3

3

3

3

3

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

Final Report 

 Authors 

David Cantor, Westat

Nancy Mathiowetz, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Sid Schneider, Westat

Brad Edwards, Westat

 June 21, 2013 

Prepared for:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE

Washington, DC 20212

Prepared by:

Westat

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129

(301) 251-1500

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

i 

 

Executive Summary 

The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) is a program run by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to 

collect data on American consumer spending. The program currently consists of two distinct data 

collection efforts, the Quarterly Consumer Expenditure Interview (CEI) survey and the Consumer 

Expenditure Diary (CED) survey, each with its own sample of respondents. Researchers use CE 

data to study consumer spending in the United States. The data also are crucial to the computation 

of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

The data collection methods used in the CE program have not been fundamentally redesigned in 

several decades. However, evidence strongly suggests that CE data are increasingly yielding biased 

estimates of consumer spending, especially in certain expenditure categories. BLS is considering a 

number of approaches to updating and enhancing the CE program, with several goals in mind: 

 Improving the quality of CE data by reducing measurement and nonresponse error; 

 Diminishing the burden on CE respondents; and 

 Containing the costs of the CE program. 

The BLS contracted with Westat and the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee to assist in the 

planning for the redesign of the CE program. This report is the primary product of that contract. 

The report has four sections. The first presents background material related to the CE program and 

the plans to redesign it. The second section proposes changes to the CE data collection methods, 

and presents the rationale for each proposed change. The third section presents a plan for 

evaluating the proposed ideas for redesigning the CE methods. The final section presents the 

estimated costs of conducting the CE program using the proposed, redesigned data collection 

methods. 

Proposed redesign to the CE program. The second section of the report gives the 

recommendations for the proposed redesign. The main features of the new design include: 

 Use a single sample. Instead of recruiting one sample that maintains diaries and a 

separate sample that completes interviews, use a single sample that does both. 

 Reduce the number of interviews. Instead of conducting 5 interviews at 3-month 

intervals, conduct 2 interviews, 12 months apart. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

ii 

 

 Reduce the diary data collection period by half. Ask the respondents to keep 

expenditure diaries for 1 week, instead of the current 2-week period. 

 Vary the reference period in the interviews. Instead of using a 3-month reference 

period for almost all of the expenditure categories in the interviews, vary the reference 

period as appropriate for the specific expenditures. 

 Reduce the redundancy between the diary and the interview. Limit the focus of 

the diary data collection to certain expenditure categories, including food. Use global 

rather than detailed questions for those expenditure categories in the interview. 

 Create a web version of the diary. Develop a web-based version of the diary to 

replace the current paper-and-pencil version. Allow respondents to use their own 

technology, including desktop and laptop computers and mobile devices, to maintain 

the diary. Lend a tablet to respondents who need a way to access the diary. 

Accommodate respondents who insist on using a paper-and-pencil version of the diary. 

 Use the capabilities of the web. Design the web-based diary with interactive features 

that help respondents enter their data quickly and easily. Include features that allow 

respondents to direct questions to the CE staff, and that permit the CE staff to detect 

respondents who appear to have stopped entering expenditure data. 

 Develop an app for respondents to quickly make note of expenditures. Develop 

and offer respondents a smart phone app that permits them to create a record of 

expenditures quickly at the time of purchase. 

 Have multiple respondents for the diary. Instead of enlisting just a single respondent 

in each household, ask all members of age 15 or older to maintain the 1-week 

expenditure diary. 

 Emphasize the use of records. Train the interviewers to encourage respondents to 

refer to expenditure records, such as receipts and bank and credit card statements. Call 

respondents a few days following each interview to collect any data that the respondents 

have found on such records.

 Provide incentives. Offer the respondents monetary incentives, to increase their 

motivation. Train interviewers to foster a collaborative relationship with respondents. 

 Reduce the burden for reporting of grocery purchases. Allow respondents to 

submit their cash register receipts for grocery store or a supermarket purchases instead 

of entering those purchases, which often comprise many items, into the diary. Ask 

respondents to write explanatory notes on the receipts where necessary. 

Evaluation. The third section of this report presents a plan for developing and evaluating the 

proposed new data collection approaches. The evaluation plan is intended to be feasible within the 

time and financial constraints with which the BLS is likely to be working. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

iii 

 

The components of the proposed evaluation are as follows: 

 Development of the web-based diary. The evaluation will help ensure that the webbased diary is easy to use and widely accepted by the respondents. The evaluation 

methods include an environmental scan, stakeholder interviews and focus groups, 

prototype testing, and tests in a usability laboratory. The evaluation will involve 

respondents who use desktop and laptop computers, and who use mobile devices. 

 Content of the interview and diary. The evaluation will help determine which 

expenditures should be covered in the interviews and which expenditures should be 

covered by the diary. Using field tests, the evaluation will explore the feasibility of 

covering food, alcoholic beverages, personal products, and possibly apparel primarily in 

the diary. 

 Use of global questions. Cognitive laboratory research will explore the feasibility of 

using global questions in the interview. With global questions, respondents provide a 

single overall estimate of all expenses within a category, or respond to detailed questions 

only after they have answered a gate question. 

 Length of the reference periods. Cognitive laboratory research will also explore the 

feasibility of varying the reference period for various expenditures in the interview. 

Reference periods of 1, 3, and 6 months may be appropriate, depending upon the 

nature of the specific expenditure. 

 Use of annotated grocery receipts. A small-scale feasibility study will examine the 

merits of allowing respondents to submit a grocery or supermarket receipt, with any 

necessary notations, in place of entering every item on the receipt into the diary. 

 Encouraging record use. A series of experiments could help identify the most 

effective and feasible ways of persuading respondents to use receipts, checking account 

and credit card data, and other documentation to improve the accuracy and 

completeness of their expenditure reports. 

 Integrating the interview and diary samples. A pilot test and a field test will 

examine the feasibility and potential drawbacks of integrating the current CE interview 

and diary samples. This field test could also study the use of global questions. The field 

test could reveal how the proposed redesigned methods affect the number and level of 

reported expenditures, the time needed to complete the interview, the perceived burden 

and perhaps respondent-interviewer interactions. 

 Final field test. A field test involving about 3,000 households could examine multiple 

redesign proposals, including recruiting multiple diary-keepers in each household, and 

offering various levels of incentives. 

The proposed evaluation plan is not intended to be comprehensive. The proposed testing plan 

could benefit from more resources to test alternative designs in larger field tests, as well as increasing 

sample sizes to increase the power of the tests that are proposed. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

iv 

 

Costs for the new design. A major constraint in creating the revised design is the requirement that 

it be cost neutral. The objectives of the final section of this report are as follows: 

 To estimate the annual cost of the revised design in its steady state, after 

implementation; 

 To create assumptions based on recent cost data provided by the Census Bureau; and 

 To specify the assumptions used for each cost element. 

The BLS provided summary cost data from the Census Bureau for conducting the CE in 2011. Total 

cost was about $30,000,000. This cost included both the diary and interview components. It did not 

include any program costs at BLS. 

The Census costs were broken out into four categories: 

1. Total field activity tasks $6.4 million 

2. Interview only $10.7 million 

3. Diary only $3.5 million 

4. Overhead $9.2 million 

The proposed redesigned methods include only two waves of interviewing per household, which is 

three less than the current design. That change will lower costs. However, in the redesign, the data 

collection during the two waves require more interviewer effort than any two waves of the current 

design. The additional effort in the redesign includes the following: 

 First interview. The interviewers both conduct the first interview and place the diary. 

Because there is higher burden for the respondent, more interviewer attempts are 

required to gain cooperation. 

 First interview. The interviewers track the respondents’ diary entries over the week, 

and call when no expenditures are being entered. 

 First interview. The interviewers telephone diary-compliant respondents to close out 

the diary. 

 First interview. Interviewers call to obtain data that respondents found on any records 

or documentation that they located after the interview. 

 Second interview. Interviewers conduct the second interview in-person.
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

v 

 

 Second interview. Interviewers call to obtain data that respondents found on any 

records or documentation that they located after the interview. 

This section of the report presents cost calculations relevant to the proposed, redesigned data 

collection methods. The calculations suggest that the redesign costs are approximately the same as 

the current design costs. The estimate for the redesign costs is very sensitive to the degree of field 

effort required to achieve the desired number of completed interviews and diaries and the response 

rate targets. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

vi 

 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

vii 

 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page 

I. Introduction: Motivation for Redesign, Goals, and Constraints ............................. 1

Motivation for Redesign Effort ..................................................................................... 1

Goals of the Redesign Effort ......................................................................................... 3

Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 5

II. Design Features ....................................................................................................... 6

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 6

Integrated Interview and Diary Sample ........................................................................ 7

Panel Design: Number and Frequency of Interviews ..............................................11

Content of Diary and Interview Survey .....................................................................12

Interview: Content and Reference Periods ................................................................13

Interview: Global Questions ........................................................................................17

Use of Records ...............................................................................................................18

Diary Field Period .........................................................................................................21

The Use of Technology for the Diary ........................................................................22

Respondent’s Technology for the Diary ....................................................................31

Active Monitoring of Diary Data Entry .....................................................................34

Use of Mementos for the Diary ..................................................................................35

Multiple Diarists Per Household .................................................................................36

Use of Annotated Grocery Receipts ...........................................................................37

Incentives ....................................................................................................................39

Sample Sizes ...................................................................................................................42

Length of First Interview .............................................................................................43

III. Evaluation Plan ...................................................................................................... 42

Philosophy ....................................................................................................................42

Development of Web-Based Diary .............................................................................42

The Content of the Interview and the Diary .............................................................46

The Use of Global Questions ......................................................................................47

Length of Reference Period .........................................................................................47

Use of Annotated Grocery Receipts ...........................................................................48

Record Use: Understanding Record Organization and Willingness to 

Access ..............................................................................................................................49

Development and Testing of an Integrated Sample .................................................51

Field Test: Global Questions, Diary Content and Reference Periods ...................52

Final Field Test ..............................................................................................................53

Statistical Power .............................................................................................................55
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

viii 

 

Summary of Schedule and Costs of Development and Testing Plan ....................56

Scope of the Research and Development Program .................................................58

IV. Costs for New Design ............................................................................................ 59

Objectives ....................................................................................................................59

Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................................60

Extrapolation of Essentially Variable Costs from Census Cost 

Information and Westat Experience ...........................................................................61

Benchmarking and Sensitivity ......................................................................................66

References ..................................................................................................................... 68

Table Page 

1. Proposed reference periods for OPLC categories on the recall 

interview ..........................................................................................................................14

2. Recurring expenses proposed for 6-month reference periods and 

variation within reference period ................................................................................16

3. Proposed sample sizes compared to current design .................................................43

4. Power for difference in proportions by sample size, level of rate and 

percentage point difference between the groups* ....................................................56

5. Power for difference of means for selected expenditures, completed 

diaries per group and effect size* ................................................................................56

6. Power for difference of means for selected expenditures, completed 

interviews per group and effect size* .........................................................................56

7. Summary of expenses for R&D work ($1,000) .........................................................58

8. Cost elements shared between current design and proposed design .....................62

9. Field representative labor: Contact attempts per consumer unit............................63

10. Estimated Census interviewing costs in redesign .....................................................66

11. Total costs for redesign in steady state at Census .....................................................66

Figure Page 

1. Data collection plan: Redesigned CE program .........................................................10

2. An early screen. An early screen asks respondents what they need to 

do. ....................................................................................................................................25

3. First screen for entering expenditure data. The respondent first enters 

a description of the purchase, and clicks a radio button to indicate the 

category of the purchase. The questions that come next are 

dependent upon the category that the respondent selects.......................................26
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

ix 

 

Figure Page 

4. Next screen for entering expenditure data. If the respondent entered 

an expenditure that fell into the category “any other product or 

service,” the next screen would ask for the price without tax, and the 

date of the purchase. .....................................................................................................27

5. Later screen for entering expenditure data. This screen would appear 

for all expenditures except those in the category “food and drink 

away from home.” .........................................................................................................28

6. Help screen. If a respondent clicked the link “help” for the question 

about the cost of an expenditure, the screen that popped up would 

offer brief overall guidance, and list common sources of confusion 

about the price. When the respondent clicked an item on the list, 

another screen would pop up to explain how to handle that situation. ................29

7. Timeline for redesign tasks...........................................................................................57
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

1 

 

The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) is a program run by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to 

collect data on American consumer spending. The CE program consists of two distinct data 

collection efforts, the Quarterly Consumer Expenditure Interview (CEI) survey and the Consumer 

Expenditure Diary (CED) survey. 

In both the CEI and the CED, one household member serves as the respondent for the household 

economic unit, called the consumer unit (CU). The CEI and CED use separate samples of CUs. In 

the CEI, respondents are interviewed once per quarter for five consecutive quarters. In the initial 

interview, respondents report their demographic and family characteristics, their ownership of major 

durable goods, and their CU’s expenditures for the past month. The initial interview serves as a 

bounding interview; the expenditure data are never analyzed. In the subsequent four interviews, the 

respondents report on their CU’s expenditures for the past 3 months. Those interviews are generally 

conducted in person, but increasingly they must be conducted by telephone. 

In the CED, respondents record all household expenditures on diaries over two consecutive 1-week 

periods. The diaries are in a paper-and-pencil format. Before completing the diaries, the CUs 

provide data about their demographic and family characteristics, much like the CEI CUs do. 

Estimation of total expenditures is based on an integrated approach, drawing upon data from both 

the CEI and CED. Researchers use data from the CE program to study purchasing behavior in the 

United States. The data are also used for calculating the Consumer Price Index (CPI; Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 2009). 

Motivation for Redesign Effort 

BLS has decided to redesign the methods of the CE program. The central goal of the redesign is to 

improve the quality of CE data while controlling the cost of the program. Comparisons between 

estimates based on CE data and estimates based on data from the Personal Consumption 

Expenditures (PCE) program of the Bureau of Economic Analysis point to deterioration in the 

Introduction: Motivation for 

Redesign, Goals, and Constraints I 
Introduction: Motivation for Redesign, Goals, and Constraints 

I 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

2 

 

quality of CE data, especially over the past decade (e.g., Slesnick, 2001).1

Several sources of 

measurement error may be affecting CE data. For example, respondents interviewed by telephone 

may be more likely than those interviewed in person to under-report expenditures (Safir and 

Goldenberg, 2008; McGrath, 2005). As more respondents have to be interviewed by telephone, the 

quality of CEI data may be declining. In the CED, the respondents’ expenditure reports tend to 

diminish over the course of the 2-week diary keeping period (Silberstein and Scott, 1991). That 

finding suggests that the quality of CED data is affected by the length of the reporting period.

