PROCEDURAL EFFECTS IN THE COLLECTION OF CONSUMER EXPENDITURE INFORMATION 

Clyde Tucker, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Claudette Bennett, Census Bureau 

Clyde Tucker, 600 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20212 

1. Introduction 

Diaries have been used extensively to collect 

data in fields as diverse as transportation and health 

(Roghman and Haggerty, 1972; Thompson, et. al., 1977; 

Harkins, 1979; Verbrugge, 1980). Diaries also have 

been an important source of information on consumer 

spending (Pearl and Levine, 1971; Flueck, Waksberg and 

Kaitz, 1971). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in 

conjunction with the Bureau of th� Census, co�ducted a 

consumer expenditure survey th�t included a dia:y

. during 1972 and 1973 in the United States. A similar 

survey has been ongoing in the U.S. since 1980: Much research has been devoted to the topic of 

consumer expenditure diary methodology. Several 

studies have compared the differences in the estimates 

from personal interviews involving recall and those 

from diaries (See Neter, 1970; Neter and Waksberg, 

1965; Stanton and Tucci, 1982.). Variations in diary 

procedures also have been examined (Kemsley and 

Nicholson 1960; Sudman and Ferber, 1971; Grootaert, 

1986). The study reported here continues in the 

tradition of those which have examined variations in 

diary methodology. In 1985, the BLS and the Census 

Bureau conducted a field test of several methods for 

collecting consumer expenditure information using a 

diary. These methods differed with respect to the 

level of structure in the diary and the prior survey 

experience of the interviewer. Almost four thousand 

consumer units were included in the experiment. 

Although survey procedures can have dramatic 

effects on response quality, these effects often are 

complicated and, thus, not easily measured. This 

problem is dealt with in this instance by examining 

the effects from a variety of perspectives, including 

both the level and the distribution ot expenditure 

reports for the different commodities, and the amount 

of interviewer and respondent burden. Measurements 

are made which require the use of a number of 

statistical techniques such as analysis of variance 

and contingency table analysis. 

2. The Consumer Expenditure Diary Survey 

The Consumer Expenditure (CE) Diary Survey is

conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the BLS and 

provides, along with the CE Quarterly Intervi�w 

survey, the information needed to construct the cost 

weights for the Consumer Price Index. The data

.

also 

are used for economic analysis. Although the diary 

was designed to collect all daily expenditures made 

within the primary sampling unit (PSU) (or locally) 

over a two-week period, it is especially effective for 

gathering information about small, frequently 

purchased items which are normally difficult to recall 

over an extended period. These expenditures include 

grocery items, meals eaten out, household supplies and 

personal care products and services. In addition to 

the expenditures, data also are collected on the 

income, work experience and demographic 

characteristics of family members using·a household 

characteristics questionnaire. 

The unit of analysis in the CE Diary, and the 

level at which most data are collected, is the 

consumer unit (CU). A CU is defined as one of the 

following: (1) the collection of all members of a 

household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption 

or other legal arrangement; (2) a person living alone 

or sharing a household with others or living as a 

roomer in a pri-vate home or lodging house or in a 

permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who 

is financially independent; or (3) two or more persons 

who live together and pool their incomes to make joint 

expenditure decisions. To be considered financially 

independent, at least two of the three major expense 

categories (housing, food and other living expenses) 

have to be provided by the respondent. 

3. Research Design 

Previous research on the Consumer Expenditure 

Diary Survey has shown that a number of factors 

influence the response (Tucker 1985, 1986, 1987). 

Respondent (or consumer unit) characteristics, in 

combination with environmental circumstances and the 

intervening survey procedures (including interviewer 

characteristics), affect both the respondent's 

256 

attitudes toward the survey and his or her recordkeeping behaviors. The attitudes and record-keeping 

behaviors are collateral in that they occur at 

approximately the same time. Attitudes are not 

responsible for the outcome of the survey process; the 

record-keeping behaviors are. Attitudes and recordkeeping behaviors will coincide in many cases, but the 

research cited above has shown that this is not always 

true. 

The analysis of the CE Diary Survey process up to 

this point has focused on the contributions of 

respondent and environmental characteristics in the 

shaping of the response. Survey procedures have been 

ignored for two reasons. In the first place, the 

survey forms have been the same for all respondents. 

Secondly, although there undoubtedly are differences 

in the ways in which the survey is administered, these 

differences have not been measured. The purpose of 

the Diary Operational Test is the evaluation of the 

effectiveness of different survey procedures, but 

these procedural effects must be considered in light 

of the other causal variables. 

