Exploring Underreporting and Respondent Records Usage in 

the Consumer Expenditure Survey 

 

 

Neil Tseng 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Tseng.neil@bls.gov

 

Janel Brattland 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Brattland.janel@bls.gov

 

Jeanette Davis 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Davis.jeanette@bls.gov

 

Emily Geisen 

RTI International 

egeisen@rti.org

 

Brandon Kopp 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Kopp.brandon@bls.gov

 

M Christopher Stringer 

Bureau of Census 

m.christopher.stringer@census.gov

 
Introduction 

The U.S. Consumer Expenditure Quarterly Interview Survey (CEQ) is a monthly survey developed to 

capture continuous information about the buying habits of American consumers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

conducts the CEQ on behalf of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The CEQ is a long, complex 

survey that presents a number of challenges for both the interviewer and respondent. As a result, BLS and

the Census Bureau were concerned that the CEQ might be subject to various forms of measurement error. 

These forms of measurement error include underreporting attributed to recall error, panel conditioning, and 

respondent fatigue. The Census Bureau and BLS are interested in improving data quality on the CEQ by 

exploring the magnitude, direction, and patterns of measurement errors, as well as investigating the use of 

respondent records and having respondents refer to external sources such as bills and receipts to reduce

error. The specific objectives are outlined below: 

1. Evaluate the availability and feasibility of respondent records. Do respondents have 

records for the types of expenditures asked about in the CEQ? How well do these records 

match the information requested in the CEQ? 

2. Measure the direction and magnitude of measurement error. How accurate is the 

information provided by respondents without the use of records? How much do respondents 

over- or underreport expenses? How much do respondents over- or underestimate the amount 

of expenses? 

3. Understand respondents’ interview experience. What is the respondent’s perception of the 

CEQ interview with respect to burden, difficulty, perceived accuracy, and reaction to 

materials? How do the respondents’ experiences affect data quality? 

Methodology 

The Census Bureau contracted with RTI International and Avar Consulting, Inc. to conduct the Consumer 

Expenditure Records (CE Records) study to explore these objectives. The RTI team conducted interviews 

in a non-probability sample with 115 participants who varied with respect to several demographic 

characteristics: education level, employment status, age, household size, and household income. 

Participants were recruited via flyers and online posts in two metropolitan areas: Raleigh-Durham, North

Carolina, and Washington, DC. Each participant completed two interviews within a four- to seven-day 

period. 

In the first interview of the study, participants completed nine sections of the standard CEQ instrument and 

answered a short set of debriefing questions about their experience with the CEQ. After this first interview, 

participants were asked to collect records (e.g., receipts, bank statements, credit card bills) for the 

expenditures asked about during the interview, to be used in the second interview. The second interview,

conducted four to seven days after the first interview, used a semi-structured interview format that focused 

on matching the self-reported expenditures from the first interview with records provided by the 

participants. 

All interviews were conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) in the participants’

homes. Participants were compensated $40 for completing the first interview and $60 for completing the 

second interview. 
Results 

The 115 participants who participated in the CE Records study reported a total of 3,039 expenditures and 

241 income items in the first interview of this study. The availability of records and the accuracy of 

participant reports are summarized by section and overall in Table 1. The various factors affecting the

availability of records and accuracy of records are provided as well. 

Percent of Expenditures with Records. 

This is the percent of expenditures reported in first study interview that had a record. To be considered a 

record, an amount for the expenditure had to be included on the record. Self-produced documentation, such 

as spreadsheets or handwritten notes, were considered to be records, provided they included an amount.. 

Matching Reports. 

This is the percent of reports in the first interview of this study that matched the participant records. A 

match was determined as follows: 

The amount on the record / the amount reported in first interview of this study. 

For amounts over $200, a match was when the record was between 95% and 105% of the reported value. 

For amounts that were $200 or less, a match was when the record was between 90% and 110% of the 

reported value. For Sections 2 (Rent), 3 (Mortgages/Loans), and 22 (Income), a 95% to 105% match rate 

was used for all items, regardless of cost. In each section, it only includes expenditures for which an 

amount was reported in first interview of this study.