Nonresponse error may also be contributing to the disparity between CE and PCE data. The period 

of increasing discrepancies between the CE and the PCE estimates has also been a period of 

fluctuating CE response rates (Goldenberg, McGrath, and Tan, 2009; Safir, 2011). More important 

than the nonresponse rate is nonresponse error--the strength of the association between response 

propensity and the expenditures being measured. Chopova et al. (2008) assessed nonresponse bias in 

the CEI and found differential participation as a function of race, income and dwelling unit 

characteristics as well as evidence of nonresponse bias for particular expenditure categories. 

Both the CEI and CED data collection efforts are burdensome--the interview with respect to the 

cognitive burden of retrospective recall for 3-month reference period, the diary with respect to the 

sheer recording burden when respondents must use paper-and-pencil forms. The quality of CE data 

might improve if the burden on the respondents could be diminished. 

The quality of CE data might also improve if a CU could have multiple respondents, instead of just 

one. Grootaert (1986) found that expenditures, especially for personal items such as clothing, 

footwear, and services, were significantly higher in households that had multiple respondents, as 

compared with households that were limited to a single respondent. Similarly, a field study 

conducted by BLS in 2006 (Edgar et al., 2006) found that the use of multiple diaries per CU resulted 

in an increase number of expenditure items reported as well as an increased dollar value of the 

expenditures.2

 

 

1 Similar to Slesnick (2001) one has to also question the extent to which the external data used to benchmark CE data 

accurately represent consumer expenditures

2

 The experimental study had a lower response rate than the production data and completed interviews required more 

trips on the part of field interviewers as compared to the production cases. In addition, the CED experimental study 

also yielded comments from some CU members that they felt the individual diaries were redundant and unnecessary 

since the unit makes purchases collectively. 
Introduction: Motivation for Redesign, Goals, and Constraints 

I 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

3 

 

Technology may facilitate the collection of information from multiple members of the household. 

In particular, the task of keeping a diary might be less burdensome if the respondents could use an 

electronic version of the diary. 

The separate samples in CEI and CED may also contribute to problems with CE data. With these 

separate samples, a very large number of CUs must report data about topics such as demographic 

background and ownership of durable goods. Integrating the two samples may diminish the overall 

burden on the public by reducing the number of CUs that have to provide this information. The 

bounded interview design, in which data from the first interview are not used for estimates, is 

expensive and places burden on the CUs. Eliminating the bounding interview may help contain the 

cost of redesigning the CE program. 

The CUs in the CEI and CED receive no incentive, monetary or otherwise. Adding an incentive 

might improve the quality of CE data. 

In summary, the motivation to redesign the CE program stems from a desire to meet several goals: 

 Improve the quality of CE data by reducing measurement and nonresponse error; 

 Diminish the burden on CE respondents; and 

 Contain the costs of the CE program. 

In order to reach these goals, BLS is conducting the Gemini Project, a comprehensive effort to 

redesign the CE program. The Gemini Project is considering changes to many aspects of the CE 

program. The purpose of this project was to recommend a specific design and research program 

that addresses each of the above goals. 

Goals of the Redesign Effort 

A redesign of the Consumer Expenditure Surveys has not been undertaken since the late 1970s. 

Since that time, technology, the retail environment, and the CE program itself have radically 

changed. The Gemini Project offers an opportunity to modernize the CE design, incorporating the 

best data collection practices while addressing the unique requirements of the CE program. The 

BLS web site (http://www.bls.gov/cex/geminiproject.htm) explains the Gimini Project goals: 
Introduction: Motivation for Redesign, Goals, and Constraints 

I 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

4 

 

The mission of the Gemini Project is to redesign the Consumer 

Expenditure surveys (CE) in order to improve data quality through a 

verifiable reduction in measurement error, with a particular focus on underreporting. The effort to reduce measurement error is to be explored in a 

manner consistent with combating further declines in response rates. 

Accordingly, any expected benefits of survey design changes will be 

balanced against any potential negative effects on response rates. The 

primary objective of the Gemini Project is to develop a detailed research 

planning document for a redesign of the CE surveys. The planning 

document will describe the priorities, individual steps, timeframe, resource 

needs, and costs required for the development, pilot testing, evaluation, and 

implementation of a redesigned CE survey or surveys. To allow for an 

unpredictable budgetary environment, the planning document will address 

both a complete redesign of the CE surveys as well as more limited 

modifications to the current design. A secondary objective of the project is 

to generate a planned research agenda that will guide the development and 

implementation of CE research studies throughout the Gemini project 

lifecycle. 

In this report, we present our recommendations for redesigning the CE program. We also present 

our recommendations for evaluation studies, and our analyses of the costs involved. 

We have attempted to approach the redesign and the evaluation studies with a concern for both 

measurement and nonresponse error; that is, our recommended redesign attempts to improve data 

quality while reducing, or at least not increasing, nonresponse error. Inherent in our approach is a 

philosophy that the respondents should understand that the interviewer’s goal is not only to achieve 

a completed interview but also to foster a collaboration between the respondent and the interviewer. 

Most respondents currently are ill-informed as to the nature of their data reporting tasks–in part 

because interviewers are reluctant to request the respondents’ commitment for fear of harming 

response rates. We believe that the success of our recommended redesign will require clear 

communication to the respondent about the nature of the data reporting tasks and the goals of 

accurate and complete data. Our approach incorporates methods such as asking the respondents to 

use expenditure records, preparing the respondents for the initial interview via the advance letter, 

and encouraging respondents to complete their diaries daily. We also believe that the interviewers’

task requires evaluation across a range of metrics beyond response rates, including the rate of record 

use among respondents, the rate of diary compliance, and the assessment of data quality 

(controlling, of course, for respondent characteristics). Best practices with respect to monitoring of 

field interviewers are moving toward the incorporation of quality control measures often used in 

centralized telephone interviewing–for example, computer assisted recording of interviews (CARI), 
Introduction: Motivation for Redesign, Goals, and Constraints 

I 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

5 

 

so as to measure and provide feedback to field interviewers across a broader range of metrics than 

merely response rates (Cantor, 2010). 

We recognize that this philosophy underlying our design represents to some extent a paradigm shift 

in how the CE has been fielded in the past. However, this total quality approach to field efforts is 

the direction in which the field is moving and is not dissimilar to the approaches increasingly used in 

other federal data collection efforts. 

Constraints 

The Gemini project – and the design outlined in this report – face several constraints. Most notable 

are time limitations. The redesign must be completed, including evaluation, in 5 years. In addition, 

the redesign faces two limitations related to costs: (1) the redesign efforts and evaluation must not 

exceed $1 million per year (total $5 million) and (2) the redesigned survey must be cost neutral. It is 

with consideration of these constraints that we have outlined both a set of design features for the 

new CE as well as a plan to evaluate those design features. 

We also note that a major constraint is the lack of sufficient empirical knowledge at this point in 

time to specify a definitive approach to the CE data collection. Many of our recommendations 

outlined in Section II of this report lack detail because the details are dependent upon the outcome 

of the evaluation projects outlined in Section III. The recommended design should be viewed as the 

framing of a house, the details of which will depend upon the results of the evaluation studies. In 

an ideal world, we would have the opportunity to return to the design recommendations in five 

years, when the empirical data from the evaluation studies are available. In addition, details of 

evaluation field studies–particularly the larger field studies–will be informed by earlier, more 

exploratory efforts (e.g., laboratory-based studies, focus groups); as such, the details for some of 

these studies are not included and cannot be outlined at this time. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

6 

 

Overview 

Our recommendations for redesigning the CE program include a number of significant departures 

from the current design: 

 Use a single sample. Instead of recruiting one sample that maintains diaries and a 

separate sample that completes interviews, we recommend recruiting a single sample 

that does both. 

 Reduce the number of interviews. Instead of conducting 5 interviews at 3-month 

intervals, we recommend conducting just 2 interviews, 12 months apart. 

 Vary the reference period in the interviews. Instead of using a 3-month reference 

period for almost all of the expenditure categories in the interviews, we recommend 

varying the reference period according to the nature of the expenditure. 

 Reduce the redundancy between the diary and the interview. We recommend 

limiting the focus of the diary data collection to certain expenditure categories, including 

food. We recommend using global rather than detailed questions for those expenditure 

categories in the interview. 

 Reduce the diary data collection period by half. We recommend asking respondents 

to keep expenditure diaries for 1 week, instead of the current 2-week period. 

 Create a web version of the diary. Currently, the diary is available only in paper-andpencil format. We recommend developing a web version. Respondents can then use 

their own technology or use a government-supplied tablet device to access the diary. 

 Use the capabilities of the web. We recommend designing the web-based diary with 

interactive features that help respondents enter their data quickly and accurately, 

especially for complex expenditures. We also recommend including features in the webbased diary that allow respondents to direct questions to the CE staff, and that permit 

the CE staff to detect respondents who appear to have stopped providing data. 

 Develop an app for respondents to quickly make note of expenditures. We 

recommend developing a smart phone app that permits respondents to create a record 

of an expenditure at the time of purchase. 

Design Features II 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

7 

 

 Include all members of the CUs. Instead of enlisting just a single respondent in each 

CU, we recommend asking all members of age 15 or older to complete the 1-week 

expenditure diary and participate in the two interviews. 

 Reduce the burden for reporting of grocery purchases. Currently respondents must 

enter each item that they purchased at a grocery store or a supermarket into the diary. 

We recommend allowing the respondents to submit their cash register receipts instead. 

The respondents would write notes on the receipts where necessary. 

 Emphasize the use of records. We recommend encouraging respondents to refer to 

expenditure records, such as receipts and bank statements, so that they can provide 

accurate data.

 Provide incentives. We recommend increasing the respondents’ motivation by 

offering them monetary incentives. 

In this chapter, we present our recommendations and explain their rationale. We describe why we 

believe that our recommendations may improve data quality, foster respondent compliance, and 

control data collection costs while meeting the objectives of the CE program. 

Integrated Interview and Diary Sample 

Recommendation: We recommend adopting a single sample design that incorporates 

two waves of in-person interview data collection conducted 12 

months apart, with a single week of diary-keeping immediately 

following the first wave of CE interview data collection. 

The redesign of the CE program must improve the quality of the data while also meeting certain 

data requirements (e.g., for the CPI). This challenge needs to be addressed without additional 

burden to the CU or cost to the overall CE budget. For that reason, we recommend keeping both 

interview and diary methods of data collection. The interview is most suited to certain expenditure 

categories such as appliances, while the diary is most suited to other expenditure categories such as 

apparel. However, we recommend discarding the current design in which separate samples 

participate in the CEI and CED, and replacing it with a single sample design. With our 

recommended design, a single sample would participate in two in-person interviews, 12 months 

apart, and keep an expenditure diary for one week after the first interview. 

Outside CE data users clearly desire a single sample design that integrates diary and interview data 

collection methods (Edgar, 2005; Henderson et al., 2011). Moving to a single, integrated design 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

8 

 

provides flexibility in index construction for the CPI (Casey, 2010). It offers micro-data users the 

advantage of accessing a single data source for the best estimate of expenditures and for studying 

change over time. 

Successfully recruiting respondents is a major task facing any survey, especially when the survey 

entails substantial burden. An integrated design with a single sample reduces the costs related to 

recruiting two independent samples. Also, with an integrated design, the interviewers can establish 

rapport with the respondents during the interview data collection; the respondents may then be 

motivated to provide good-quality data on the diary. 

Other countries have moved to an integrated design for their consumer expenditure surveys 

(Horsfield, 2010; Tremblay, Lynch, and Dubreuil, 2011). Both Canada and the United Kingdom 

have an integrated design. However, the design that we propose for the United States differs in 

several fundamental ways from the Canadian and the UK designs: 

 The Canadian and UK designs require that a CU maintain a diary for 2 weeks after the 

initial interview. We recommend a 1-week diary following the interview. 

 In the Canadian and UK designs, respondents record data in their diaries for all 

expenditures, with a few exceptions such a utilities and mortgages. We recommend 

minimizing redundancy between the interview and the diary, so as to focus the diary 

specifically on those expenditures that are best collected as they occur. This approach 

may reduce burden and improve the quality of the expenditure reports. The Canadian 

and UK designs employ cross-sectional samples, in which a CU is included for a single 

interview and a 2-week diary reporting period. Our proposed design – albeit increasing 

burden from those of the Canadian and UK designs – attempts to leverage a tradeoff 

among recruitment, burden, data quality, costs, and user requirements with two 

interviews 12 months apart but a single request for a 1-week diary. 

 The Canadian experience does not include the use of an incentive. The UK design does 

include an incentive for the diary paid at the individual level but not for the interview. 

We recommend incentives for both the diary and the interview. 

 In the Canadian design, respondents are permitted to provide receipts, instead of 

making diary entries, for restaurant and grocery expenditures. The UK design does not 

have this feature. We recommend that respondents be allowed to provide receipts in 

lieu of diary entries for expenditures at grocery stores and supermarkets. 

We are keenly aware of the response rates that Canada and the UK achieved with their integrated 

designs. The Canadian experience, implemented in 2010, achieved interview response rates around 

66 percent during its first 2 years, with less than 70 percent of those who completed the interview 

completing the diary (effective response rate of approximately 46% for the diary). We could not find 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

9 

 

separate estimates for the response rates in the interview and the diary in the UK, but the overall 

response rate for the Living Costs and Food Survey is 51 percent. 

Clearly the Canadian interview response rate is lower than the stand-alone CEI response rate in the 

United States. It is unclear (and unknowable without testing) whether the discrepancy is due to the 

difference in the nature of the request (interview plus diary) or a function of differing interviewing 

staffs in the two countries. 

A possible field protocol for an integrated interview-diary sample might be as follows: 

1. Advance letter. The advance letter encourages CUs to collect their expenditure 

records. It informs them of the incentive. 

2. Initial face-to-face contact with sampled CU. During the initial visit, the interviewer 

conducts the first interview, and places diary materials with the CU. 

3. Followup visit. The interviewer returns to the CU 8 days following the start date of 

the diary data collection. During this visit, the interviewer collects receipts for grocery 

and supermarket expenditures. In some cases, this face-to-face visit will not be 

necessary; the interviewer and CU could interact through telephone calls and U.S. 

Mail. The interviewer pays the incentives. 

4. Follow-up contact to enhance interview data. The interviewer contacts the household 

to revise data from the initial interview using any records and other information that 

the respondent has found since that interview. 

5. Advance contact for the second interview. The interviewer telephones, emails, or 

sends U.S. Mail to the CU 7 days prior to second interview. In this contact, the 

interviewer reminds CU members to gather records needed for the interview. 

