure 1 shows the mail versions of the control and test questions.  The CATI/CAPI versions were virtually 

identical.  Changes for the test were made to three parts of the series: 

•  At work last week question(s) (questions 28 on control and 28a and 28b on test) 

•  Temporarily absent question (question 34b) 

•  Looking for work question (question 35) 

At Work Last Week (Control-Question 28, Test-Questions 28a and 28b) – The purpose of the at work last week question is 

to ascertain whether a person performed any work at all for pay or profit during the reference period.  For the at work last week 

question, the following items were addressed: 

•  The phrase “either pay or profit” at the end of the question may lead to confusion about the nature of the work being asked 

about in the question. 

•  The question may incorrectly suggest to people who work only a few hours or who do not have a “regular” job, such as 

contingent, temporary, marginal, or casual workers, or people who are self­employed, that only formal, employer­employee, 

types of work arrangements are being considered. 

•  The emphasis on ‘ANY work’ may incorrectly suggest to people who have regular jobs that the question is only asking 

about work outside of their normal jobs. 

•  The lengthy italicized statement after the question may be more confusing than enlightening. 

•  The intent of the question may be difficult for retired people to grasp, particularly if they are doing a minimal amount of 

part­time work. 

The at work last week question was split into two questions for the test treatment.  In question 28a, the word ‘job’ was added to 

identify people with regular jobs, while the parenthetical “(or business)” was intended to capture business owners.  The phrase 

“either for pay or profit” in the existing ACS question was removed and the lengthy italicized statement that follows was 

incorporated into question 28b.  The intent of question 28b was to capture people who worked only a few hours or who did not 

have “regular” jobs, such as contingent, marginal, temporary, or casual workers, or people who are self­employed.  
Temporarily Absent (Question 34b) – The purpose of the temporarily absent question is to obtain a measure of individuals who 

have a job that they did not work at last week.  For the temporarily absent question the following items were addressed: 

•  The question may not be clear that people who are on maternity or paternity leave are considered to be temporarily absent 

from their jobs. 

•  People may mistakenly think that they should answer ‘yes’ only if they are absent for one of the reasons explicitly 

enumerated in the list of examples. 

•  The list of examples does not explicitly contain reasons, such as bad weather, that an individual could be absent from work 

because the job itself is temporarily unavailable. 

•  Question wording for this item varies among the modes of ACS data collection (self­administered paper form, CATI, and 

CAPI). 
   

  

  

    

         

     

         

The test version of the temporarily absent question was informed, in part, by cognitive testing that found the existing question 

did not make clear who should be considered temporarily absent from their jobs (Rothgeb, 2007).  It was found that people on 

maternity or paternity leave, in particular, may not have considered themselves to fit this classification.  The test version modified 

the existing wording to include maternity leave, other family/personal reasons, and bad weather to the list of examples. 

Looking for Work (Question 35) – The purpose of the looking for work question is to determine whether an individual is 

unemployed by ascertaining whether that individual used any active method to look for work during the reference period of the 

last four weeks.  In the CPS, a screener question determines whether a person has been doing anything to find work during the 

reference period; a follow­up question asks specifically about all the things the person has done to find work.  Job search activities 

are categorized as ‘active’ or ‘passive’ by CPS and only those respondents who are actively looking for work (e.g., placed or 

answered job advertisements) are classified as ‘unemployed.’  Passive job searchers (e.g., looked at want ads) are classified as 

‘not in the labor force.’ 

The ACS, on the contrary, does not have a follow­up question about job search activities.  As worded, the current ACS looking 

for work question does not effectively communicate the notion of active versus passive job searching.  For the looking for work 

question, the following items were addressed: 

•  There is no distinction between active versus passive job search methods, which could lead to individuals who are not in 

the labor force being misclassified as unemployed.  This is an important distinction that the CPS addresses with specific 

examples of active versus passive job searching. 

•  The question may be mistakenly answered in the affirmative by contingent, temporary, marginal, or casual workers who 

misclassify themselves as not at work in the at work last week question and who typically look for new work as an ongoing 

part of their type of job.  