The effects of two procedural variables are 

examined in a design which uses data from both a 

special research sample and the regular diary sample 

to make comparisons. One variable measures the effect 

of the current practice of having the diary and the 

more extensive CE Quarterly Interview done by the same 

interviewers. Since the quarterly survey involves so 

much more of the interviewer's time than the diary 

(both in terms of length and number of respondents), 

it is suspected that less emphasis has been placed by 

the interviewers on the quality of data gathered with 

the diary. To evaluate the extent to which this is 

true, two interviewer conditions have been used. In 

the regular sample, interviewers continued to conduct 

both surveys. In the research sample, interviewers, 

new to CE, worked only on the diary. 

The other procedural variable concerns the 

physical layout of the diary. Research on item 

reporting rates from both the 1972/73 and 1980/81 

diaries indicates that explicit references to 

particular products in the diary increase the 

likelihood that these items will be reported, 

especially if the reporting rates are low to begin 

with (Jacobs, 1983 and Tucker, 1984). To evaluate 

diary formats which provide more explicit instructions 

as to the commodities to be reported, two experimental 

diaries were developed. 

What distinguishes the two experimental diaries 

from one another is the specificity of the item 

descriptions within each section. In experimental 

diary A, the non-specific diary, only blank lines for 

recording purchases are provided under each of the 

section headings, just like the current diary; but, in 

contrast to the latter, the section headings contain 

more complete descriptions of the items to be 

reported. Experimental diary B, the specific diary, 

has only category titles; however, the lines beneath 

each heading have specific items printed on them. 

Respondents need only check whether an item was 

purchased and record the price. 

In addition to the two experimental diaries, the 

current diary is used as a control. These three 

diaries were administered at random to consumer units 

in the research sample, and the interviewers in this 

sample did not work on the quarterly survey. The 

fourth cell contains the on-going "production" diary 

where interviewers, experienced with CE, conducted 

both surveys. 

Two other features of this experiment need to be 

mentioned. The first is that an additional section 

was added to the household characteristics 

questionnaire in order to assess the respondent's 

attitudes toward the diary and his or her recordkeeping behavior at the end of the two weeks. The 

interviewer also records his or her impressions of the 

respondent's performance. The other feature is a new 

method of collecting recalled expenditures. 

Currently, the interviewer records these expenditures 

directly into the diary using unscripted procedures 

and also asks a series of follow-up questions called 

diary check items about specific commodities which the 

respondent may have forgotten to report. The new 

procedures, used with the two experimental diaries, 

involves a scripted recall section contained in the 

household characteristics, 

questionnaire. 
To examine the effect of interviewer experience, 

the control diary is compared to the production. The 

format effect is measured by differences between the 

three research cells. The production is not compared 

directly to the experimental diaries , but effects can 

be inferred assuming no interaction between treatment 

conditions. 

The research sample used in the Diary Operational 

Test was a retired Current Population Survey (CPS) 

sample from 1979. Households in this sample had not 

been in the CPS since January or February of 1979. 

For the Diary Operational Test, 22 self-representing 

PSU's (large cities) were included, and 2586 CU's were 

surveyed. The CE production sample consisted of 

approximately 500 sample units per month over the 22 

PSU's. 

Weights were assigned to consumer units 

participating in either sample. These weights were a 

product of the probability of selection of the housing 

unit, a factor adjusting for subsampling in the field, 

and a noninterview adjustment. They were calculated 

monthly for diaries beginning within the month, and 

each week's interview was weighted separately. 

Variances which include design effect are calculated 

using 24 balanced, half-sample replicates in each data 

set. 

4. The Analytical Design 

4.1 The Dependent Variables 

As mentioned previously, several 

measurements are taken in order to evaluate the 

results of the test from a variety of 

perspectives. Most of these dependent or outcome 

variables measure respondent performance. To 

facilitate comparisons between the diaries using 

these variables, commodities are grouped into 

categories referred to as "expenditure classes." 

All possible expenditure classes are not 

considered because the experimental diaries were 

not designed to collect information on all 

commodities. A list of the expenditure classes 

by general catagory included in the analysis are 

found in Table I. These are the classes for 

which respondents were asked to report 

expenditures in the specific diary. 

One group of performance variables provide 

information about the level of expenditure 

reporting in each of the four diaries. The most 

important of these are the mean weekly 

expenditure for each expenditure class and the 

percentage of weekly diaries reporting the 

purchase of at least one item from the class. 

Also measuring level of reporting is the 

number of reports in a class. This variable is 

of limited utility because each line of the 

specific diary, unlike a line in the other 

diaries, can represent the total expenditure for 

several items2 but, at least, the other diaries 

can be compared using this variable. 

Both noninterview and refusal rates are other 

measures of response quality. Refusal rate is a 

subset of the noninterview rate. 

Another measure of response quality is a 

respondent typology (Tucker, 1986) which combines 

indicators of the respondent's attitudes toward 

the diary and his or her record-keeping behavior. 

This measure also takes into account the 

interviewer's opinion of the respondent's 

performance. These data came from the Diary 

Assessment section of the Household 

Characteristics Questionnaire. 

