F5 Discussant

ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 1

FCSM, October 25, 2023

ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 3

Key Findings

• Reactions to minimum and detailed categories – NCHS, NASS, Census, BLS

• Modifications to question stem and instructions – NCHS, NASS, Census, BLS

• Mode of administration (SAQ, CAI) – NCHS & NASS

• Self- and proxy-reporting – Census & NASS
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 4

• 13% did not provide a detailed category

• 74% did not provide a write-in response

• More than 9/10 felt their response reflected their race/ethnicity “very well” or “somewhat well”

– White respondents most likely to say “not too well” or “not well at all” (9%)

Quantitative Reactions to Minimum and 

Detailed Categories (BLS)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 5

• Easy to use the detailed categories (Census, NCHS)

• Detailed response might depend on intent (Census, NCHS, NASS)

– Ancestry/Genealogy: 

 Ancestry vs. DNA (NCHS, NASS)

 Unsure how far back to go in genealogy/ancestry (Census, NCHS)

• Particularly an issue for White participants (Census)

 Potential false positives for AIAN among Hispanic/Spanish version (Census)

– Self-identification: Hard for proxy reporting (Census)

– Administrative: Why does government need to know details? (Census, NASS)

Qualitative Reactions to Minimum and Detailed 

Categories (Census, NCHS, NASS)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 6

• Hispanic respondents answered easily, most selected only Hispanic (NCHS)

– White subcategories focusing on European ancestry may have influenced that decision

– More research needed on Afro-Latino/a behaviors 

• MENA category is appreciated (Census, NCHS)

– Some uncertainty about whether to also select White (Census, NCHS)

– Some may not see the MENA category on the list (NCHS)

• African American respondents do not catch that African American applies to descendants of 

enslaved, and thus feel the categories may be insensitive (NCHS)

Qualitative Reactions to Minimum and Detailed 

Categories, continued
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 7

• People are not paying close attention to the question stem wording (NCHS)

• Data distribution is not affected by question stem wording (BLS)

• Race “and/or” ethnicity is preferred, cueing for additional details “beyond the obvious” (NASS, 

Census)

• Spanish generally worked fine (Census)

Modifications to Question Stem 

(“or” vs. “and/or”)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 8

• No significant difference in # of broad or detailed categories selected between “select all” and 

“select all AND add additional details” (BLS)

• Question instructions do not impact responses or understanding (BLS, CENSUS)

• Regardless of instruction wording, some overlooked the instructions altogether (NASS, NCHS)

• Enumerators prefer the shorter instructions but participants prefer the longer version to 

encourage inclusivity (NASS)

Modification to Question Instructions 

(“Select all” vs. “Select all AND add details”)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 9

• SAQ: Failure to check a main category, failure to write in categories if not listed (NCHS, NASS)

• CAI: Clunky to read, often need to repeat sub-categories (NCHS)

• CAI: Respondents often interrupt enumerator with their answer (NASS)

Mode of Administration (NCHS, NASS)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 10

• Related: Most had no difficulties (Census, NASS)

– A few had challenges for spouses or children, not knowing or having never discussed how that 

person identifies, or not providing detail for their children (Census, English and Spanish)

• Unrelated: Several had difficulties, not knowing the detailed categories (Census)

Self- and Proxy-Reporting (Census, NASS)
ssrs.com | @ssrs_research | 11

• NR on detailed categories

• Hispanic race measurement

• MENA category

• Impact on White population

• Wording matters

• Reduce burden for enumerators

My Takeaways
Thank you!

Questions?