The test version of the question emphasizes the word ‘actively,’ by putting it in all capital letters, as a means of communicating 

more clearly, without a followup question, the distinction in job­searching activities. 

Design of Reinterview Questions for the CFU 

As mentioned before, the CFU used 28 questions from the CPS battery of employment questions, which allows us to collect great 

detail about a person’s employment situation.  For example, the previous section of this paper noted the test version of the ACS 

asks whether or not a person was ACTIVELY looking for work and the CPS has a question that asks “what are all of the things 

[the person has] done to find work during the LAST 4 WEEKS”, with 13 specific possible answers, like “contacted employer 

directly/had an interview” (considered “active”) and “looked at ads” (not considered “active”).  While both the ACS and the CPS 

ask if a person could have started a job last week if one had been offered, if the answer is “no”, the CPS asks for the reason.  

Because the CPS asks so many more questions and we justified the testing in part based on comparisons to CPS, the CPS 

questions are the closest we get to the “truth.”  Therefore, deviations from the CFU responses are in effect considered errors, and 

the differences in those errors a key test statistic. 

Test Statistics 

Along with the distribution of employment status and the unemployment rate, two key test statistics are used to answer questions 

3 and 4.  They are the net difference rate (NDR) and the gross difference rate (GDR). 

Consider the following 2x2 table: 

Figure 2: Example of Net Difference Rate and Gross Difference Rate Calculations 

Original ACS Content Test Data Collection 

Yes  No  Total 

Yes  a  b  a + b 

No  c  d  c + d 

CFU Total  a + c  b + d  a + b + c + d = n 

The net difference rate is the difference of the percentage of cases in a given answer category in the original ACS data collection 

and the CFU for a given answer category (Singer and Ennis, 2003).  For the “yes” category in Figure 2, the net difference rate 

is ((a + b) ­ (a + c)) / n, or (b ­ c) / n.  (When calculating the net difference rate for employment, for example, consider “employed” 
      

     

       

  

  

           

         

to be “yes” in the table above and “unemployed” and “not in the labor force” to be “no”.)  Since we are assuming the CFU answer 

is closer to the truth, net difference rates can be used to help measure response error or bias, and the closer the net difference rate 

is to zero in absolute value, the better. 

The gross difference rate, on the other hand, is the percentage of discrepant answers between the original ACS data collection 

and the CFU.  For the “yes” category, the gross difference rate is (b + c) / n. (When calculating the gross difference rate for 

employment, for example, consider “employed” to be “yes” in the table above and “unemployed” and “not in the labor force” 

to be “no”.) Gross difference rates are useful to measure response variability between the original and CFU data collections. 

When calculating net difference rates and gross difference rates, the only people included in the calculations are those for whom 

we have a valid response for both the original mail or CAPI questionnaire and the CFU.  Note that all significance tests in this 

paper use a 90 percent confidence level as a test of significance, as per Census Bureau standards. 

Limitations 

There were two operational limitations that particularly affected the employment series.  The self­administered mail forms were 

sent out December 27, at a time when there are more temporary workers in the labor force.  It is also a time when respondents 

may have been temporarily absent from regular jobs because of holiday vacations.  Also, the Content Test asked about work done 

“last week.”  Since the responding units entered the CFU operation about two weeks after the receipt of their questionnaires, this 

time period reference was different from the original interview (either control or test) to the CFU.  In order to reconcile this 

discrepancy, an additional question was added to the CFU battery that referred respondents back to the week prior to the first 

interview.  We compared their employment status reported in the original interview to the recalled status reported in the CFU. 

Our analysis found some change in employment status between interviews, however, the difference was not large enough nor 

consistent enough to indicate that the time period reference affected our results.  Also, people in noninstitutionalized group 

quarters (such as college dorms) are eligible for these questions in ACS but were not included in the Content Test. 

Results 

Question 1 – Do the changes to the employment series questions increase the percentage of employed people and decrease 

the percentage of unemployed people? 

Table 1 below shows that the test questions produced an increase in the percentage of employed people, but not a statistically 

significant reduction in the percentage of unemployed people.  For the test group, 65.7 percent of people were employed compared 

to only 62.8 percent for the control group, a difference of 2.9 percentage points.  The difference between the estimates of the 

percentage of unemployed people was not statistically significant. 