Attitude and behavior scales are formed and 

then collapsed into dichotomies and crosstabulated. A respondent style typology (ATTBEH) 

based on their relationship is developed. The 

first category of this typology, "resisters," is 

composed of respondents with both unfavorable 

attitudes and undesirable record-keeping 

behavior. On the other extreme, in category 

four, are the "accommodaters" who have both 

positive attitudes and behavior. Category two 

("misleaders") is made up of respondents who 

exhibit positive attitudes, but their behaviors 

do not coincide with these attitudes. 

Respondents in category three have desirable 

behavior but unfavorable attitudes and are called 

"complainers." 

Two other variables which have to do with 

respondent performance are examined for all four 

diaries. The first is a measure of the decline 

in reporting which takes place during a diary 

week, and the other compares the amount of 

Table I. Expenditure Classes Include in the 

Analysis 

I. Food at Home 

a. Flour, cereal and other grain products 

b. Bakery products 

c. Beef 

d. Poultry 

e. Pork 

f. Other meats 

g. Fish and seafood 

h. Eggs 

i. Dairy products 

j. Fruits and fruit juices 

k. Vegetables and vegetable juices 

i. Sugar, sugar substitutes and sweets 

m. Fats, oils and dressings 

n. Nonalcoholic beverages 

o. Miscellaneous food at home 

p. Combined food and nonalcoholic beverages 

at home 

II. Food Away From Home 

a. Breakfast/brunch 

b. Lunch 

c. Dinner 

d. Snacks and nonalcoholic beverages 

e. Combined food and nonalcoholic beverages 

away from home 

IV. 

V. 

III. Alcoholic Beverages at Home. 

Alcoholic Beverages Away From Home 

Nonfood Items 

a. Tobacco products and smoking supplies 

b. Personal care products and services 

c. Housekeeping supplies 

d. Gasoline, motor oil and additives 

e. Nonprescription drugs and medical supplies 

f. Other nonfood items 

reporting in the first week to that in the 

second. The measure of decline within a diary 

week is called first-day bias which compares the 

mean expenditure for the first day of the week to 

the average daily expenditure for that week. 

This is done only at the general category level 

for respondents who completed both diaries. 

Recalled expenditures are eliminated from the 

calculations. Expenditures from the diary check 

items also are excluded. The measure of decline 

from first week to second week, first-week bias, 

also is computed on respondents with two diaries 

after eliminating recalled expenditures. Thus, 

both measures of decline are calculated on the 

same subsets of respondents so that they can be 

used in conjunction with one another to arrive at 

conclusions. It is hypothesized that the 

experimental diaries will exhibit less decline. 

For the two experimental diaries, the 

proportion of expenditures obtained through 

recall is investigated. The assumption is that 

the more data recalled, the less the respondent 

took the time to record. This may not be a valid 

assumption, so, in addition, the value of the 

expenditures recorded in the diary itself must be 

considered. Thus, the means for recalled 

expenditures at the general category level are 

compared to the same means from the diary 

reports. 

As already stated, one of the primary 

reasons for collecting the CE data is the 

development of the cost weight or relative 

importance (i.e., proportion) of each commodity 

group in the average consumer's budget for use in 

the Consumer Price Index. Relative importances 

are calculated for the expenditure classes listed 

in Table 1 from data produced in each of the 

treatment conditions, and the distributions are 

compared. The differences of greatest interest 

are those between the production distribution and 

the other three. If one of the experimental 

diaries is chosen, it will be important to know 

how this decision would affect the CPI. 

Another set of outcome variables measures 

the interviewers' assessments of the different 

diary formats along several dimensions, including 

interviewer and respondent burden and the 

257 
accuracy of reports. These assessments are 

examined with respect to interviewer experience. 

The data were collected with a debriefing 

questionnaire at the end of the test. 

Although the variances of the expenditure 

estimates across the conditions are expected to 

be similar, they, nevertheless, are compared at 

the expenditure class level to establish the 

differences in precision from one diary to 

another. However, because the design of the 

production survey is different from the design 

for the research cells, no attempt is made to 

compare the production to the control. 

4.2 The Independent Variables 

The design variables are, of course, the 

focus of this study, but their effects must be 

evaluated in conjunction with the other 

independent variables (respondent and 

environmental characteristics). At present, 

these other independent variables are limited to 

those studied in previous analyses of data 

quality in the diary (Tucker, 1985, 1986, 1987, 

1988). These variables are presented in Table 2. 

Table 2. 