6. Second interview. The interviewer visits the CU and conducts the second interview, 

12 months after the first interview. The interviewer pays the incentives. 

7. Follow-up contact to enhance the second interview. The interviewer contacts the 

household to revise data from the initial interview using any records and other 

information that the respondent has found since that interview. 

This data collection plan is shown graphically in Figure 1. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

10 

 

Figure 1. Data collection plan: Redesigned CE program 

With respect to respondent burden, this design has two advantages. First, it reduces the number of 

interviews from five to two. Second, there is a reduction in the redundant collection of expenditure 

items. Currently all items are collected on both the interview and the diary. The recommended 

design restricts content on the diary. Relative to the current CED, the burden on a single CU goes 

up with the requirement of completing the interviews. But when viewed in the context of the 

current CEI, where five interviews are required, the tradeoff is a net reduction. The question that 

needs to be addressed is whether the response rates and the quality of the expenditure reports on the 

diary suffer after integrating the diary with the interview. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

11 

 

Panel Design: Number and Frequency of Interviews 

Recommendation: Limit participation for a sampled CU to two waves, conducted 12 

months apart. 

The current CE interview schedule consists of five quarterly interviews, with the first interview 

serving as a bounding interview. Data from the bounding interview are not utilized in estimation; 

therefore 20 percent of the collected data are not used. The cost of collecting data that are never 

used for estimation is large, both in terms of interviewing costs and respondent burden. In addition, 

the repeated interviewing leads to inefficiencies with respect to variance estimation (Westat, 2011).

Our design recommendations are driven by the priorities established for CPI estimation. To 

maximize the quality of data, minimize costs, while achieving the precision needed for the CPI, we 

recommend a two-wave panel, with interviews conducted 12 months apart. By limiting the panel to 

two interviews, our proposed design reduces burden on the CUs. Prior research suggests that 

reducing the number of interviews used for estimation from four to two, while shifting the reference 

period for some expenditures, may also significantly improve the precision of the estimates (Westat., 

2011). 

A major disadvantage of our recommended 2-interview design is the loss of 12 months of 

consecutive data for a CU. Although the design permits annual comparisons – from a quarter in year 

t to a quarter for year t+1-- the importance of the loss of annual data should not be underestimated, 

especially for data users outside of BLS. The current five-interview design does provides micro-data 

users the ability to model full year consumer expenditure patterns. Although the five-interview panel 

data are not a requirement for the CPI, they are desirable for analytic uses of the data. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

12 

 

Content of Diary and Interview Survey 

Recommendation: We recommend including only food, alcohol, apparel, and personal 

product expenditures in the diary data collection, and including all 

other expenditures in the interview data collection. The interview 

should also include global estimates for the expenditures covered by 

the diary. 

We reviewed the source (CEI or CED) for the current CE estimates for the Universal Classification 

Codes (UCCs) of each of the 125 Office of Prices and Living Conditions (OPLC) categories. Based 

on this review, we developed an initial proposal for splitting the UCCs between the interview and 

diary. The OPLC categories with 85 percent of expenditures from UCCs taken from a single source 

were assigned to that source.3 For the CED, these are food, alcohol, and personal care products. For 

the interview, these are recurring expenditures (e.g., utility bills), large items (e.g., cars, appliances) 

and intermediate items that can’t be reliably collected on the diary (e.g., floor coverings). 

We reviewed each of the remaining OPLC categories with two criteria in mind. The first was 

whether the items could be logically assigned to diary data collection. The expenditure items to be 

included on the diary should be salient and memorable. Food and alcohol expenditures are 

examples. Respondents buy food on a frequent basis and the universe of eligible events is easily 

remembered. Personal care products don’t necessarily fit in with food or alcohol, but they are small, 

frequently purchased items that are sold at many of the same stores that sell food. Other types of 

expenses which are not as salient or as frequently purchased, such as “tools, outdoor equipment and 

supplies,” should not be assigned to diary data collection. If they were included, respondents could 

not easily define and remember the universe to be included on the diary. 

“Apparel,” however, could be assigned to diary data collection. “Apparel” comprises several 

different OPLC categories (men’s, women’s, children’s, footwear, infants’, and toddlers’). While 

these items are not purchased as frequently or at the same stores as food, alcohol or personal care 

products, they do constitute a clear, cognitively salient, grouping that respondents could remember. 

The second criteria determining the split between expenditures to be collected on the diary and the 

interview is the precision of the estimate. If the items within an OPLC category are not purchased 

very often, relying on the diary will not yield an estimate with adequate precision. This is the case for 

 

3

 An exception to this is “other personal services,” which is assigned to the interview. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

13 

 

some of the apparel OPLC categories. Boy’s apparel, for example, has about 66 percent of expenses 

currently taken from the interview survey. About one-third of expenses for the other apparel OPLC 

categories come from the interview. 

We propose that the diary cover expenditures for food, alcohol, personal care products and apparel. 

All other expenditures will be covered on the two recall interviews. If there are certain types of 

apparel that cannot be estimated with enough precision from the diary, then the interview could 

include selected apparel items. 

For expenditure items covered by the diary the interview should include global rather than detailed 

questions. 

Interview: Content and Reference Periods 

Recommendation: The content of the interview survey will vary across the first and 

second interview. The first interview will include all expenditures 

proposed for the interview. The second interview will include the same 

expenditures, except it will not include the largest expenditures. 

Our recommended design calls for two interviews at each CU, spaced 12 months apart. In the 

current CEI, the reference period for all expenditure items is the same: 3 months. With our 

recommended design, the reference periods for the expenditure items will vary between 1, 3, and 6 

months.4 The 6-month items will be covered only in the first interview, while the 1 and 3 month 

items will be covered in both interviews. This procedure will minimize respondent burden while still 

providing adequate data. Table 1 provides the reference periods that we recommend for each 

OPLC category. 

Assignment to particular reference periods was based on examining the salience and regularity of 

expenditures in each category. Salient purchases, such as large expenses (cars, major household 

appliances), were assigned to a 6-month period. Very regular expenses, such as rent and utilities, 

were also assigned to a 6-month period. Most other expenses were assigned to a 3-month period. 

 

4

 At the proof of concept presentation we recommended a 12-month period. After review of the sample size 

requirements and the concern with burden, we have shortened the reference period to 6 months. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

14 

 

The exceptions were those OPLC categories that had over half of their UCC expenses taken from 

the diary for the current CE estimates. These were assigned to a 1-month period. 

The 6-month items are divided into two types – recurring and non-recurring. Recurring items are 

typically regular bills or expenses that repeat over the reference period. Non-recurring items are 

occasional purchases; for the most part, these purchases are of relatively expensive items. For each 

item, respondents report the amount of the expenditure and the month it was incurred. At first 

glance, this reporting could be a very burdensome task for the recurring expenditures that involve 6 

separate occurrences of a monthly expenditure. However, the size of many of the recurring expenses 

should be constant across the reference period and should be relatively easy to report. Table 2 

provides a classification of the recurring expenditures, indicating whether or not each expenditure is 

likely to have a constant amount over the 6-month period. 

Table 1. Proposed reference periods for OPLC categories on the recall interview 

 

Expense category Reference period 

Regular expense

Mortgage interest and charges 6

Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence 6

Owners’ equivalent rent of vacation/second residence 6

Personal property taxes 6

Property taxes 6

Electricity 6

Fuel oil and other fuels 6

Internet services 6

Natural gas 6

Telephone services 6

Water, sewer, and trash collection services 6

Household insurance 6

Long-term care insurance* 6

Commercial health insurance 6

Adult care 6

Medicare payments 6

Child care 6

College tuition 6

Other school tuition tutoring and test preparation 6

Rent of primary residence 6

Medicare prescription drug premiums* 6

CE life and other personal insurance 6

CE vehicle finance charges 6

Trade-in allowance, new motorcycles* 6

Amount motorcycle sold or reimbursed* 6

Funeral expenses 6
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

15 

 

Table 1. Proposed reference periods for OPLC categories on the recall interview (Continued) 

 

Expense category Reference period 

Large expense

Furniture 6

Amount vehicle sold or reimbursed 6

Boats, RVs, and other recreational vehicles 6

New cars and trucks* 6

Used cars and trucks* 6

Motorcycles 6

CE finance charges excluding mortgage and vehicle 6

Catered affairs 6

Other housing expenses 3

Maintenance and repair supplies 3

Appliances 3

Information and information processing other than Internet services 3

Unpriced maintenance and repair services 3

Floor coverings 3

Motor vehicle parts and equipment 3

Other apparel services 3

Leased and rented vehicles 3

Trade-in allowance, leased vehicles 3

Legal fees and financial services 3

Trade-in allowance, new vehicles 3

Motor fuel 3

Motor vehicle fees 3

Motor vehicle maintenance and repair 3

Dental services 3

Hospital and related services 3

Other medical services 3

Physician services 3

Airline fares 3

Lodging away from home 3

Rent as pay 3

Meals as pay 3

Household operations 3

Medical equipment and supplies 3

Food on out-of-town trips* 3

School meals* 3

Food prepared by CU on out-of-town trips* 3

Occupational expenses* 3

CE deductions for social security (3 month) 3

CE payroll deductions to retirement plans (3 month) 3

CE non-payroll deposit to retirement plans 3

CE Alimony 3

CE support for college students 3

CE cash contributions to charities, education, and other organizations 3

CE other cash and non-cash gifts 3

CE assets and liabilities 3
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

16 

 

Table 1. Proposed reference periods for OPLC categories on the recall interview (Continued) 

 

Expense category Reference period 

51% to 84% of UCC expenses from CE interview

Information and information processing other than Internet services 3

Photography 3

Sporting goods 3

Video and audio 3

Household textiles 3

Jewelry and watches 3

Educational books, and supplies 3

Movie, theater, sporting event, and other admissions 3

Recreation services 3

Recreational reading materials 3

Other public transportation 3

Pets, pet products, and services 3

Tobacco and smoking products 3

51% to 84% of UCC expenses from diary

Tools, hardware, outdoor equipment, and supplies 1

Household supplies* 1

Other household equipment and furnishings 1

Sewing 1

Medicinal drugs 1

Miscellaneous 1

Other recreational goods 1

Postage and delivery services 1

Motor vehicle insurance 1

Other personnel services+ 1

* New categories. 

 + 100 percent of these expenses are sourced from the diary for Current CE estimates. 

Table 2. Recurring expenses proposed for 6-month reference periods and variation within 

reference period 

 

Expense category Same amount each time unit? 

Mortgage interest and charges Yes

Owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence Yes

Owners’ equivalent rent of vacation/second residence Yes

Personal property taxes Yes

Property taxes Yes

Electricity No

Fuel oil and other fuels No

Internet services Yes

Natural gas No

Telephone services Yes

Water No

Sewer No

Trash collection services Yes

Household insurance Yes

Long-term care insurance Yes

Commercial health insurance Yes
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

17 

 

Table 2. Recurring expenses proposed for 6-month reference periods and variation within 

reference period (Continued) 

 

Expense category Same amount each time unit? 

Adult care Yes

Medicare payments Yes

Child care Yes

College tuition Yes

Other school tuition tutoring and test preparation No

Rent of primary residence Yes

Medicare prescription drug premiums Yes

CE life and other personal insurance Yes

CE vehicle finance charges Yes

Interview: Global Questions 

Recommendation: We recommend using global questions in the interview when 

appropriate. 

We recommend using global questions wherever possible in the interview. This will minimize 

respondent burden while still generating adequate data. Rather than asking respondents to report on 

a number of specific expenditures, the interviewer would ask about entire classes of expenditures. 

Respondents would then have a way to report that they had no expenditures for a class of items 

(e.g., men’s clothing), rather than having to respond to questions about each item within each class, 

as the current interview requires. 

Global questions can take one of two forms. With the first form, respondents provide a single 

estimate for a broad class of expenditures. The empirical evidence on the accuracy of the data 

obtained using this strategy relative to using more specific questions is mixed (e.g., BLS, 2010). 

However, the evidence seems strong that the accuracy of the data depends on the specific 

expenditure items involved. Beatty (2010) and Creech et al. (2012) found that global questions 

yielded comparable or superior data for expenditures in homogenous categories that are amenable to 

respondent cognitive organization. 

It could be argued that global questions are most appropriate to collect data about regular purchases, 

because respondents tend to overestimate these expenditures when they try to decompose them into 

specific classes. However, Beatty (2010) argued that global questions are appropriate for eliciting 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

18 

 

data about highly frequent, relatively simple behavior (e.g., getting a drink from a fountain), but not 

about many of the expenditures covered on the CEI. Clearly more research is needed into this issue. 

The second type of global question serves as a filter question, which allows respondents to skip out 

of entire sections of the interview if they respond by saying that they have made no purchases in a 

particular category. As Kreuter et al. (2011) have found, however, this type of filter question may 

encourage respondent’s “satisficing,” once they realize they can avoid follow-up questions if they 

answer “no.” 

The natural unit for global questions is the OPLC categories that will be used for analysis. In our 

evaluation plan (in Section III, below), we recommend testing global questions to determine which 

of the OPLC categories are suited to this methodology. We recommend that the expenditure items 

that are covered by the diary be among those that are covered in the interview using global 

questions. 

Use of Records 

Recommendation: Encourage respondents to refer to records for the interview. First, the 

advance material should ask the respondents to gather records that 

they could use during the first interview. Interviewers should contact 

the CUs to ask them to gather records before the second interview, 

too. 

Currently, CE interviewers mention the benefits of recordkeeping to respondents in the CED and 

the CEI. The CE paper diaries have a pocket in the back for the respondents to store receipts and 

other records. During the interviews, respondents can refer to any readily-available records. We 

recommend that the interviewers go even further to help ensure that respondents gather and use 

their expenditure records. Item #3 in the Consensus Design Document of May 7, 2012 supports the 

development of techniques to enhance the use of records. 

The rationale for asking respondents to refer to records is simply that records are likely to contain 

accurate information. Respondents who try to recollect their expenditures without referring to 

records are more likely to forget some expenditures and commit errors reporting the ones that they 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

19 

 

remember. In other federal data collection efforts, such as the Medical Expenditure Survey (MEPS), 

respondents are strongly encouraged to save their records. 

Edgar (2010) investigated how often respondents actually referred to records during the CEI. She 

found that almost 39 percent of the respondents never or almost never referred to records, and 

about 19 percent only occasionally referred to records. She also found that the use of records was 

associated with improved data quality, particularly for certain types of expenditures, such as 

payments for utilities and health insurance. 

Recently, two contractors conducted field tests to investigate the feasibility of encouraging 

respondents to keep and refer to expenditure records. RTI International researchers (Gelsen et al., 

2011) found that respondents with certain demographic characteristics, such as non-Hispanic whites 

and homeowners, were more likely than others to refer to records. Respondents were especially 

likely to have records for recurrent expenditures, higher-cost expenditures, and for recent purchases. 