The table indicates the main category from which those extra employed people came was the “not in labor force” category. This 

suggests that perhaps people without “regular” 9­to­5 40 hour­a week jobs who got the control version might have been reported 

as “not in the labor force” but their counterparts in the test version reported the person as “employed”.  Analysis of the two­part 

test question found that 42 percent of the respondents who answered ‘no’ to 28a and ‘yes’ to 28b of the question reported working 

20 hours or less.  This would indicate the change that mostly captured those people was the additional “worked last week” 

question, which was designed to capture just such people. 

Table 1: Employment Status, Control Vs. Test 

Employment Status  Control (%)  Test (%)  Diff (%)  Marg of Err of Diff(%)  Significant 

Employed  62.8  65.7  2.9  ± 1.4  Yes 

Unemployed   4.1   3.6  ­0.5  ± 0.5  No 

Not in labor force  33.1  30.7  ­2.4  ± 1.4  Yes 
 

                             

       

  

       

Question 2 – Do the changes to the employment series questions decrease the estimate of the civilian unemployment rate? 

While the percentages of people employed, unemployed, and not in the labor force are important, their main use is to calculate 

the unemployment rate.  The formula for the unemployment rate, using the categories above, is (unemployed) / (employed + 

4

unemployed) . The test version had a statistically significantly lower unemployment rate, as shown in the first line in Table 2.

Table 2: Civilian Unemployment Rate, Control Vs. Test 

Control (%)  Test (%)  Diff (%)  Marg of Err of Diff (%)  Significant 

Unemployment Rate  6.1  5.2  ­0.9  ± 0.8  Yes 

That difference is not only statistically significant, it is also a nominally large drop from 6.1 percent to 5.2 percent.  It is also in 

the hypothesized direction, in that Palumbo, Siegel, and Weismantle (2004) had surmised that the Census 2000 and ACS were 

underestimating employment and overestimating unemployment, therefore overestimating the unemployment rate. 

Question 3 – Do the changes to the employment series questions reduce response error (bias) in the individual categories 

of the employment status estimates? 

Since the CFU data, collected using the CPS questions, are considered to be more accurate, we can use net difference rates to 

answer this question.  Table 3 shows the net difference rates between the control and CFU data and  the test and CFU data, as well 

as the comparisons between the two.  

Let’s look at the “Employed” line.  The “Test vs. CFU” column shows the net difference rate for the percentage of employed 

people is ­0.9 percentage points, meaning that the test question estimate was 0.9 percentage points lower than the CFU estimate. 

For control, the difference was ­2.1 percentage points, so the control estimate was much lower than the CFU estimate for the same 

cases.  The absolute difference between the ­2.1 and ­0.9 (1.2 percentage points) is significant, so that says there is more error 

or bias in the control estimate for the percentage of employed people than in the test estimate. 

The next two lines show that the difference in net difference rates is not significant for the percentage of unemployed people, but 

it is for the percentage of people not in the labor force, indicating less error for the test version than for the control version. 

Table 3: Employment Status Net Difference Rates, Control Vs. Test 

Net Difference Rates 

Employment Status  Control vs CFU (%)  Test vs CFU (%)  Diff |T­C| (%)  MOE of Diff (%)  Significant 

Employed  ­2.1  ­0.9  1.2  0.7  Yes 

Unemployed   0.3  0.1  0.2  0.5  No 

Not in labor force   1.8  0.8  1.0  0.8  Yes 

Question 4 – Do the changes to the employment series questions reduce the response variability in the individual categories 

of the employment status estimates? 

We will use gross difference rates to measure response variability, and compare gross difference rates between control/CFU and 

test/CFU to measure which version produced less response variability compared to the CFU.  Table 4 gives the relevant data. 

4  Active duty military personnel are excluded from the unemployment rate, as are people in institutional 

group quarters such as prisons and nursing homes.  Note that group quarters were not included in the Content Test, 

so people in military barracks and in institutional group quarters were not part of the test.  Questions in the ACS 

Content Test outside the employment series were used to identify active members of the Armed Forces. 
       