Characteristics 

Age of Refernce 

Person 

Under 25 10.8 

25 - 44 43.3 

45 - 64 28.8 

65+ 17.1 

Education of Reference Person 

Less than H.S. 21.9 

High School 30.4 

Post High School 47.7 

Ethnicity of Reference Person 

Other 81.3 

Black or Hispanic 18.7 

Composition of CU 

Husband/Wife 53.0 

Single Parent/ 36.4 

Single 

Other 10.6 

Degree of Urbanization 

Central City 37.0 

Other in SMSA 63.0 

Region 

Northeast 14.1 

North Central 36.0 

South 21.1 

West 28.8 

CU Tenure 

Owner 57.5 

NonOwner 42.5 

Weighted Weekly 2014.0 

Diaries 

Distributions for Selected Consumer 

Unit Characteristics by Diary 

Prod Cntl Nonsp S_~ 

% % % _~% 

9.4 6.8 6.9 

44.5 48.9 44.4 

28.5 27.5 29.3 

17.6 16.8 19.4 

22.4 22.9 25.9 

29.6 28.4 29.8 

48.0 48.7 44.3 

81.4 80.7 81.1 

18.6 19.3 18.9 

52.3 54.0 52.0 

37.9 33.2 36.9 

9.8 12.8 Ii.i 

34.1 36.4 35.8 

65.9 63.6 64.2 

17.0 16.0 15.1 

34.9 34.8 34.6 

20.7 22.0 21.8 

27.4 27.2 28.5 

57.7 57.4 58.2 

42.3 42,6 41.8 

1830.0" 1802.0 1761.0 

4.3 Statistical Methodology 

Given the number of dependent and 

independent variables measured at different 

levels of precision, a variety of statistical 

techniques are needed. The T z statistic (Johnson 

and Wichern, 1982, Ch. 6) is used to evaluate, at 

both the population and subpopulation levels, the 

overall differences between the diaries with 

respect to the vectors of the means for 

expenditures and number of reports, the percents 

reporting, and the relative importances. With 

this statistic, a simultaneous test of the values 

for all expenditure classes can be made so that 

the type-one error rate is held constant. The 

differences between treatments are calculated 

separately, and the sample from each diary is 

assumed to be independent of the other samples. 

Furthermore, the variance-covariance matrices are 

assumed to be equal across treatments. Thus, a 

pooled estimate of the variance-covariance matrix 

for treatment differences calculated from the 

replicates is employed to test the equality of 

the vectors. 

T 2 is computed as follows: 

1 ~- ~, is (I) T2 = (~1 - ~2)'" [Spooled]- ~Xl - ~2~:] 

and T 2 /[(nl + n2 ),p / (nl + p + 

distributed as Fp, (nl + n2 - p + i) where p is 

the number of elements in the vectors ~I and 22 " 

This number of elements is either 29 or 5 for the 

means and percents reporting depending on whether 

the expenditure classes or general expenditure 

categories are being considered. In the case of 

relative importances, the numbers are 28 and 4 

because the last element i~ a linear combination 

of the others. If T 2 is significant (a two-tail 

test with ~/2=.05) for a particular treatment 

comparison, simultaneous confidence intervals for 

the differences between pairs of elements are 

established as follows: 

- ~~ 

where ~ contains a 1 for the particular 

category comparison and the rest O's. The same 

procedures as above are followed for calculating 

first-day/first-week bias and the proportion of 

expenditures collected from recall. In these 

cases, the five general categories of 

expenditures are examined and then only for mean 

expenditures. 

The comparison of variances based on a 

direct computation of the variance of the 

variances is not feasible given that the sample 

sizes in the replicates are already fairly small. 

A further subdivision might destroy their 

integrity and would be both time consuming and 

tedious. Therefore, the variances of the mean 

expenditures in the three research cells are 

compared using an F-test. 

The refusal and noninterviews rates are 

compared using a difference of sample proportions 

test which assumes simple random sampling. To 

account for the design effects ~ is set at .01. 

The rates also are compared by region and degree 

of urbanization -- the only demographic variables 

certain to be present for the noninterviews. 

Monthly and quarterly rates are examined in 

addition to the ones based on the entire survey 

period. 

The respondent typology is developed for 

each of the research cells, and these typologies 

are compared simultaneously at the .05 level 

using a log-linear model. The respondent 

typology is the dependent variable, and the 

different diaries are the categories of the 

independent variable. Interactions between this 

independent variable and the various demographic 

variables also are considered. To 

carry out this analysis, CPLX is used (Fay, 1983 

and 1985). 

Selected results from the interviewer 

debriefing questionnaire are analyzed with the 

aid of contingency tables or frequency 

distributions. No assumptions are made about the 

distribution of interviewers, and no significance 

testing is done. 

5. The Analysis of the Performance Measures 

5.1 Mean Expenditures 

Although the T 2 statistics show significant 

differences between the vectors of the 29 expenditure 

means for all of the treatment comparisons, there are 

no significant differences when contrasting the 

individual expenditure classes. This is consistent 

given that the T L statistic considers all possible 

linear contrasts and not just those involving one 

class at a time. The differences between the five 

broad expenditure categories, like the 29 classes, are 

computed directly using the replicate structure, and 

the T ~ statistics for these tests are also 

significant. The expenditures for these categories are 

presented in Table 3. 