Respondents tended not to print out receipts for online purchases. The researchers found that the 

use of records improved the quality of the respondents’ reported data; however, the respondents 

themselves placed confidence in their own recollections even when they did not refer to records. 

NORC researchers (Sjoblom and Lee, 2012) found that CE respondents generally complied with 

requests to keep expenditure records. Overall, respondents could produce records corresponding to 

about 80 percent of all reported expenditures. Respondents in the lowest income groups and living 

in one-person households were among the least likely to keep records. Respondents tended not to 

have records for certain types of expenditures, mostly because no receipt or other record was ever 

created for these expenditures, which included public transportation fares, and concession stand and 

vending machine purchases. 

The NORC researchers reported that over 80 percent of the respondents thought that keeping 

records was easy, and over 65 percent reported that they were able to keep all of their relevant 

expenditure records. Nearly half reported that they could easily persuade other members of the 

household to provide records. Over 80 percent stated that they did not feel uncomfortable sharing 

all of their expenditure records. Over 94 percent used a special receipt holder that the interviewers 

provided to them. The researchers examined the records that the respondents provided and found 

that very few contained any personally identifiable information like the purchaser’s name. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

20 

 

The RTI and NORC field tests suggest that further encouraging recordkeeping may be relatively 

easy to implement and may help improve data quality. However, the impact will not affect all 

respondents or all expenditure categories equally. 

In Section III (below), we propose an evaluation to identify the most effective methods to 

encourage respondents to gather and use their expenditure records. 

Recommendation: Prior to starting an interview, the interviewer should ask respondents 

to gather summary records (e.g., credit card statements, checking 

account statements) that might assist in recall of expenditures. 

Prior to the start of each interview, the interviewers should ask the respondents to access credit 

card statements, bank statements, checkbooks, or other records that may help the respondents recall 

their purchases over the reference period. Banks keep a database of all checks that the respondents 

have written. These databases always contain the amount of each check and the date that it cleared. 

Sometimes they also contain the payee, at least for some of the checks. The databases may also 

contain a digital image of each check. Also, credit card companies keep a database of all charges, 

including the date, payee, and dollar amount. The respondents could view these databases online, or 

download and print out the contents of the databases. They could also see the same data on their 

checking and credit card account statements, which they may receive in the U.S. Mail or view online. 

At least by one estimate, approximately 70% of all consumer purchases are contained in electronic 

records like this (Westat, 2011). 

Recommendation: At the conclusion of each interview, interviewers should ask 

respondents to find expenditure records over the next several days. 

The interviewer should call the main household respondent back after 

a pre-specified period of time (see below) and ask for any updates or 

changes to information as a result of new information contained in 

the records retrieved since the interview. 

We recommend the interviewers ask the respondent to gather expenditure records during the days 

after the interview is completed. The interviewer would ask the respondent to collect any records 

that were not on hand during the interview, with a special emphasis on the larger purchases reported 

using the 6 or 3 month reference period. These records would represent expenditure information 

for items that were reported from memory at the first interview. Or it may be expenses that were 

completely left out during the first interview. The interviewer would call the respondent to collect 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

21 

 

this updated information. After the first interview, this callback would occur within five days after 

the diary is collected. At the second interview, the callback would occur within 5 days after the 

interview. This “enhancement” could take one of two forms. One would have the interviewer pull 

up interview data that had not come from records and ask the respondent if a record had been 

found. If so, the information would be updated using the new information. A second possible 

format would be open-ended, with the interviewer asking the respondent to produce any records 

they might have gathered. For each record found, the interviewer would locate the section of the 

interview that needed updating. 

For purposes of budgeting (Chapter 4), we have assumed this is conducted as a followup telephone 

interview. Alternatively, the respondents could enter the information on a special online form. In 

Section III (below), we propose an evaluation to study the use of records this way. 

Recommendation: Interviewers should encourage the use of records when completing 

the diary. 

The respondents should verify their diary entries against receipts, online purchasing records, 

checking account statements, and credit card statements. Interviewers could furnish the respondents 

with special receipt holders, and with stickers reading “Remember to get a receipt!” for their wallets. 

Below we also recommend that respondents be permitted to provide grocery store and supermarket 

receipts, with appropriate annotation, in lieu of entering data into the diary. This procedure would 

spare the respondent a significant amount of burdensome and possibly error-prone diary entry. 

Diary Field Period 

Recommendation: Limit the diary data collection to 7 days. 

The recommendation to move to a single week rather than a two-week diary period is based on the 

empirical literature that demonstrates a decline in reporting as the length of the diary period 

increases. The literature on this issue with respect to CE diaries is relatively limited. The most 

salient findings include these: 

 For daily or weekly expenditure diaries, several authors have reported systematic 

declines in expenditure estimates. They observed that the estimates of the first week are 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

22 

 

higher than those of the subsequent week or weeks, and that the average estimate of the 

first day of the first week is greater than the overall average estimate (Cho, Eltinge, and 

Steinberg, 2004; Dippo et al,1977; Pearl, 1977; Silberstein and Scott, 1991).

 The mean expenditure amount drops on average 20 percent from the first to second 

day of the first week and 10 percent from the first to the second week (Silberstein and 

Scott, 1991). 

 Regardless of the week, weekly expenditure means decline as a function of the amount 

that recall, rather than records, is used. Expenditures had the highest means when there 

is no recall, followed by when there is partial recall and the lowest when all expenditures 

are provided by recall. 

Other studies incorporating diaries have seen similar fall off. Examples include health diaries 

(Verbrugge, 1980), food diaries, and time use diaries. 

This research suggests that CE data quality may improve if the diary-keeping period were shortened 

from 2 weeks to 1 week. Moreover, respondents may perceive less burden and be more likely to 

cooperate when their diary keeping task lasts only 1 week. 

The Use of Technology for the Diary 

Recommendation: Create a web version of the diary. Design the web-based diary with 

interactive features that facilitate data entry. 

We concur with item #5 in the Consensus Design Document of May 7, 2012, calling for the 

development of a web-based diary. The rationale for our recommendation to develop a web-based 

diary is straightforward: 

 Research in other data collection projects suggests that replacing paper-based data 

collection methods with electronic methods may potentially improve data quality; 

 Many respondents will be reluctant to download software for the purpose of data entry, 

but few will feel uncomfortable accessing a web-based diary; 

 The current CE paper diary provides a relatively cumbersome data entry process; and 

 A web-based diary can have capabilities which facilitate data entry and which are 

infeasible with paper diaries. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

23 

 

Research from other data collection projects suggests that converting from paper-based diaries to 

electronic diaries may improve the quality of the data that the respondents provide (Iida et al., 2012; 

Krishamurthy, 2008; Stone et al., 2002). Those projects include psychological research in which 

respondents were asked to record their activities or self-observations. Those projects also include 

clinical trials of investigational medications in which patients recorded events such as side effects. 

The results of those projects suggest that respondents tend to enter their data more promptly and 

accurately on electronic diaries, as compared to paper diaries. The CE program might similarly 

benefit from a transition to an electronic diary. 

An electronic diary can be created two ways: The diary can run on the web, or it can run as software 

on smart phones, tablets, and laptop and desktop computers. With a web-based diary, respondents 

use a browser to access the diary and enter their data. With a software-based diary, respondents run 

the diary software on their own computers or mobile devices; after they enter their data, the 

software uploads the data to a central database. 

We recommend that the BLS create a web-based diary, not a software-based diary, because many 

respondents are likely to be reluctant to download the software. Only 43 percent of American adults 

who own a smart phone ever download apps onto it (Smith, 2012). Michael Link (personal 

communication, September, 2012) found that respondents were often unwilling to download 

software for data collection in Nielsen projects, even though those same respondents sometimes 

download games and other software that they know little about. Some respondents may view the 

requirement to download software as an unnecessary burden. Some respondents may encounter 

difficulty trying to download the software. Some may even suspect that the software could be 

dangerous. 

By contrast, respondents are not likely to have misgivings about accessing a web-based diary. 

Respondents would not need to download any software to access the web-based diary. They would 

access it in the same manner that they access any web site. 

The current paper diaries are burdensome in a number of ways. Respondents must locate the 

appropriate day and category on the diary forms before entering each expenditure. All the 

instructions are in a single, lengthy section at the start of the diary, where they are not easily available 

when the respondent needs them. Respondents using the paper diary are therefore likely to guess 

about how to handle complicated expenditures or ambiguous purchase prices. In addition, 

respondents using the paper diary have limited ability to interact with CE staff. A web-based diary 

need not have those drawbacks (Davis, Stinson, and To, 2002). 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

24 

 

A well-designed web-based diary would enable respondents to enter their expenditure data with a 

minimum of effort. BLS has designed and will soon field test a web-based version of the current CE 

paper diary. The design of that web-based diary generally conforms to the design of the paper diary; 

the respondent enters expenditure data onto online tables that resemble the forms in the paper 

diary. 

We recommend a different design for the web-based diary. With our recommended design, the webbased diary prompts the respondents to enter their expenditures interactively by answering 

questions, rather than by entering expenditure data directly into tables. Respondents would not need 

to navigate to specific pages based on the date or the category of the purchase. 

An example of one possible version of our proposed design, the respondents would first indicate 

what they wished to do. They would see a screen like the one in Figure 2. They would indicate 

whether they needed to enter an expenditure, view or change information about an expenditure that 

they already entered, or enter information about an expenditure that they already entered but then 

returned or exchanged. 

Respondents who wanted to enter data about an expenditure would next see a screen that prompted 

them to enter a description of the expenditure and to select the category that best described the 

expenditure (Figure 3). The screen that the respondents saw next would depend on the selected 

category. 

If a respondent was entering data about an expenditure in the “other” category—that is, not food 

away from home, nor food for home consumption, nor apparel—then the next screen would ask 

the respondent to enter the amount paid, and the date of the expenditure (Figure 4). If the 

respondent had entered an expenditure in the “food and drink away from home” category, the 

screen would ask for the price with tax and tip, and the screen that came next would have the 

questions “meal type,” “where purchased,” and the questions about the kind and cost of alcoholic 

drinks that may have been purchased with the meal. Similarly, if the respondent had entered an 

expenditure in the “clothing, shoes, jewelry, and accessories” category or the “food and drink for 

home consumption” category, the screens would ask for the specific information required by the CE 

program. 

On the succeeding screen, the respondent would indicate whether the expenditure was for someone 

not on the household list (Figure 5). The screen would display the household list, in case the 

respondent did not remember the list.
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

25 

 

The respondents would see the word “help” below each question. When they clicked the “help”

link, they would receive guidance for that particular question. For example, Figure 6 shows a screen 

that respondents might see if they clicked the “help” link below the question about the dollar 

amount of an expenditure. The “help” screen provides general instructions, along with a list of 

possible sources of confusion, such as purchases in which the respondent receives a discount for the 

merchandise, or pays for the merchandise in installments. When the respondent clicked on the text 

describing the situation, a text box would pop up providing guidance about how the respondent 

should compute the price. With this “help” feature, the respondent will feel that adequate guidance 

is always quickly available; as a result, respondents may be less tempted to guess how to enter the 

data. 

Figure 2. An early screen. An early screen asks respondents what they need to do. 

What do you need to do?

 Enter an expenditure

 View or change an expenditure already entered

 Enter a return or exchange

 Exit

Next>
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

26 

 

Figure 3. First screen for entering expenditure data. The respondent first enters a description 

of the purchase, and clicks a radio button to indicate the category of the purchase. 

The questions that come next are dependent upon the category that the respondent 

selects. 

What did you buy or pay for?

Help

What kind of purchase was this?

o Food or drink away from home

o Food or drink for home consumption

o Clothing, shoes, jewelry, or accessories

o Any other product or service

Help

<Back Next>
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

27 

 

Figure 4. Next screen for entering expenditure data. If the respondent entered an expenditure 

that fell into the category “any other product or service,” the next screen would ask 

for the price without tax, and the date of the purchase. 

[The text that the respondent typed to describe the 

expenditure, such as “Hammer” or “Plumber’s fee” 

appears here]

What was the total cost, without tax?

Help

What was the day of the purchase?

o Sunday, April 1

o Monday, April 2

o Tuesday, April 3

o Wednesday, April 4

o Thursday, April 5

o Friday, April 6

o Saturday, April 7

Help

<Back Next>

$ .
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

28 

 

Figure 5. Later screen for entering expenditure data. This screen would appear for all 

expenditures except those in the category “food and drink away from home.”

[The text that the respondent typed to 

describe the expenditure, such as “Hammer” 

or “Plumber’s fee” appears here]

Was this purchase for someone in your 

household?

o Yes, it was for someone who is in my 

household

o No, it was for someone who is NOT in 

my household

Help

<Back Next>

Your household

John Q. Doe

Jane Roe-Doe

Billy Doe

Sally Doe
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

29 

 

Figure 6. Help screen. If a respondent clicked the link “help” for the question about the cost 

of an expenditure, the screen that popped up would offer brief overall guidance, and 

list common sources of confusion about the price. When the respondent clicked an 

item on the list, another screen would pop up to explain how to handle that 

situation. 

Enter the total cost, but do not include any tax or tip. So if you 

paid $10.00 for a haircut and added a $2.00 tip, enter “$10.00.” If 

you bought a hammer and paid $5.00 plus 40 cents tax, enter 

“$5.00.”

Sometimes the cost is not completely clear. Click the situation that 

applies to this purchase for more explanation:

I paid for something now, but will not use it until later. For 

example, I bought a train ticket today but will use it next week.

I bought something and received it, but paid nothing now. I 

will not pay until later.

I used a coupon to reduce the price of the item.

I bought something but made only a partial payment now. I’ll 

pay the rest later.

I received a discount that applies to the total purchase price, 

not to the individual items that I bought.

I will receive a refund of all or part of the price later. For 

example, I will send in a coupon to receive a rebate.

I received a “buy one get one free,” or “buy one, get another 

at half price,” or “buy one, get something else free,” or similar 

discount.

Close
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

30 

 

Respondents might need to view or change data about the expenditures that they have already 

entered, or to report that they returned or exchanged an item that they already entered as an 

expenditure. In those cases, the web-based diary might present a list of the expenditures that the 

respondent had already entered. The list might include the description of the expenditure, the price, 

and the date. If the respondent clicked on one of the expenditures on the list, the next screen would 

show all the entered data about the expenditure. The respondent could then delete the expenditure, 

or change any of the data. The respondent could indicate that the purchase was returned and the 

payment was refunded. Or, the respondent could indicate that the purchased item was exchanged; 

the next screen would ask the respondent about the merchandise received in exchange. 