 

               

            

                 

        

     

     

                    

   

           

Table 4: Employment Status Gross Difference Rates, Control Vs. Test 

Gross Difference Rates 

Employment Status  Control vs CFU (%)  Test vs CFU (%)  Diff T­C (%)  MOE of Diff (%)  Significant 

Employed  6.4  5.9  ­0.5  ± 0.8  No 

Unemployed  3.4  3.1  ­0.3  ± 0.6  No 

Not in labor force  6.6  5.9  ­0.8  ± 0.8  No 

None of the differences are significant, so we cannot say that either the control version or the test version of the questions have 

less variability. 

Question 5 – Is there a difference in the employment status item nonresponse rates between the control version and the 

test version? 

We calculated an overall item nonresponse rate for employment status, which was based on a combination of all of the 

employment questions, and the results are in Table 5.  The item nonresponse rate was lower for the test battery of questions than 

for the control battery, so the test data were more complete. 

Table 5: Employment Status Item Nonresponse Rate, Control Vs. Test 

Control (%)  Test (%)  Diff (%)  Marg of Err of Diff (%)  Significant 

Item nonrepsonse rate  10.0  8.6  ­1.4  ± 0.7  Yes 

Discussion and Summary 

Research by Palumbo, Siegel, and Weismantle had indicated several problems with the Census 2000/ACS version of the 

employment series of questions – an underestimate of employed people and a corresponding overestimate of unemployed people 

and people not in the labor force.  Rothgeb (2007) helped develop questions that would lessen those problems, and that version 

of the questions was tested in the 2006 ACS Content Test.  

The results showed that the test questions did, in fact, produce a higher estimate of the percentage of people who were employed 

and a lower estimate of the percentage not in the labor force.  While the test questions did not produce a lower estimate in the 

percentage of unemployed people, the differences in the other percentages led to a lower estimate for the unemployment rate. 

The unemployment rate is a very meaningful measure because it is so widely used.  

We also demonstrated a decrease for the test version in response error or bias, as measured by the differences in the net difference 

rates between the control and test versions for two of the three employment status categories, and a nominal but statistically 

insignificant drop in the third category.  

In addition, the item missing data rate for employment status was lower for the test version than for the control version, suggesting 

the question was easier to understand and complete.  We did not find a difference in response variability between the two versions, 

as measured by the gross difference rates. 

Our findings indicate that, based on these criteria, the test version of the questions performed better than the existing ACS 

questions.  These results were forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in early 2007 (Holder and Raglin, 

2007).  In the summer of 2007, the OMB decided to adopt the test version of the employment series questions for the ACS starting 

in 2008. 

However, while the test questions may have produced more favorable estimates than the control questions, there remains room 

for improvement.  Palumbo, Siegel, and Weismantle (2004) found that both the Census 2000 and CPS version of the employment 

series of questions had “considerable variability in classifying people to the unemployed category.”  We found the same thing 

for the improved test version of the questions.  The gross difference rate of 6.2 percentage points for the test version for 

“unemployed” is large relative to the estimate of 3.6 percent unemployed.  This shows that while we have made progress, we still 

can improve our estimate of employment status. Any future ACS content tests should consider including the employment series 

questions, with a focus on the unemployment category. 
               

References 

Holder, K. and Raglin, D. (2007), “2006 American Community Survey Content Test:  Evaluation Report Covering Employment 

Status”, 2006 American Community Survey Content Test Report P.6.a, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/content_test/P6a_Employment_Status.pdf 

Palumbo, T, Siegel, P, and Weismantle, M. (2004), “Accuracy of Data for Employment Status as Measured by the CPS­Census 

2000 Match”, Census 2000 Evaluation B.7, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, http://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts 

/B.7%20Final%20Report.pdf 

Rothgeb, J. (2007), “ACS Labor Force Questions: Preliminary Results from Cognitive Interview Testing”, Census Bureau Internal 

Memorandum, April 20, 2007. 

Singer P. and Ennis S. (2003), “Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing 

Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview”, Census 2000 Evaluation B.5, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

http://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/B.5FR_RI.PDF.