258 
Table 3. Weekly Mean Expenditures 

P_mduction ~ 5!9_n~pegifi~" S~cifi¢ 

Food $37.92 $34.69 $40.71 $41.57 

at Home 

Food 23.19 20.98 19.51 21.10 

Away from Home 

Alcoholic 3.65 3.52 3.03 3.47 

Beverages 

at Home 

Alcoholic 2.49 2.41 1.43 2.12 

Beverages 

Away from Home 

Nonfood Items 38.62 34.53 31.72 39.61 

Unlike the smaller expenditure classes, 

significant differences are found between the 

individual general categories in some treatment 

comparisons. In particular,both of the experimental 

diaries have significantly larger expenditures in 

"Food at Home" than does the control diary. Also, the 

expenditure class differences within this general 

category, while not significant, are consistently in 

favor of the experimental diaries. Expenditure means 

also are different for the general category of 

"Nonfood Items." The control and nonspecific diaries 

are relatively comparable, but the specific out 

performs each of them. Except for the nonfood 

category, differences between the specific and 

nonspecific are usually small and somewhat 

inconsistent. 

These results make sense given the formats of the 

three diaries. Both the specific and nonspecific 

diaries provide a number of cues (compared to the 

control) in the "Food at Home" sections, even if they 

are more. general in the nonspecific than the specific. 

The "Food Away from Home" section, on the other hand, 

does not have as many additional cues. In the case of 

the "Nonfood Items" section, there are a large number 

of possible commodities, and better cuing for these 

items exists in the specific, compared to the other 

two diaries, especially with respect to personal care 

and housekeeping products and medical supplies. 

As for the comparison of the production to the 

control, no significant differences were found at 

either the expenditure class level or the general 

category level using a one-tail test where the control 

is considered the better diary under the alternative 

hypothesis. On the other hand, the direction of the 

differences consistently favors the production which 

is the opposite of what was expected. There are 

probably two reasons for this result. Although the 

condition to be tested was whether or not the 

interviewer worked on both surveys, the actual test 

was between experienced and inexperienced interviewers 

since all of the interviewers in the research cells 

were new to the CE survey. A second reason is that 

many of the respondents in the control cell, having 

already participated in the CPS, may have been less 

likely to be cooperative respondents in another 

government survey. The most conservative 

interpretation is that the interviewer condition made 

no difference. It is likely that the nonspecific and 

specific diaries would perform even better than they 

have using production interviewers and production 

samples. 

At the subpopulation level, significant effects 

again appear only at the general category level. 

Where these differences occur, they are always in the 

same direction as those for the population. A few of 

the subpopulation results are noteworthy. Young 

respondents may prefer the specific diary over the 

other two, but elderly respondents clearly have higher 

mean expenditures for "Food at Home" in the 

nonspecific compared to the control. There is little 

difference in these means for the elderly when the 

nonspecific and the specific are compared. Blacks and 

hispanics may be somewhat more inclined toward the 

specific diary. 

5.2 Percents Reporting and Number of Reports 

Table 4 gives the percents reporting at the 

general category level. Only the percent reporting 

difference between the control and nonspecific diaries 

for "Food at Home" is significant. It is true that 

the difference between the control and specific in 

this category is about the same as in the controlnonspecific comparison, and this difference probably 

would be significant if a less stringent test were 

used. In both cases, the directions of the 

differences between the expenditure classes in this 

category are consistent. 

The fact that there are no differences between 

the control diary and the two experimental diaries in 

the nonfood category is explained largely by the 

reports in the "Gasoline, Motor Oil and Additives" 

class. There is a special check item for both the 

control and production diaries asking respondents to 

recall any forgotten gasoline expenditures if none 

were reported in the diary. Differences between the 

production and control diaries, while not significant, 

generally favor theproduction. 

Table 4. Percents Reponing 

~oduction Control Nons~c~c S~cific 

Class 

Food 87.7% 83.3% 87.9°k • 87.4% 

at Home 

Food 78.1 73.5 72.2 70.6 

Away from Home 

Alcoholic 29.1 27.6 27.0 27.5 

Beverages 

at Home 

Alcoholic 23.3 24.3 17.8 21.1 

Beverages 

Away'from Home 

Nonfood Items 91.0 87.6 86.2 86.1 

At the subpopulation level, the overall tests for 

difference in percents reporting are, like the mean 

expenditures, less likely to be significant for 

comparisons of the production and control or the 

specific and the nonspecific. Very few differences 

are found, and those that do exist are only in the 

general categories. These differences are either in 

the same places and in the same directions as those 

for the total population (most commonly the difference 

between the control and nonspecific for "Food at 

Home") or in different locations than in the total 

population, but the differences are in the same 

direction. 