The system could provide some level of error checking. For example, it could ask respondents to 

verify apparent errors, such as entering $250 as the price of apples, or categorizing a shirt as food. 

The web-based diary could include a way to interact with CE staff. For example, respondents might 

click a link to create and send a message to the staff. When respondents used the data entry system 

later, they would read the reply. Also, the web-based diary might even include “live chat,” like many 

e-commerce sites today. With “live chat,” respondents would interact with CE staff in real time. 

We emphasize that many approaches are feasible for designing an interactive diary. We have 

presented here only one of many possibilities. Moreover, some respondents may prefer to enter 

their data into online tables rather than with an interactive series of questions. A well-designed webbased diary will be flexible, allowing respondents to enter data in the way they prefer. 

We recommend that the interviewers spend the necessary time to explain the web-based diary to the 

respondents. In addition, we recommend that the interviewers call the respondents 2 days into the 

diary period. The interviewers can then address any difficulties that the respondents may have 

encountered; Horsfield (2010) used that procedure in a different expenditure data project. 

Our proposed solution offers an adequate level of data security. The web-based diary would use a 

secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol, like the web sites of most banks and 

credit card companies use. All respondents would be required to enter a user identification and 

password before they entered expenditure data. After they finished entering data, they would log off 

of the system. If they did not log off, the session would time out. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

31 

 

Respondent’s Technology for the Diary 

Recommendation: Allow respondents to use their own technology to enter their 

expenditure data on the web-based diary. Provide tablets to 

respondents when necessary. Offer the paper diary to respondents 

who prefer to provide data that way. 

We recommend allowing respondents to use their own smart phones, tablets, laptop computers, or 

desktop computers to enter their expenditure data on the web-based diary. Research from the Pew 

Internet and American Life project suggests that a very large proportion of American adults have 

Internet access conveniently available: 

 About 80 percent of American adults have access to the Internet, although poorer and 

less educated individuals are disproportionately less likely to have Internet access 

(Zickuhr and Smith, 2012). 

 About 62 percent of American adults have broadband Internet access at home 

(Zickuhr and Smith, 2012). 

 About 25 percent of American adults have a tablet computer (Rainie, 2012). 

Those findings suggest that most CE respondents could be expected to have convenient access to 

the Internet and be well accustomed to using web sites for a variety of purposes. They may expect to 

be permitted to enter their data using their own technology. 

There are clearly challenges in developing a web-based diary that respondents can use on a range of 

platforms. The term “Responsive Web Design” is defined in Wikipedia as “an approach to web 

design in which a site is crafted to provide an optimal viewing experience—easy reading and 

navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling—across a wide range of devices, from 

desktop computer monitors to mobile phones.” BLS would need to apply the techniques of 

Responsive Web Design in order to make a suitable web-based diary for the CE program. 

When a browser requests a web page from a server, it provides certain information, such as what 

kind of browser it is, and the hardware and operating system it is using. With effective Responsive 

Web Design, the server configures the web page according to that information. 

Developers today have at their disposal numerous Responsive Web Design tools including 

Hypertext Markup Language Revision 5 (HTML5), Cascading Style Sheets Level 3 (CCS3), JQuery 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

32 

 

Mobile (www.jquerymobile.com), and Sencha Touch (www.sencha.com). Developers use these tools 

to create web sites that accommodate consumers who use a vast diversity of computers and mobile 

devices. 

Some providers of web-based surveys use Responsive Web Design tools to ensure that all 

respondents can complete their surveys, no matter what technology they own. For example, Voxco 

claims that web surveys developed with its Acuity4 system can be completed on almost any platform 

(http://www.voxco.com/en/product/web/online-survey-software.php). Other web survey 

systems, including REDCap and Vovici, make the same claim. Clearly data collection using 

Responsive Web Design tools is becoming prevalent. 

A web-based diary for the CE program need not contain extensive graphics, or lengthy text, or a 

very large number of pages. A skilled designer will be able to create the web-based diary so that it 

ran on the range of contemporary platforms consistently and usably. 

CE interviewers, during the initial visit to a CU, could ask respondents about the devices that they 

owned and their willingness to use those devices for data entry. The interviewers could ensure that 

the devices were suitable for using the web-based diary. If not, the respondent would be asked to 

use a tablet supplied by the government. 

We do not concur with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel’s recommendation that BLS 

provide all CUs with a tablet as the sole data entry method, and not allow respondents to use their 

own computers and mobile devices (Dillman and House, 2013). We recognize that the NAS 

recommendation would simplify the data collection process in some ways. However, we also believe 

that the tablet-only approach has drawbacks: 

 If BLS provided a tablet to every CU, BLS would need considerable resources to 

replace the tablets if significantly superior technology became available. Our 

recommendation allows more flexibility to BLS to adjust to changing technology over 

the next 5 to 10 years, when the CE redesign will be implemented. 

 Respondents would have no way to enter data when they are away from the tablet, such 

as at work or out shopping or on trips. When respondents must wait until they return to 

the tablet before they can report their data, the delay is likely to diminish the quality of 

the data that the respondents report (Krishamurthy, 2008; Stone et al., 2002);

 Many respondents are likely to be feel burdened and inconvenienced if they cannot use 

their own, readily-available computers and mobile devices to report their data. Some 

respondents may not trust a government-supplied computer. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

33 

 

We nonetheless do recommend lending tablets to respondents who wish to use the web-based diary 

but do not have the technology to do so. Some respondents may wish to enter their expenditure 

data on the web-based diary but lack adequate access to the Internet. For example, some 

respondents may have Internet access only at work. Some respondents may have access to the 

Internet only with a smart phone, but not wish to enter data on its tiny screen. The CE interviewers 

would lend these respondents a tablet computer. Because a respondent’s home may not have WiFi, 

the tablet would have cellular connectivity with the Internet. The tablet would be locked down so 

that respondents could use it only to enter expenditure data on the web-based diary. More than one 

respondent in the CU could use the tablet. The respondents would not be restricted to using the 

tablet as their sole data entry device; they could also enter data by accessing the web-based diary with 

any other device that they had the opportunity to use, such as a desktop computer at work. 

Some respondents may not wish to use any technology at all. These respondents would enter their 

expenditure data using paper forms. 

Below we recommend allowing each CU to have multiple diary respondents instead of only one. 

Within a single CU, some respondents might enter data using their own devices, while other 

respondents used a tablet provided by the interviewer, and other respondents relied on paper forms. 

Respondents who use the BLS-issued tablet would not have access to any data other than their own. 

Even if they were sharing the tablet with others in their CU, they would be able to view only their 

own data after entering a username and password. 

Our recommended solution—allowing respondents to use their own technology but lending tablets 

to respondents who lack technology—is not a new idea. Other data collection efforts have 

successfully employed similar strategies. For example, the firm Knowledge Networks, now a unit of 

GfK, fielded web surveys to a nationwide panel of households. Most of the household members 

accessed the surveys using their own computers. Knowledge Networks gave a netbook to about 30 

percent of the households, however, because they did not have their own technology to access the 

Internet (http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/index.html). 

We considered the possibility that the interviewers could lend respondents smart phones as well as 

tablets. However, it is unlikely that many respondents who lack Internet access will wish to enter 

their data using a smart phone. Many of the respondents who do not have Internet access may have 

limited Internet experience (Zickuhr and Smith, 2012). They might well prefer the larger screen of a 

tablet. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

34 

 

We recommend that the respondents who receive a tablet use the browser to enter their data over 

the Internet. However, an alternative approach is also possible: The diary could be pre-loaded onto 

the tablet. Respondents could enter their expenditure data directly on the tablet. The data would 

then be automatically uploaded to a central database. That approach might minimize data charges. 

That approach also has a disadvantage: updating the diary software may be difficult when a new 

version is developed. 

Active Monitoring of Diary Data Entry 

Recommendation: Take advantage of the web-based diary design to monitor and 

encourage daily diary entries for all CU members. 

Shifting the diary to a web-based instrument allows for real time monitoring of each CU’s entries 

into the diary. We recommend that the instructions to the respondents outline the need for daily 

data entry, even if there have not been any expenditures. 

The diary would be designed so that respondents could indicate “no expenditures today.” When 

respondents indicated that they had no expenditures, the diary could present a checklist of 

potentially overlooked expenditures such as “vending machine purchases” and “automatic utility 

payments.” This checklist could help respondents recall expenditures that they had forgotten. 

Respondents could check one of the expenditures on the list; they would then be asked to enter the 

relevant CE data. When respondents checked “No expenditures today,” they would be affirming 

that they did not neglect to enter expenditures for the day, but actually had no expenditures to 

report. CE staff would then know that the respondent had not simply decided to stop reporting CE 

data. If a respondent did fail to interact with the data collection system at all for a period of several 

days, then the interviewer could call, text, or email the respondent. In Section III below, we suggest 

evaluating the effectiveness of this procedure in improving data quality. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

35 

 

Use of Mementos for the Diary 

Recommendation: Develop a smartphone app for respondents to make note of 

expenditures quickly. 

Some respondents may wish to create mementos when they purchase something, to help them 

remember to enter data about that purchase. For example, respondents rushing through a checkout 

line at a store might take a photograph of the merchandise that they were buying. Respondents who 

wished to use mementos would download an app onto their smart phones. The app would permit 

them to take a photograph, record a voice memo, or type or write a short note. The app would 

automatically upload the memento, encrypted, to a central database. The next time that the 

respondents accessed the web-based diary, they would see the photograph, read the note, or hear the 

voice memo, reminding them to enter data about the purchase. 

Respondents would not be required to enter a user identification or password to create a memento 

on their smart phones. Respondents would typically be in a rush when they created a memento. 

They may have just handed a payment to a busy cashier, for example, and not have time to enter a 

user identification and password into a smart phone. For that reason, the proposed app would allow 

them to take a photo, record an audio memo, or type or write a note very quickly. 

The memento app could help some respondents remember their expenditures. Of course, only 

respondents who were willing to download this app could use it. Pew research suggests that smart 

phone owners often like to create mementos. For example, about 82 percent of American adults 

who own a smart phone use it to take photos (Duggan and Rainie, 2012). 

Some respondents might choose instead to use their own apps to create photos, audio memos, or 

typed and written notes. Since these mementos would not be uploaded, the respondents would need 

to remember to check them when entering data into the diary. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

36 

 

Multiple Diarists Per Household 

Recommendation: We recommend that all CU members, ages 15 and older, complete a 

1-week diary. 

A limited body of empirical research suggests that switching from the current single respondent per 

CU design to a multiple respondent per CU design may improve the quality of the data collected 

with the CE diary, primarily by reducing under-reporting. Examining household expenditures in 

Hong Kong between 1979 and 1980, Grootaert (1986, p. 943) found that switching from the single 

diary to a multiple diary approach lead to a 10.7 percent increase in expenditures for a 2-week diary 

period. The expenditures most affected were for clothing and footwear, transportation and vehicles, 

services, and miscellaneous goods. Even among nuclear families, there was a significant impact 

related to the use of multiple diaries, with significant increases for clothing and footwear as well as 

services expenditures. 

Similarly, a field study conducted by BLS (Edgar et al. 2006) found that the use of multiple diaries 

per CU resulted in an increased number of expenditure items reported as well as an increased dollar 

value of the expenditures. Specifically, the BLS researchers found increases in the mean number of 

reports ranging from 5.2 percent for “other expenditures” to 6.8 percent for food at home. Looking 

at mean expenditures, the researchers reported significant increases in expenditures at the CU level, 

on average $281 higher in week 1 for CUs assigned to the individual diaries and $540 higher in week 

2.

Grootaert’s (1986) research suggests that full participation by all household diary-keepers is not the 

key to increasing the reporting of expenditures. Rather it is the request to the household to keep 

multiple diaries that leads to the reporting of increased expenditures. A related advantage of this 

approach is that it could significantly reduce the perceived burden of the survey. 

The field protocol for the Living Costs and Food Survey (UK) consists of a household-based 

Computer-Assisted Personal Interview followed by a request that every individual aged 16 and older 

keep a detailed record of expenditures for a 14-day period. Children ages 7 to 15 are also asked to 

keep a simplified diary of daily expenditures. According to the Office of National Statistics (2011), 

about 86 percent of the children ages 7 to 15 in responding households maintained their own diaries. 

Incentives were paid post completion of the diaries: £10 for adults and £5 for children. The impact 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

37 

 

of the request for multiple diaries on response rates cannot be ascertained as no relevant controlled 

research has been published; current response rates average around 50 percent for the survey. 

A field test that compared single and multiple diary data collection protocols was conducted in 2011 

as part of the Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (Mathematica, 2011). With the 

multi-diary protocol, all adults (ages 19+) and youth (ages 11-18) in the households kept diaries of all 

household food acquisition over a 7-day period. The field test found that households assigned to the 

single diary condition reported more spending and consumption of food at home while households 

assigned to the multiple diary condition reported more food consumption away from home. As a 

result of the field test, three kinds of diaries were adopted in 2012: (1) a Primary Respondent Book; 

(2) Adult Food Book for adults age 19 and older other than the primary respondent; and (3) Youth 

Food Book for those age 11-18.

5

Other examples of data collection efforts that involve a request for multiple diarists within the 

household include the National Household Travel Survey (U.S. Department of Transportation, 

2011), time-dairy studies (e.g., Fu, et al., 2002) and the nutritional diary study associated with the 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). 

The details of how to place multiple diaries could be an issue, should this recommendation be 

adopted. We recommend that the person who knows the most about the expenditures in the 

household receive instructions on the diary and this individual inform the other diarists of their 

duties. 

Use of Annotated Grocery Receipts 

Recommendation: Allow respondents to provide annotated receipts for grocery or 

supermarket expenditures, in lieu of making diary entries. 

Research by NORC (Sjoblom and Lee, 2012) suggests that respondents are willing to save receipts, 

especially receipts for apparel and food purchases (either for consumption at home or away from the 

home), and that most receipts can be coded without further input from the CE respondents. In 

 

5

 The field test also included an incentive experiment, comparing a household level incentive of $50 vs. $100. The $100 

incentive resulted in response rates nine percentage points higher than the $50 level. The final field protocol 

incorporated the use of multiple diaries, incentives at the household level, and multiple telephone contacts during the 

diary week. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

38 

 

addition, that research identified specific detailed data required by CE that were not available from 

receipts, including the type of meal and outlet type for food away from home, whether food 

purchased for consumption at home was fresh, frozen, bottled, canned, or some other form, and the 

gender and age of the person who would wear purchased clothing, shoes, jewelry, and accessories 

(Sjoblom and Lee, 2012; p31-32). 