Table 1. Summary of Findings by Section 

Section 

Percent with Records 

Factors Positively 

Associated with Having 

Records 

Percent Matching 

Factors Positively 

Associated with Matching 

Reports 

2. Rent 28% Older, recent1, DC276% Women, DC, working 

3a. Property Tax 59% Non-Hispanic (NH3) white 65% - 

3bc. Mortgage/loans 59% NH white, married, younger, 

smaller CUs4 69% Higher income, women 

 

1

 The closer in time it was to the purchase the more likely they were to have a record for it. 

2

Refers to respondents who reside in the District of Columbia. 

3

 As defined by the US Bureau of Census, individuals who are of the White race and are not of Hispanic or Latino 

origin/ethnicity. 

4 A consumer unit comprises either: (1) all members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, 

adoption, or other legal arrangements; (2) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer 

in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially

independent; or (3) two or more persons living together who use their income to make joint expenditure decisions. 

Financial independence is determined by the three major expense categories: Housing, food, and other living expenses. 
Section 

Percent with Records 

Factors Positively 

Associated with Having 

Records 

Percent Matching 

Factors Positively 

Associated with Matching 

Reports 

4a. Phone lines 32% Recent, DC, married, 

residential 61% Women 

4b. Phone, other 20% - 75% - 

4c. Internet Service 57%

NH white, married, high 

income, owners5, larger items, 

same expense each month 

66% Larger items 

4d. Utilities 37% Women, owners, recent 36%

NH white, lower income, 

lower education, working, 

recent 

6a. Major appliances 24% - 80% - 

6b. Minor appliances 24% NH white 62% Not married 

8a. Home furnishings 25% Not working, DC, larger 

items, recent 52% Owners, low income 

8b. Furniture repair 0% - NA - 

9ab. Clothing 40% Recent 45% Non-white, DC, older, 

larger CU, Coats/suits 

9cd. Services / Sewing 16% - 50% - 

14. Health insurance 44% Recent, NH white, married 59% - 

17. Subscriptions 53% Larger items 61% Not married, renters 

19. Miscellaneous 31% Owners, not married, DC, 

type of item (larger items) 63% High income, men, type of 

item 

Overall Expenditures 36% NH white, women, DC, 

home owners, recent, cost 53% Not working, married 

22a. Gross Income 43% NH white, other CU members 50% - 

22b. Last Pay 40% NH white, renters, younger 45% - 

Overall Income 41% NH white, not married, DC, 

larger CUs 48% Working 

Conclusions and Discussion 

1. Availability and Feasibility of Records 

Overall, records were provided for only 36% of all items reported in first interview of this study. There

were four primary factors affecting the availability of participant records: 

1. Demographic characteristics. Several demographic characteristics were consistently 

associated with the availability of participants’ records across the different sections of the 

CEQ. While not observed for every type of purchase asked about in the CEQ, in general, 

 

To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major expense categories have to be provided 

entirely, or in part, by the respondent.

5

Refers to homeowners.
participants who were non-Hispanic white, from the Washington, DC area (as opposed to 

Raleigh-Durham, NC), married, and home owners were more likely to have records. 

Other demographic variables emerged for some types of expenditures but overall the 

aforementioned demographic characteristics were most strongly associated with having 

records. 

2. Date or frequency of purchase. With respect to when the item was purchased, two 

patterns emerged. In some sections, participants were more likely to have records for 

items that were purchased on a regular basis and more likely to have records for items 

purchased in recent months. 

3. Significance of the item. The likelihood of having a record was associated with the cost 

of the item for several sections. Participants were more likely to have records for more 

expensive items. When participants did not have records for a given item, they frequently 

explained that they do not keep records for items that are insignificant, such as items that 

were inexpensive or that they were not planning to return. 

4. Online records. There is some evidence that participants considered records or receipts 

to be largely hard copy documents of a purchase, rather than electronic documentation of 

purchased and payments. A common reason cited by participants for not having a record 

was that the record was online. In many cases participants were unwilling or unable to 

print out online records. 

When records were provided, the quality of the records tended to be high. Only 8% of all records were 

inaccurate and thus inappropriate for use. Furthermore, most records included the date of the item, although 

service period dates, for certain items, were much more limited. The majority of participants and Field

Representatives (FRs) found it easy to map the records to the expenditures reported in first interview of this 

study. 