The only significant difference in number of 

reports is that favoring the nonspecific over the 

control in "Food at Home", which reinforces earlier 

findings. The means for the nonspecific are 

consistently greater than those for the control in the 

expenditure classes of this category. The differences 

between the production and control are inconsistent. 

As in the total population, the comparison of the 

nonspecific to the control at the subgroup level 

favors the nonspecific. The difference, however, is 

significant for only about half of the demographic 

subgroups. 

5.3 Noninterview and Refusal Rates 

Table 5 contains the information about the 

comparisons of noninterview and refusal rates for the 

entire survey period (May -October). Because a 

positive one-tail test has been performed on the 

differences between the production and control, no 

significant effects appear. Obviously, there are a 

number of important differences which favor the 

production diary. Given the previous findings, this 

was expected. 

In general, the control and nonspecific have 

similar noninterview rates. These rates are 40-50 

percent larger than the production rates. Although 

the rates for the specific are not significantly 

different from the control and the nonspecific, the 

rates for the specific may be a little higher than 

these other two. The specific rates are approximately 

60% higher than production. In most cases, 

259 
noninterview and refusal rates are higher in the 

central cities when compared to the outlying areas of 

the PSUs. When it comes to region, both the 

production and specific have the greatest non-response 

problems in the Northeast. The control diary has 

greater nonresponse in the South. 

One might have expected the nonintervlew rates to 

be high for the first month of interviewing, which 

they are, but the same is also true for production. 

The noninterview rates for the production and two 

experimental diaries seem to have a similar seasonal 

component. This seasonal component is not as evident 

for refusal rates. Part of the reason may be that the 

nonlnterview rate is more reliable because the 

classification of type of noninterview is not a 

factor. There is little variation in the rates from 

quarter to quarter in each diary. 

Table 5. 

Rate 

Noninterview and Refusal Rates 

Production C,.omtol Nonspecifi¢ Specific 

Nonintervie w 12.8~ 19.2% 17.6% 20.4% 

Refusal 9.7 13.1 12.9 15.1 

5.4 Relative Importances 

Turning to Table 6, differences between the 

relative importances from the production and control 

are, as expected, practically nonexistent. There are, 

however, a number of differences between the control 

and the two experimental diaries. Differences also 

exist between the two experimental diaries themselves. 

The largest differences are between the control 

and the nonspecific. The relative importance of "Food 

at Home" expenditures in the nonspecific is over six 

percentage points greater than that in the control, 

and the direction of this difference holds for all 

classes in this category. The opposite is true for 

the relative importances of "Alcoholic Beverages Away 

from Home" and "Nonfood Items". Together, these two 

categories have a greater relative importance of four 

percentage points in the control. In the comparison 

of the control and specific, the specific has a higher 

weight for "Food at Home" and a correspondingly lower 

one for "Food Away from Home". As for the differences 

between the specific and nonspecific, the relative 

importance for "Food at Home" is almost four points 

lower in the specific when compared to the 

nonspecific. The opposite is the case for "Nonfood 

Items". Analysis of relative importance at the 

subpopulation levels indicates that significant 

differences are found only at the general category 

level. Most of these differences are the same as 

those in the total population level. 

Table 6. Relative Importance 

Production Comm] JNom.~rdfi.¢ 

Food .358 .361 .422 .385 

at Home 

Food .219 .218 .202 . 196 

Away from Home 

Alcoholic .034 .037 .031 .032 

Beverages 

at Home 

Alcoholic .024 .025 .015 .020 

Beverages 

Away from Home 

Nonfood Items .365 .359 .329 .367 

5.5 Other Measures 

It has been hypothesized that the production and 

control diaries would display more first-day and 

first-week bias than the two experimental diaries. 

This was based on the belief that large biases 

indicate poor data quality resulting from a decline in 

reporting over time, and it was felt that the 

experimental diaries would limit this decline. 

As it turns out, the results are conflicting. 

First of all, the better diary in each treatment 

comparison based on the measures previously analyzed 

is the one with the greater first-day bias. The 

picture is quite different for first-week bias, 

especially in the case of the specific diary. There 

are no large differences as in first-day bias, but the 

signs of the differences involving the specific tend 

to be reversed from those for first-day bias. Thus, 

the specific has greater first-day bias but less 

first-week bias. 

These results provide information for advancing a 

new theory of bias. Previous work on the diary 

(Tucker, 1985, 1986, 1987) suggested that the best 

respondents report about the same amount of 

expenditures in each of the diary weeks; however, no 

examination of first-day bias was done. It seems 

quite plausible that the best diary (and, therefore, 

the one with the best respondents) encourages good 

reporting at the beginning of each week, but there is 

an inevitable decline. Other diaries (or respondents) 

do not even have this high level of reporting at the 

beginning of the week. Thus, the specific diary, 

overall, has the highest mean expenditures when 

compared to the control and nonspecific. Because the 

numbers of cases are small, a demographic analysis has 

not been undertaken at this time. 