The burden on CE respondents would be reduced if they could provide receipts rather than make 

diary entries, especially for grocery and supermarket purchases, which often include a large number 

of items. The challenge, however, is to have records that meet the demands of the CE data 

requirements, and provide sufficient detail to code the expenditures into OPLC categories. The 

revision of the OPLC categories, eliminating many detailed distinctions, greatly facilitates using 

grocery store receipts in place of diary entries. For example, the category “fish and seafood” no 

longer requires distinguishing among canned, fresh, and frozen fish or seafood. 

Some stores put UPC codes on their receipts (for example, Wal-Mart and Target). With the UPC 

code, a product’s OPLC category is easily identified. However, other stores do not put UPC codes 

on their receipts. Respondents who purchase groceries at those stores will most likely need to 

annotate their receipts to permit coding by either the interviewer or a central coding operation. 

Under our redesign proposal, there is also an opportunity for interviewers to follow-up with 

respondents for receipt information that is not clear from their original annotations. 

If replacing diary entries with receipts proves to be successful for food and apparel expenditures, the 

procedure could be extended to other expenditure types, such as apparel and personal care items. In 

Section III, below, we propose an evaluation to study how successfully respondents could provide 

receipts in place of making diary entries. 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

39 

 

Incentives 

Recommendation: Incorporate incentives at all stages of the CE data collection to both 

improve response rates and motivate reporting. Include an incentive 

in the advance letter, and provide incentives to the CE interview 

respondents and to every diarist in the CU. 

Although incentives have most often been considered as a means to boost response rates, we 

recommend incentives as a means to control total survey error. That is, we view incentives as a tool 

not only to improve the response rate, but also to motivate respondents to use records for the 

interview and to record diary entries on a daily basis. We believe incentives are a key to the success 

of our proposed one-sample design. With appropriate incentives, respondents may be more 

motivated to provide complete and accurate data for the interview and the diary. 

The timing of incentives, the use of CU and person-level incentives, and the amount of the incentive 

should be designed to achieve several goals: 

 Reduce nonresponse; 

 Reduce the level of effort to achieve specific response rates; 

 Motivate respondents to gather and use records for the interview; and 

 Motivate daily recording of expenditures by each respondent. 

The survey literature lacks a unifying theory by which to guide the use, timing, and level of 

incentives. Leverage saliency theory suggests that incentives should be most effective when response 

propensity is low (Singer, et al., 1999); here we would expect a survey like the CE interview or diary 

would benefit from an incentive due to the low topic saliency for most CUs. Several authors 

(e.g., Baumgartner and Rathbun; 1997; Berlin, et al., 1992; Groves, Singer, and Corning, 2000) have 

found differential impacts of incentives as a function of topic salience, although the compensating 

effect of incentives has not been consistent in the literature. What the literature fails to address is 

how incentives impact decision heuristics related to whether or not to participate or the level of 

effort respondents are willing to exert to complete the survey task. 

Two meta analyses (Church, 1993; Singer, 2002) have served as the foundation for three tenets 

considering incentive use in surveys for the past decade: (1) prepaid incentives are more effective 

than promised incentives; (2) monetary incentives improve response rates as compared to 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

40 

 

non-monetary incentives; and (3) the effect of incremental increases in incentive amounts vary as a 

function of subject matter and population subgroup. 

Evidence of diminished returns associated with prepaid incentives has motivated some commercial 

organizations (e.g., Arbitron, Nielsen) to experiment with promised incentives. O’Hare (2008) found 

that promised incentives ($5, $10, and $10 gift cards) all significantly improved radio listening diary 

return rates, with the $10 promised incentive raising the return rate by 11 percentage points. Some 

organizations mix prepaid and promised incentives. For example, in a second study reported by 

O’Hare (2008), a prepaid $1 incentive included in an advance letter significantly improved 

willingness to place diaries in the household and a $5 “thank you” sent following agreement to 

complete the diary boosted diary return rates significantly. 

The monetary incentives used in past research range from token incentives of $1 to $3 to far more 

substantial amounts. Many of the more substantial incentives are linked to face-to-face interviews 

that represent significant respondent burden, in terms of time, detail of information, or sensitivity of 

the information. For example, the Health and Retirement Survey currently offers a prepaid incentive 

of $50 to $80 per married couple. When the incentives are substantial, they are typically paid at the 

time of the interview is completed. Examples include a $40 incentive for the National Survey of 

Family Growth, a $50 incentive per round for the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) for a 

total of $250 for those households that complete all five rounds, and a $90 incentive for the 

National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). The NESARC 

incentive is split – $45 up front to the respondent, $45 at the completion of the interview. Also, the 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) provides varying levels of 

incentives at the individual level, with the levels based on age and willingness to participate in a 

medical exam at the time of the interview. For example, those ages 16 and older who agree to the 

physical exam are offered a $125 incentive at the time of the interview; those under the age of 12 

with no physical exam are offered a $40 incentive. In addition, NHANES provides other 

examination-based incentives (e.g., $40 for wearing a physical activity monitor). 

The survey methodology literature is relatively rich in demonstrating the effects of incentives on 

response rates, level of effort, and data quality, including research specifically focused on the CE 

interview and diary. As illustrative of the type of study often conducted, we report here an 

experiment involving MEPS (Hicks, et al., 2011). MEPS is a panel survey in which households are 

interviewed five times over 2.5 years, collecting information about all medical care utilization and 

expenditures, with each interview lasting on average 60 to 90 minutes. Three levels of incentives 

were tested: $30, $50, and $70. Response rates were highly associated with incentive level, with rates 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

41 

 

of 58.4 percent, 66.7 percent, and 71.1 percent, respectively, in the first round (all comparisons 

statistically significant at p < .01). In addition to response rates, the study investigated the effects of 

incentives on level of effort and several proxy measures of data quality. With respect to level of 

effort, the study found that in general, the higher the incentive, the lower the average number of 

contacts to complete a case. With respect to data quality (permission to access medical records; rates 

of missing data on selected items; proportion of households reporting at least one physician visit), 

the study reported no difference across incentive groups. 

The effect of incentives has been studied with respect to the CEI and the CED. McGrath, et al. 

(2007) reported the results of a controlled incentive experiment involving the diary, comparing no 

incentive, a $20 incentive, and a $40 incentive per CU. The incentives were distributed to the CUs 

with the mailed advance letter, prior to diary placement. The response rate did not vary across the 

three experimental groups, but substantive differences were detected. McGrath, et al. (2007, p.36) 

stated in their conclusions: 

Respondents who received an incentive reported both a higher number of 

expenditures, as well as higher levels of expenditures. For total spending 

across the 2-week Diary period, mean reported spending for the incentive 

cases was about $60 higher, whereas median spending for incentive cases 

was about 10 percent higher than the control group ($110). As expected, 

the $40 group reported more spending than the $20 group. Of the four 

main spending categories, reported spending increased the most in the 

‘Other’ category and least for ‘Food at Home’. CUs who received the 

incentive also reported more purchased items when compared to the 

control group. Those in the $20 incentive group reported an average of 3.5 

more items than the control (an increase of 5.4 percent), while the $40 

incentive group reported approximately 5.9 more item (an increase of 

9.1 percent). 

The authors were concerned with measurement bias – that is, that the higher spending reported by 

the incentivized CUs was, in part, caused by the respondents’ ability to spend the incentive itself. 

The data did not permit clearly delineating between increased reporting due to motivational effects 

of the incentive and increased reporting due to increased income. The recommendation from the 

study was to not incorporate incentives for the CU diary sample, in part, due to the lack of 

significant effects with respect to the response rates. 

Goldenberg, McGrath, and Tan (2009) report the findings from an experiment involving the use of 

prepaid incentives (debit cards) included with advance letters for the CE interview. Two levels of 

incentives were tested: $20 and $40. Both were sent via priority mail. These two incentive 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

42 

 

conditions were compared to two no-incentive control conditions: an advance letter sent via first 

class mail and an advance letter sent via priority mail. Incentives were paid only in advance of the 

first interview (in a 5-interview panel design). The $40 prepaid incentive led to higher response rates 

in the first interview (as compared to the regular mail control), in the second interview (compared to 

all the other conditions) and in the fourth interview (compared to the two no-incentive conditions) 

but there were no differences in response rates for the third and fifth interview. (Remember, the 

incentive was offered only in the advance letter prior to the first interview). Further analysis by 

Goldenberg, et al (2009) suggests that the reduction in nonresponse was due specifically to a 

reduction in noncontact rates. Similar to other studies (Berlin, et al, 1992; RTI, 2002; Hicks, et al., 

2011), the CE incentive experiment found that the $40 incentive reduced level of effort, in this case, 

number of personal visit contact attempts, as compared to the control group or no incentive priority 

mail group. In all these cases, the incentives at least paid for themselves by these reductions in effort. 

With respect to data quality, Goldenberg et al. (2009, p. 5997) summarized their findings as follows: 

...incentive recipients performed better when compared to the Control 

group on most of the indirect data quality measures: they answered more 

expenditure questions, they used records more frequently, they provided 

fewer don’t know and refused answers, and their reported data required

fewer imputations and allocations. The $40 incentive performed better than 

the Incentive $20 group on 7 of 11 measures, but some of the differences 

were very small and most were not statistically significant. 

To date, however, no incentive has been incorporated in the CE interview program. We

recommend including incentives in the redesigned CE program. 

Sample Sizes 

Recommendation: We recommend including 14,000 CUs per year in the CE program. 

Table 3 provides the sample sizes that we recommend for each annual sample. Using our 

recommendation, the CE program would collect comparable amounts of data for each of the 

expenditure categories as it collects using the current design. 

The current design collects 12 months of data over four interviews for 7,000 households, yielding 

84,000 household-months (12 x 7,000). Our proposed design collects 6 months of data for 14,000 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

43 

 

households, yielding the same number of household-months (6 x 14,000 for the 6 month reference 

period; 2 x 3 x 14,000 for the 3 month reference period). The exception is for the items with a 1-

month reference period that we recommend for the interview survey. In the case of those items, 

there are two interviews for 14,000 households, yielding 28,000 household-months. However, the 

items that we recommend for a 1-month reference period are small purchases that have been 

estimated from the diary, which currently yields fewer collection months. 

Table 3. Proposed sample sizes compared to current design 

 Current design Proposed design 

CUs interviewed 7,000 14,000

Interviews completed 35,000 28,000

Bounding interview 7,000 —

Data interview 28,000 28,000

Diary

CUs 7,000 14,000

Diary weeks 14,000 14,000

A similar calculation can be completed for the diary collection. In the current design, there are 7,000 

households in the CED sample, with each CU yielding 2 weeks of data for a total of 14,000 

household-weeks. Under the proposed design, there are 14,000 CUs in the sample, yielding 1 week 

of data for the same total number of household-weeks. 

If it is desirable to collect an additional week’s worth of diary data, then CU’s could be asked to 

complete the diary at the second interview as well. Of course, this would add both cost and burden 

to the proposed design. 

We note that the current design carries a significant design effect when estimating annual 

expenditures due to repeating interviews up to four times for the same CU for the interview and two 

times for the diary. This design effect carries a significant cost for a number of expenditures 

(Westat, 2011). Our recommended design almost eliminates this design effect. By spacing the 

interviews 12 months apart, the recommended design significantly reduces the overlap for a 

particular annual period, but still allows for individual analysis of annual change. 

Length of First Interview 

Our recommended redesign of the CE program decreases overall burden on a single household in 

several different ways. First it reduces the total number of interviews from five to two. Second, the 
Design Features 

II 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

44 

 

diary data collection period is reduced from two weeks to one week. However, the first visit to the 

household using our recommended procedure will likely be longer than it is using the current 

procedures. One reason is that the interview will be asking for a six month reference period for a 

subset of OPLC categories (Table 1). This will increase the number of people who report an 

expense in these categories. For regular monthly expenditures (e.g. utility bills), the respondent will 

be asked to report six separate numbers, rather than three. As shown in Table 2, however, many of 

the six month expenditures do not change from one month to the next (e.g., mortgage, internet 

services, rent). Specifically, 19 of the 34 six-month categories should be identical across all months. 

For the larger expenses that are not regular (e.g. furniture, cars), the frequency of purchase is very 

low and only a small percentage of respondents will report a purchase even when the reference 

period is extended to 6 months. Therefore, extending the reference period to 6 months should not 

increase the interview by more than an average of a couple of minutes. 

A second reason why the length of the first interview will increase is the interviewer will spend some 

time setting up the diary data collection. The interviewer will determine the type of technology the 

respondents will use, instruct them on the diary task, and explain how to distribute the diary to other 

members of the household. We estimate these tasks will take approximately 15 minutes. This is 

based on an estimate that it takes 20 minutes to place the diary in the current design. We have taken 

off 5 minutes from this based on the observation that the 20 minutes includes interviewers briefing 

respondents about the CE and its goals. In the proposed design, respondents will already be familiar 

with the CE and the type of data being requested. 

Assuming the interview is approximately 50 to 60 minutes (based on current timings), this will 

increase the length of the visit to 65 to 75 minutes. While this is longer than the current CEI, this is 

not excessive relative to other in-person surveys that provide the respondent with an incentive, such 

as MEPS. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

42 

 

Philosophy 

The evaluation plan that follows is a set of laboratory and field studies that include usability tests, 

feasibility tests, and experiments using controlled designs. Our recommended evaluation plan should 

not be viewed as an exhaustive set of studies that provide BLS with the best possible empirical data 

to inform a revised CE design. Rather, we have attempted to identify the minimum set of studies 

that are absolutely essential for redesigning the CE program in order to stay within the time and cost 

parameters. To meet the time schedule as well as the budget for evaluation work, some design 

decisions will unavoidably need to be made without additional empirical data. We believe, for 

example, that it would be too costly and time consuming to experimentally compare a web-based 

diary and a paper-and-pencil diary. We therefore assume that the redesign will incorporate a webbased diary, as we recommend, and we do not call for an evaluation of that idea. In the last section 

of this chapter we comment on the overall level of funding that is being proposed for the redesign. 

A critical issue in the evaluation plan is determining what evaluation work can be accomplished 

while the web-based diary is being developed. Key features of our recommendations (e.g., the onesample design) can be tested adequately only after a fully operational web-based diary is developed. 

Therefore, we have attempted to separate studies into those which could be conducted before the 

web-based diary is fully developed and those that should, logically, wait until there is a viable webbased diary. 

Development of Web-Based Diary 

The proposed redesign calls for replacing the current paper-and-pencil diary with a web-based diary. 