2. Direction and Magnitude of Measurement Error 

For the CE Records study, we considered a reported amount for an item to match the record if the record 

was within 10% of the costs of the report for items that cost $200 or less or within 5% of the report for 

items that cost $200 or more. For sections where the majority of items were over $200 (Sections 2, 3, and 

22), we used the 5% range for all items regardless of cost. For the 939 items reported in first interview of 

this study where a corresponding record was provided in Interview 2, the reported amount matched the 

record for just over half of the items (53%) with a range of 36% to 80%, depending on the section of the 

interview. 

Over/ Under Estimating 

Although the overall rate of matching within the 5-10% criteria window established was low, for 30% of 

the items reported, participants’ reports matched the record exactly. With regards to the distribution of 

report values, participants’ underestimated costs for 37% of items reported and overestimated costs for the 

remaining 33% of the items. On average, participants misreported the amount of items they purchased by 

36%. There were not any factors that were consistently associated with under- or overestimating the cost of 

items. 

 

 
Over/ Under Reporting 

Compared to under- or overestimating the cost of items, under- and over-reporting of items themselves was 

less common. There were 81 items (3%) that were identified as underreports (expenditures not reported in 

first interview of this study but subsequently reported in Interview 2) and 34 items (1%) that were 

identified as over-reports (expenditures erroneously reported in first interview of this study), compared to 

the 3,039 items (96%) correctly reported. 

3. Understanding Respondents’ Interview Experience 

Overall, participants thought the first interview of this study was easy to complete. An overwhelming 

majority (95%) of participants said that the length of first interview of this study, which averaged 60 

minutes for the CE Records study, was just about right. Despite the fact that almost half of participants said 

they either sometimes, often, or always guessed the cost of their expenses, most participants felt that their 

responses were accurate. Based on these figures, participants seem to be very confident in their ability to 

accurately guess the amount of their expenses. However, as we found by examining participants’ records, 

oftentimes they were not nearly as accurate as they thought. In fact, ―I guessed or estimated‖ was the most 

common response, given for approximately 40% of the reports that did not match. Perceived accuracy of 

response was slightly associated with the actual accuracy of response—those who were more confident 

about their responses tended to have more accurate reports than those who were not confident. However, 

participants who said they were ―extremely certain‖ about the accuracy of their answers in the CEQ 

provided matching reports for only 63% of their reports. 

Participants reacted favorably to the study materials, with 88% of participants using the CE information

booklet and 92% of those participants finding it useful. Of the participants who received the advance letter, 

95% said that they read it and only 9% of those participants found the letter to be unclear or confusing. 

Study Limitations 

The CE Records study was an exploratory research study involving a non-probability sample of 115 

participants. Therefore the results of this study may not be generalized to the full CEQ respondent 

population. Participants actively volunteered to participate in this study by responding to online and

newspaper advertisements and posted flyers and received $100 for taking part in this study. Typical CEQ

respondents, on the hand, do not receive any incentives. As a result, participants in this study may be more 

willing than the average CEQ participant to take the time to collect receipts and records. If this is true, then 

the availability of records may be upwardly biased in this analysis. 

The small sample size is also a limitation. All statistical analyses were performed with a small sample sizes 

and should be considered carefully before drawing conclusions. The use of a liberal criterion for statistical 

significance (p < .10) due to the small sample size may have resulted in detecting a difference even when 

no difference truly exists. In addition, in some cases we were not able to adjust for the clustering of 
expenditures within individuals because of the small sample sizes. This may have resulted in smaller 

standard errors, possibly leading to inappropriately detecting a difference even when one does not exist.

Participants were from only two geographic areas – Raleigh-Durham, NC and the Washington, DC area – 

therefore the results may not generalize to the nation in terms of the number and types of expenditures

incurred. In addition, this study used an abridged version of the CEQ instrument. It is unclear what the 

effect would have been if the entire CEQ instrument was used. 

Furthermore, records were provided for only 36% of items that were reported in first interview of this 

study. This is no way of knowing if the accuracy of the reports where records were provided is similar to 

the accuracy of reports when records are not provided. Further, it is unclear whether the results from this 

analysis generalize to other parts of the CEQ that were not included in this study.