In the comparisons of the recall expenditure 

proportions from the nonspecific and specific diaries, 

the T ~ statistic indicates a significant relationship 

in at least one contrast, but none of the comparisons 

of the individual category proportions are significant 

at the .05 level. Although a less stringent test 

would find differences, the interpretation of these 

differences in terms of data quality would be 

difficult. Earlier it was hypothesized that large 

proportions of expenditures coming from the recall 

section would reflect negatively on the ability of the 

particular diary format to encourage respondents to 

record expenditures during the week. To be sure that 

this was the case, however, the means of expenditures 

just from the diary had to be taken into account. As 

it turns out, not only are the differences in both 

directions, but the largest difference, that for 

"Alcoholic Beverages at Home," occurs when the larger 

diary mean is accompanied by the larger proportion of 

expenditures coming from recall. 

Generally speaking, the proportions for "Food Away 

From Home" and "Alcoholic Beverages Away From Home" 

are the largest ones at the subpopulation level. 

"Alcoholic Beverages at Home" often has a large value 

in the specific diary. It stands to reason that items 

consumed away from home are less likely to be recorded 

in the diary, especially if purchased in the last day 

or so of the diary week. Furthermore, the person 

keeping the diary often will not know about these 

expenditures when made by other CU members. They may 

only be recalled when the interviewer returns to pick 

up the diary. The recall proportions for these 

expenditures are particularly large for subgroups that 

have a large amount of their expenditures in these 

categories-- young and single respondents. 

Comparisons of the variances from the research 

cells for the estimates of mean weekly expenditures at 

both the expenditure class and the general category 

levels reveal few significant differences. About a 

tenth of the F-ratios are significant, but there does 

not appear to be any pattern. It appears that the 

variances are similar enough ~o that pooled estimates 

of variance used to compute T z are legitimate. 

The most remarkable finding with respect to the 

respondent typology is that the distributions across 

the four categories are almost identical. They differ 

from the one reported in Tucker, 1986 in that the 

proportions of "complainers" and "misleaders" are 

reversed. In this instance, behaviors are somewhat 

less desirable than in the earlier case. On the other 

hand, respondents are more apt to have positive 

attitudes now than before. 

Some of the differences might be explained by the 

relatively minor changes in the construction of 

attitude and behavior scales. Yet, these changes did 

not affect the two extreme categories. The poorer 

behaviors may be due, in part, to the fact that a 

number of the respondents, having already been in the 

CPS, were asked to participate in another government 

survey. Furthermore, they were interviewed by less 

experienced personnel. These factors do not, however, 

address the increase in positive attitudes. 

When the relationship between diary and 

respondent typology is examined for the demographic 

subpopulations using CPLX, there is a significant 

three-way interaction between age, diary, and 

260 
typology. These findings about the interaction with 

age, however, provide little information for choosing 

any one diary. 

Based on the results from the interviewer 

debriefing questionnaire, the control and specific 

diaries were rated as more accurate than the 

nonspecific. The fact that a greater number of 

interviewers view the specific as accurate compared to 

the control is balanced by the fact that the specific 

is also more likely to be viewed as inaccurate. The 

more experienced interviewers are particularly likely 

to favor the specific and believe the nonspecific is 

the most inaccurate. The control is the least likely 

to be viewed as inaccurate regardless of the 

experience of the interviewer. 

With respect to the amount of explanation 

required, the interviewers point to the control diary 

as the one needing the most explanation at both the 

first and second interview . Yet, the largest number 

of interviewers claim the diaries are all about the 

same. The specific is somewhat less likely than the 

nonspecific to be cited as requiring the most 

explanation at the second interview. 

6. Discussion 

Although both experimental diaries have performed 

better than the control, the specific diary appears to 

be somewhat better than the nonspecific based on the 

results of the Diary Operational Test produced thus 

far. The specific is particularly effective in 

gathering expenditure information on nonfood items. 

The noninterview rate is highest for the specific, but 

this rate should decline if the specific were put into 

production. It might still be somewhat higher than 

the current production or a production nonspecific 

diary. The use of the specific should have relatively 

small effects on the current cost weights. Clearly, 

using interviewers who had no experience with the 

quarterly survey was not at all effective. 

Unfortunately, the combination of the old CPS sample 

and inexperienced CE interviewers, who had to 

administer three different versions of the 

questionnaire, outweighed the experimental condition. 