BLS has developed a web version of the diary in a format for laptop and desktop computers, and 

plans to develop a web version in a format for mobile devices. BLS will test these web versions of 

the diary in feasibility studies during 2013 and 2014 (Jay Ryan, personal communication, 

February 1, 2013). 

Evaluation Plan III 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

43 

 

We recommend that BLS conduct usability testing as the web-based diary is developed, to help 

ensure that the web-based diary helps respondents provide their data accurately, quickly, and with a 

minimum of effort. Usability testing of the web-based diary could employ the following methods: 

 An environmental scan; 

 Stakeholder interviews with BLS and Census staff; 

 Focus groups with participants who have used the web diaries; 

 Prototype testing; 

 Tests in the user experience laboratory; and 

 A followup field test. 

The environmental scan could include a review of the web-based applications that consumers can 

currently use to keep a record of their spending, such as Mint, Buxfer, and Moneydance. Westat 

(2011b) compiled a list of these products and their capabilities several years ago. . An environmental 

scan could examine the relative merits of the design of each product, and study how the CE webbased diary might incorporate the most promising design elements. The cost of this work is 

approximately $15,000 if a contractor completes the work. 

Stakeholder interviews could also provide important information relevant to the design of the webbased diary. BLS and Census staff members who have worked with the current paper-and-pencil 

diaries have observed the errors that respondents tend to make when reporting their expenditure 

data. Interviews with these staff members could reveal the most frequent errors that respondents 

have committed on paper diaries when reporting a purchased item, the price paid, or ancillary 

information such as whether a clothing purchase was for a child. For example, CE respondents may 

tend to make errors when a price is ambiguous because the price paid is affected by discount 

coupons, a payment plan, or a rebate offer. The web-based CE diary that we described earlier in this 

report can be interactive and present specific, relevant instructions concisely at the moment that the 

respondent needs guidance. The stakeholder interviews could help suggest the kinds of interactive 

instructions that are most needed in a web-based CE diary. The cost of these stakeholder interviews 

is $15,000 if a contractor completes this work. 

Focus groups with the people who participated in the field test of the early versions of the web diary 

could help reveal any deficiencies with the web diary, and suggest how those deficiencies could be 

resolved. The focus group moderators could ask about the difficulties that the participants 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

44 

 

experienced with the web diary, and how they tried to overcome those difficulties. The moderator 

would project images of the pages of the web diary. The group participants could then discuss any 

problems that they encountered using each page. The moderator could make changes to the 

projected image of the page, working with the participants to arrive at improvements to the content 

and layout of each page. 

These focus groups may be logistically difficult to arrange, especially if the field test participants are 

geographically dispersed. The focus groups will be feasible only with field test participants who live 

in single geographic area, and who are all available shortly after the field test. An alternative 

approach that may be more feasible would be to interview the participants individually using a 

conferencing system such as WebEx, which would permit the interviewer to speak with the 

participants while showing them pages from the diary. Nine interviews would cost $20,000 if done 

by a contractor. 

The environmental scan, stakeholder interviews and focus groups with field test participants could 

lead to ideas for revising the web-based diary. Developers could apply those ideas by creating 

prototypes for the next version of the web-based diary. Those prototypes could then be tested with 

about 5 test respondents. An interviewer would observe the test respondents as they entered specific 

expenditure data using the prototype pages. The respondent might be asked to “think aloud” to help 

the interviewer identify problems with the design of the prototypes. Prototype testing with 5 

respondents would cost $30,000 if a contractor completed the work. 

The developers would revise the web-based diary following the prototype testing. The web-based 

diary would then be ready for testing in the usability laboratory. Respondents would be given a set of 

tasks (called “scenarios”) to carry out using the web-based diary. For example, the respondents 

might be asked to enter the data for a restaurant meal. The expenditure might be complex in some 

way; for example, non-household people may have shared the restaurant meal or the price may have 

been affected by a discount. The respondents would be video-recorded in the usability laboratory. 

Researchers would measure the respondents’ speed and accuracy in a number of different scenarios, 

and observe the points at which the respondents hesitated or became confused. 

The goal of testing in the usability laboratory would be to study the experience of users of the webbased diary, and detect any problems that the developers may have missed. The developers would 

revise the web-based diary based on the findings. We suggest three rounds of iterative testing, with 5 

respondents each. One set of three rounds would test versions of the web-based diary for desktop 

and laptop computers. We estimate costs of about $75,000 if BLS contracts the work out. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

45 

 

A similar set of usability laboratory tests for the version of the web-based survey that runs on mobile 

devices would be conducted using 3 rounds of 5 respondents. The cost is $75,000 if BLS contracts 

this work out. 

After the completion of the usability testing, BLS could conduct a small field test in which CE 

respondents used their own technology, including their own computers and mobile devices, to 

report their expenditures. This field test would reveal whether the web-based diary could be 

successfully used for actual CE data collection. The field test would also reveal the extent to which 

respondents will use various technologies to enter data into the web-based diary. The design of the 

field test that BLS will conduct in 2014 calls for the respondents to be assigned a method for 

accessing the web-based survey. That is, respondents will be assigned to a desktop and laptop 

computer group, a tablet group, and a smart phone group. We recommend using a different design 

in which respondents are free to use any technology that they choose. The field test could then 

reveal the preferences of the respondents, as well as their success using the web-based diary. A field 

test with 200 CUs would cost $200,000 if the Census Bureau did the work. 

A separate development effort would be needed to create the smart phone app that CE respondents 

use to create mementos that remind them to report their expenditures. This app would be relatively 

straightforward. Respondents would first select the kind of memento they wished to create: a photo, 

a voice memo, a typed note, or a handwritten note. The app would then prompt the respondent to 

take the photo, audio-record the memo, type the note using the on-screen keyboard, or write the 

note onto the screen with a stylus or finger. The app would then automatically upload the memento. 

Developers could create a prototype of this app for testing. The initial version of the prototype need 

not actually upload the memento; the memento could remain stored on the smart phone. The 

prototype of the app could be tested in the usability laboratory, with 2 rounds of 5 subjects, at a cost 

of $50,000 if BLS contracts the work out. The revised app could then be included in the field test of 

the web-based diary or fielded as a separate test. The results of the field test would suggest the 

proportion of CE respondents who chose to use the app to create mementos, the degree to which 

the respondents entered data in conjunction with the mementos, and the respondents’ level of 

satisfaction with the app. 

The development of an electronic diary is an essential part of the development work for the 

redesigned CE instruments. We therefore recommend that the evaluation of the web-based diary be 

given a great deal of priority. The web-based diary should be in final or near-final form when it is 

used in all the other evaluation studies. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

46 

 

The Content of the Interview and the Diary 

We recommend conducting an evaluation to determine which expenditures are covered by the two 

recall interviews and which expenditures are covered by the diary. We have proposed that only food, 

alcohol, personal products, and possibly apparel be collected on the diary. However, that proposal 

should be evaluated to determine whether respondents can understand that only those expenditures 

are included and enter the appropriate data in the diary. This work would explore variations in how 

the interviewers describe the kinds of expenditure to enter into the diary. For example, the 

interviewers might explain not only the type of item but also the types of stores where the item was 

purchased. 

This evaluation would be carried out through a series of small laboratory and field studies. In the 

laboratory, respondents would be presented with the task of filling out the diary, just as they would 

if they were enrolled in the field survey. They could then be asked to perform tasks aimed at 

understanding what items they would include in the diary. One task would be to list all items they 

believed should be included on the diary. In another task, they would examine lists of expenditure 

items and indicate whether they would include each item on the diary (similar to a card sort type of 

exercise). The dependent measure would be how closely respondent choices corresponded to the 

correct expenditures for the diary. We would anticipate that this work could be completed in 2 to 3 

rounds of lab-based work, with a small number of respondents, about 8 per round. Another 

approach would be to conduct the initial work using focus groups in which the participants 

complete the tasks and then talk about why they included or excluded particular expenditure items 

on the diary. This work would cost approximately $40,000. 

We also recommend small scale field studies in which respondents keep 1-week diaries. Depending 

on the results of the laboratory studies, the expenditures covered in the diary or the instructions that 

the interviewers give the respondents for keeping the diary could be varied across respondents. In 

these field studies, the respondents might also be asked to complete a recall interview prior to 

keeping a diary, to mimic the proposed integrated design for the CE. The interviewers could debrief 

the respondents after the weeklong diary-keeping period, to learn how well the respondents 

understood and acted upon the instructions for keeping the diary. 

Sample sizes in the field studies would be dependent upon the design of the field studies. Total 

sample size most likely will not need to exceed 100 completed diaries; costs for such a small scale 

field test should be about $480,000, assuming that the work is contracted out. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

47 

 

The Use of Global Questions 

Global questions can take two different forms. With the first kind of global questions, respondents 

provide a single estimate for an entire category. The second type of global question employs a filter 

or “gate” question. Respondents first report whether they had any expenditures in a category. They 

receive questions about those expenditures only if they answer affirmatively. Both types of questions 

should be studied. 

The initial developmental research would determine the feasibility of asking respondents to provide 

global estimates for entire expenditure categories. The research would include both cognitive 

laboratory studies and small-scale field studies, building upon past work by Edgar (2011). This

developmental research would suggest which expenditures are best suited for the global questions, 

and what strategies the respondents employ to reach a final estimation of their expenditures. For 

example, the research will suggest whether respondents are decomposing the expenditures into 

specific items or using some other strategy. 

The research might also suggest how accurate the respondents’ estimates tend to be when they are 

asked global questions. To assess the accuracy of the respondents’ estimates of their expenditures, 

an interviewer could debrief the respondents and other household members about the expenditures 

to learn the actual levels of expenditures. The interviewer could also ask the respondents to provide 

receipts and other expenditure records. 

We expect that this developmental research will require 3 to 4 rounds of cognitive laboratory 

research, each involving 6 to 8 respondents. The research would entail developing a set of global 

questions for the interview. Those questions could be modified after each round of testing. The 

cognitive lab results will suggest which OPLC categories are most suited for global questions. We 

expect that these categories will include, for example, large expenditures that do not require 

significant calculations (e.g., furniture, appliances) or regular expenses that could be estimated 

relatively easily (e.g., gasoline). This developmental research would cost approximately $50,000. 

Length of Reference Period 

Our proposed redesigned CE interview employs reference periods of 1, 3, and 6 months for various 

expenditures. Several issues must be investigated with respect to this plan. One is deciding on which 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

48 

 

expenditures can be asked for a 6, 3 and 1 month period. Second, it is important to assess how 

variation in the reference period during the interview might confuse respondents and lead them to 

telescope, or unintentionally truncate, the periods. We propose a series of cognitive interviews to 

study these two issues. The respondents would complete the interview using varying reference 

period conditions. The respondents would then be debriefed to study their reactions to the 

questions. The accuracy of the respondents’ estimates of their expenditures would be assessed by 

debriefing the respondents, reviewing the respondents’ receipts and other records or by asking the 

respondents to continually provide records of their expenditures over time. The respondents in this 

research could be limited to ones who were willing to carefully keep receipts and other expenditure 

records, so that the accuracy of their expenditure estimates could be assessed. Assuming 4 rounds 

of cognitive interviews with 8 respondents, the cost would be approximately $50,000 if the work was 

contracted out. 

Use of Annotated Grocery Receipts 

We recommended allowing the respondents to provide receipts in place of making diary entries for 

grocery store and supermarket expenditures. Two key issues must be investigated: (1) will 

respondents annotate their grocery receipts in sufficient detail to permit keying and coding? (2) 

should data on the receipts be entered by field interviewers or by a centralized keying operation? 

We recommend beginning with small tests involving about 25 respondents to determine whether 

respondents can annotate the receipts in sufficient detail so that the OPLC categories can be 

determined for the items. Respondents would keep and annotate grocery receipts for a week. Their 

receipts would be examined to determine whether the OPLC categories could be identified for each 

item purchased. 

After those initial tests, more extensive tests could be built into current CED diary collection. Some 

CUs would be permitted to provide annotated receipts instead of making diary entries for their 

grocery store and supermarket expenditures. The number and the dollar amount of the 

expenditures could be compared when respondents are and are not allowed to provide the receipts 

this way. 

NORC (2012) conducted related research in which a central coding operation entered data from 

receipts that CE respondents provided; that study, however, involved only about 150 CUs. We 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

49 

 

recommend a larger test to help determine whether field interviewers should key the data on the 

receipts into a database, or whether a centralized coding operation should enter those data. There is 

a good reason for using a centralized coding operation: It can potentially be an efficient operation 

employing highly trained coders who use effective quality control measures. There is also a good 

reason for using field interviewers: They can contact the respondents easily to ask for more 

information about any item on the receipt. We recommend conducting a feasibility study that 

focuses on the use of a centralized coding operation. We believe that such an approach will be both 

more cost efficient as well as result in the highest quality data. 

Moreover, with a centralized coding operation, some of the data entry might be automated. In 

recent years, the grocery industry has greatly consolidated. In 2009, four companies (Wal-Mart, 

Kroger, Costco, and Supervalue) accounted for more than 50 percent of sales in the United States, 

and in the largest 100 metropolitan areas, these retailers accounted for 72 percent of grocery sales 

(Martinez, 2007). Negotiating with these four major retailers to obtain their receipt coding scheme 

would in principle allow the CE program to incorporate centralized, automatic coding of receipts. 

The small scale study involving about 25 respondents would cost approximately $25,000 assuming it 

was contracted out. The larger test could be built into the larger field tests outlined below. 

Record Use: 

Understanding Record Organization and Willingness to Access 

A study by Sjoblom and Lee ( 2012) suggested that respondents were both able and willing to collect 

records related to the expenditures that they entered into a diary over 2 weeks. The study also 

suggested that it was feasible, though time consuming, for interviewers to scan the receipts. 

We recommend conducting an evaluation study with the aim of identifying the best methods to 

motivate respondents to use expenditure records in the initial CE interview. The evaluation study 

would also lead to protocols for conducting the interview, both when the respondent does and does 

not use records. The evaluation study would identify which records respondents are likely to use, 

and which records respondents are unwilling or unable to access or share. 

We recommend two studies to learn more about CU expenditure records. Interviews and focus 

groups with respondents would be beneficial to further understand how respondents store and 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

50 

 

organize their records, the extent to which they use electronic record keeping and bill paying, and 

their willingness to access those records for data collection. This research could help identify the 

reasons that respondents might not be able or willing to retrieve particular expenditure records. 

Ideally, these focus groups could be conducted around the country, to achieve geographic diversity. 

For purposes of budgeting we have assumed 2 focus groups costing a total of $20,000. 