Before final conclusions are drawn, further 

analysis will be undertaken. One study will involve 

creating micro-level measures of response error and 

nonresponse (Tucker, 1988). The impact of the survey 

process on these data quality variables will be 

evaluated. A second study will involve laboratory 

investigations of problems encountered by respondents 

in classifying items on the specific form. The 

preliminary findings concerning the relative 

importances suggest that, for the most part, the 

classification system used by respondents did not 

differ from the one used at BLS; however, more 

analysis of the individual commodity classes is 

needed. 

On the surface, there do not appear to be any 

significant differences in the results from the 

separate analyses conducted by Census and BLS. That 

is, different weighting and editing procedures did not 

have a great effect. A comparison of the variances 

using six-month weighting and the one-month weighting 

still has to be done. Finally, some thought should be 

given to problems involved in generalizing the results 

of this test to all PSU's, especially given the high 

noninterview rates in the South for the control and in 

the Northeast for the specific and the production. 

Re ferences 

Fay, Robert E. (1985), "A Jackknifed Chi-Squared 

Test for Complex Samples," Journal Qf the 

American Statistical Association, 80, 148-157. 

Fay, Robert E. (1983), "CPLX -- Contingency 

Table Analysis for Complex Sample Designs, 

Program Documentation," Technical Report, U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. 

Flueck, John A., Waksberg, Joseph and Kaitz, 

Hyman B.(1971), "An Overview of Consumer 

Expenditure Survey Methodology," Proceedings of 

~he Business and Economic Statistics Section, 

American Statistical Association, pp.238-246. 

Grootaert, Christian (1986), "the Use of Multiple 

Diaries in a Household Expenditure Survey in Hong 

Kong," Journ~l of ~he American $~tistical 

Association, 81, 938-44. 

Harkins, Elizabeth (1979), "An Evaluation of the 

Reliability of Data Gathered From Three Primary 

Care Medical Specialties Using a SelfAdministered Log Diary." National Center for 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

pp.38-55 

Johnson, Richard F. and Wichern, Dean W. (1982), 

Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pretice Hall, Inc. 

Jacobs, Curtis A. (1983), "1983 CES-Analysis of 

Reporting Completeness," BLS Memorandum to John 

L. Marcoot. 

Kemsley, W.F.F., and Nicholson, J.L. (1960), "Some 

Experiments in Methods of Conducting Family 

Expenditure Surveys," JQurn~l of the Rova! 

Statistical Society, Ser. A, 123, Part 3, 307- 

328. 

Neter, John (1970), "Measurement Errors in Reports 

of Consumer Expenditures," Journal of Marketing 

Research, !, 11-25. 

Neter, John, and Waksberg, Joseph (1965), Response 

Errors in the Collection of Expenditure Data by 

Household Interviews: An Experimental Study," 

Technical Paper ii, Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau 

of the Census. 

Pearl, Robert B. and Levine, Daniel B. (1971), "A 

New Methodology For a Consumer Expenditure 

Survey." Proceedinq$ of the Business and Economic 

Statistics Section , American Statistical 

Association, pp.254-259. 

Roghmann, Klause J. and Haggerty, Robert J. (1972), 

"The Diary as a Research Instrument in the Study 

of Health and Illness Behavior: Experience with 

a Random Sample of Young Families." Medical 

Care, I0, 143-163. 

Stanton, John L. and Tucci, Louis A. (1982), "The 

Measurement of Consumption: A Comparison of 

Surveys and Diaries," Journal of Marketing 

R~$earch, 19, 274-277. 

Sudman, Seymour and Ferber, Robert (1971), 

"Experiments in obtaining Consumer Expenditures 

by Diary Methods," Journal of the American 

Statistical Association, 66, 725-735. 

Thompson, Wendel L., et al (1977), "Improving the 

Quality of Data from Monthly Gasoline Purchase 

Diaries," Proceedings of the So¢i~l S~atistics 

Section, American Statistical Association, 

pp.498-503. 

Tucker, Clyde (1986), "An Analysis of the Dynamics 

in the CE Diary Survey, Proceedings of the so¢ia~ 

Statistics Section, American Statistical 

Association, pp.18-27. 

Tucker, Clyde (1984), "Decision-Making in Diary 

Research Planned for 1985," BLS Memorandum to 

Curtis A. Jacobs. 

Tucker, Clyde (1988), "Estimating Measurement Error 

in Surveys," Paper Presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the American Statistical Association 

for Public Opinion Research, Toronto, Canada, May 

19-22. 

Tucker, Clyde (1985), "Identifying Measurement Error 

in Consumer Expenditure Reports," PrQceedinqs of 

the Survey Research Methods Section, American 

Statistical Association, pp.473-481. 

Tucker, Clyde (1987), "Toward the Development of an 

Ordered Set Data Quality Categories," Procee~ing~ 

of the Survey Research Methods Section, American 

Statistical Association, pp.558-563. 

Verbrugge, Lois M. (1980), "Health Diaries, " Medical 

Care, 18, 73-95. 

261