At the same time, we recommend that data concerning record usage be collected as part of the 

ongoing CE program. Interviewers could observe and record respondents’ use of records for the 

interview. Collecting data about record usage this way would be a low cost means by which to study 

this important issue, for which we have little empirical data. The results would show how often 

respondents use records in the interview, which particular respondents tend to use records, and what 

sorts of records they tend to use. 

We also recommend conducting an experiment to study how the advance letter sent to CUs could 

best motivate them to prepare for the first interview by gathering records. The experiment would 

compare alternative versions of the advance letter (possibly with incentives). This experiment could 

be conducted with a sample of CUs that are participating in the ongoing CE program. Interviewers 

would note the extent to which the CUs used records in the initial interview, the types of records 

that they used, and the specific kinds of information that they used the records to report. Sample 

sizes for this experiment should be large enough to provide sufficient statistical power. To compare 

two different advance letters, in two waves, a sample of approximately 1600 cases would be needed 

if 400 CUs were assigned to each condition. The costs would be marginal if this experiment were 

integrated with current CE data collection activities; it would be more costly if it were conducted as 

an experiment with its own sample. 

We recommend conducting an additional experiment to compare two methods for asking 

respondents to use their expenditure records. In one condition, the advance letter to the CUs would 

ask respondents to gather their records prior to the first interview. In the second condition, the 

respondents would be asked to gather their records at the conclusion of the first interview. The 

interviewers would call the respondents a few days later to collect the data that the respondents 

found on their records. This experiment would identify which method is better for eliciting 

respondent cooperation and enhancing data quality. Once again, we believe that this work could be 

integrated with the current CE interview design, with marginal impact on costs.6

 

6

 We would recommend using the current CE interview for this work, with some minor additions asked of the field staff 

concerning record use by the respondent. The research would require that for those CUs assigned to the post-interview 

revision, a second telephone call would be made to the CU to obtain updated/corrected information. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

51 

 

We emphasize that these developmental studies should be grounded on the philosophy outlined in 

Section I. The respondents should be apprised of how to best perform their tasks and the 

interviewers should be evaluated not just on their ability to achieve a completed interview but also 

on their ability to persuade respondents to keep records. A successful approach to the use of 

records will require that respondents and interviewers perceive their roles as a collaborative venture 

to achieve the highest quality data. For that reason, we recommend that the experiments and field 

studies incorporate the use of incentives and that field interviewers be evaluated on a full range of 

metrics that align with the goals of the use of records, that is, improved data quality and reduced 

levels of nonresponse. 

Development and Testing of an Integrated Sample 

One of the first evaluation activities should be an assessment of the feasibility of the integrated 

design. If such a design is deemed to be infeasible for any reason, then the CE program must 

continue to employ a two-sample design. However, the integrated design can be tested only when 

the web-based diary is fully developed. We recommend conducting a test of the integrated design as 

soon as the web-based diary is ready. 

We also see merit in testing the order of the diary and the CE interview. This experiment could 

address the question of whether respondents should keep the diary for 1 week before the initial 

interview, or after the initial interview, or before the second interview, or after the second interview. 

However, such an experiment requires the development of different protocols for the advance letter 

and initial contact; in addition, it may require modifications to the CE interview. The experiment 

would therefore be quite expensive. For that reason, we do not recommend conducting the 

experiment (see last section of this chapter). 

Instead, we recommend testing the integrated design in two stages: a small scale pilot test, followed 

by a larger scale field test. The purpose of the pilot test is to study how to encourage respondents to 

make diary entries without any lapses throughout the reporting period, and how to best encourage 

respondents to gather records after the initial interview so that they can provide detail about their 

responses. 

In the pilot study, the respondents would complete an interview and then keep a diary over a 1 week 

period. Interviewers would contact CUs where some or all of the respondents appear to have 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

52 

 

stopped making entries into their web-based diaries. The interviewers would telephone, email or 

text the respondents who have neither made entries on the web-based diary, nor checked the box to 

indicate that they had no expenditures to report, for at least 1 day. The interviewers would observe 

and record whether the respondents resumed making diary entries. Similarly, interviewers would 

contact respondents using the telephone, or email, or text message, to remind them to gather 

records that could improve upon their responses during the initial interview. The interviewers 

would observe the extent to which the respondents complied with this request. 

The interviewers would debrief the respondents at the end of the pilot study. The respondents 

would report their reaction to the contacts from the interviewers. 

As this research would be a pilot study, it should be conducted with a small number of CUs, not a 

large enough number to achieve statistical power. We recommend including approximately 100 

households, which would cost approximately $600,000, assuming this would be done by a 

contractor. 

The second, larger, study would be a formal test of the recommended design. It would examine 

response rates, process measures (e.g., keeping up with diary entries) and the number and dollar 

amount of the expenditures that the respondents report, both in total and by category. This study 

could examine the degree to which an integrated design can yield better quality data than the existing 

CE program, which uses two separate samples, is currently providing. If 1,000 CUs participated in 

this field study, and the Census Bureau did the work, the cost would be approximately $860,000.

Field Test: Global Questions, Diary Content and Reference Periods 

We recommend conducting a field test to study the effect of employing global questions in the 

interview. The field test would test both kinds of global questions discussed in Section II. This field 

test could be conducted simultaneously with the test of the integrated design, that we recommended 

above. 

The field work would compare the two kinds of global questions for particular sets of expenditures. 

Those expenditures would be identified by the earlier developmental research. The length of the 

reference period could be varied. Of particular interest are items that are being changed from the 

current design (e.g., from 3 months to 6 months, or from the diary to a 1-month reference period on 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

53 

 

interview). The dependent measures on this field test would be the number and level of 

expenditures, the time needed to complete the interview, the perceived burden and perhaps 

respondent-interviewer behavior (e.g., expressions of frustration, reading questions as worded). 

We recommend conducting this field test outside the D.C. area, preferably in 2 to 3 locations with 

experienced CE interviewers. With a sample size of 1,000 the cost would be around $500,000 if the 

work were done by the Census Bureau. 

Final Field Test 

We recommend conducting a final field test to study design issues related to two issues: using 

multiple diary keepers in each CU and providing incentives. 

Multiple versus Single CU Diary. BLS plans to conduct a study in 2014 to compare having 

multiple diary keepers in each CU with the current design of having one diary keeper per CU. 

However, that test will not incorporate many of our recommendations. For example, the diary data 

collection period will be 2 weeks rather than 1 week as we recommend. The electronic diary will 

resemble the current paper diary, and not use an interactive design as we recommend. The diary will 

cover all expenditures, rather than a limited set of expenditures, as we recommend. 

We therefore suggest that the field test that BLS is planning should be redesigned to incorporate our 

suggestions for the design of the web diary, as presented in this report. The dependent measures in 

the field test could be response rate, and the number and dollar amount of the expenditures 

reported, in total and by OPLC categories. 

We also recommend an experiment in the field test to study how the interviewers should contact 

CUs that appear to be neglecting to make entries into the web-based diary. The experiment would 

build upon the pilot study related to the integrated design. It could reveal whether the interviewers 

should contact the CUs by telephone or by email. It could also suggest the optimal way the 

interviewers should ask the respondents about the apparent lapse in their diaries. The experiment 

could also study the issue of who in the CU should be contacted. For those CUs assigned to the 

multiple diary condition, we believe that follow-up can only be with those CU members with whom 

the interviewer has had contact during the CU interview. For example, if a husband and wife jointly 

participate in the CE interview, the interviewer would be free to email or call either of them; 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

54 

 

however, for the adolescent daughter or son who is living in the CU but who was not present during 

the CE interview, communication concerning diary entries would have to be conducted through one 

of the parents. Due to issues of confidentiality with respect to the diary entries, this communication 

would be limited to encouraging compliance. 

We envision a relatively large field study in which the dependent measures included both response 

rates and data quality. Data quality could be measured as the number and dollar amount of reported 

expenditures, both in total and by OPLC category. If this field study incorporated no experimental 

design, sample sizes on the order of the 2014 study would be appropriate. Ideally, the field study 

could employ a sample size sufficiently large to include an experimental design. The experiment 

could provide valuable information about how the interviewers should contact CUs where some or 

all of the respondents appear to be failing to make entries into their web-based diaries. 

Incentives. We also recommend conducting an experiment to help identify the optimum timing 

and dollar value of the incentives. The experimental conditions could be the following: 

 Incentive with advance letter: $0, $2, or $5 

 Incentive at Interview: $0, $25, or $50 

 Incentives with Diary: 

– For the CU, if the CU has only one respondent: $0, $25, $50 

– For each respondent, if the CU has multiple respondents: $0, $5, or $10 with $20 

for the principal CU respondent. 

We recommend that this field test be the final field test, to be conducted in year 5 of the evaluation 

period. By then, BLS will have completed several field tests that would suggest whether this final 

field test should incorporate global questions for the interview, and varying reference periods for the 

expenditure items on the interview. The earlier field tests would also suggest whether this final field 

test should allow respondents to provide receipts for their grocery and supermarket expenditures in 

place of making diary entries, how the web-based diary should be designed, which categories of 

expenditures should be covered by the diary, how respondents should be asked to use their own 

technology to access the web-based diary, and how respondents should be encouraged to use 

records. In other words, when this final field study is designed, most of the major design decisions 

will have been made. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

55 

 

Based on current Census-BLS field tests (most notably the Census Multiple Diary test), we 

recommend a sample size of approximately 3,000 CUs for the final field study. A sample size of 

3000 completes will permit BLS to examine the impact of using multiple respondents per CU and 

the effect of various incentive strategies. The dependent measures can include response rates and 

the number an dollar amount of reported expenditures, both in total and by OPLC category. 

We estimate costs for this final field study to be at approximately $3 million, based on Census cost 

estimates for a number of feasibility and evaluation studies that are currently underway. 

Statistical Power 

Tables 4 through 6 show the power of the statistical tests for these experiments. The sample sizes 

for the tests proposed prior to the final test do not generally allow for extremely powerful statistical 

tests. When the number of completed interviews is 1,000, for measures in the form of a proportion, 

such as the percent that report a particular expenditure, there is between 60 percent and 70 percent 

power to detect a 10 percentage point difference. For example, with 1,000 completed interviews, 

each of 2 treatment groups would have approximately 500 respondents. Table 4 shows that for 

proportions of approximately 50 percent, the level of power is about 60 percent to detect a 

difference of 10 percentage points. 

The sample sizes double when comparing measures to the ongoing Census production sample. This 

is because the entire field test sample can be used for estimation. For example, when comparing the 

integrated design to the production sample on the pre-notification procedures, 1,000 completed 

interviews would provide 90 percent power to detect a 10 percentage point difference. But the 

power to detect a 4 percentage point difference would still not be large. 

Of course, the power for the final field test is much larger because it involves 3,000 completed 

interviews. The power when comparing mean expenditures varies widely depending on the 

particular category (Tables 5 and 6). Samples that provided approximately 1,000 completed 

interviews would yield sufficient power to detect differences of about 20 or 30 percent. 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

56 

 

Table 4. Power for difference in proportions by sample size, level of rate and percentage 

point difference between the groups* 

Completes 

p=50% p=70% p=80% 

4+ 10 4 10 4 8 

500 14% 61% 16% 70% 19% 62%

1,000 24% 89% 28% 94% 35% 91%

2,000 43% 99% 50% 100% 61% 100%

*Power calculated for a two-sided significance test at p<.05. assumes a design effect of 2; +percentage point difference. 

Table 5. Power for difference of means for selected expenditures, completed diaries per 

group and effect size* 

Expenditure type 

N = 500 N=1,000 N=2,000 

10%+ 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 

Food at home 14% 43% 76% 24% 71% 96% 43% 94% 99%

Cereals and cereal products 10% 28% 56% 17% 51% 84% 29% 80% 98%

Eggs 9% 22% 43% 13% 39% 72% 22% 67% 94%

Other food at home 12% 33% 63% 19% 58% 90% 34% 87% 99%

Food away from home 13% 38% 70% 21% 65% 94% 38% 91% 92%

Alcoholic beverages 5% 10% 17% 7% 15% 29% 10% 26% 51%

*Power calculated for a two-sided significance test at p<.05. Based on 2011 expenditure data. 

+ Effect size = percent difference between the two estimates of expenditures. 

Table 6. Power for difference of means for selected expenditures, completed interviews per 

group and effect size* 

Expenditure type 

N = 500 N=1,000 N=2,000 

10%+ 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 

Electricity 46% 96% 100% 74% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100%

Apparel and services,

men, 16 and over 7% 13% 22% 9% 20% 40% 13% 36% 67%

Apparel and services, 

women, 16 and over 9% 21% 42% 13% 38% 70% 21% 65% 94%

Vehicle maintenance and 

repairs 9% 20% 39% 12% 35% 66% 20% 61% 92%

Medical supplies 5% 7% 9% 6% 9% 13% 7% 12% 22%

*Power calculated for a two sided significance test at p<.05. Based on 2009 expenditure data. 

+ Effect size = percent difference between the two estimates of expenditures. 

Summary of Schedule and Costs of Development and Testing Plan 

The schedule for the evaluation is summarized in Figure 7. The evaluation will require a total of 

5 years (60 months). We recommend conducting the tests on several tracks. The first track pertains 

to the tests of the respondents’ use of records. These tests will require 36 months in total, counting 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

57 

 

all of the work outlined above. As these studies are conducted, the findings about how respondents 

can best be encouraged to use records can be applied to the subsequent evaluation studies. 

The second track relates to the studies to identify the expenditures that should be covered by the 

interview and by the diary, the use of global questions and variations in the reference periods. The 

preliminary studies should be completed by around month 18, with the field test starting in month 

19 and lasting through month 30. 

The third track relates to the development of the integrated design. The initial work requires the 

development of the web-based diary, which should last through month 25. The testing of the 

integrated design would start in month 26 and last through month 40, when the large field test 

would end. 

Figure 7. Timeline for redesign tasks 

Table 7 summarizes the estimated costs of the design. These vary, depending on the extent that BLS 

or a contractor conducts the work. If BLS conducts all of the preliminary lab-based work in-house, 

the cost is approximately $5.5 million. If all of this work is contracted out, the cost is approximately 

$6 million. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Web

Content, Global, Reference

Records

Integrated Test

Global and Reference test

Final Field Test

Month of Work
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

58 

 

Table 7. Summary of expenses for R&D work ($1,000) 

R&D task Census 

Other work Total 

If contracted out If done by BLS If contracted out If done by BLS 

Technology 

development

$200 $280 0 $480 $200

Content — $520 $480 $520 $480

Records — $45 0 $45 $0

Integrated design $860 $600 $600 $1460 $1460

Global questions 

and reference 

period

$500 $100 0 $600 $500

Final test $2,900 0 0 $2900 $2900

Total $4,460 $1,545 $1,080 $6005 $5540

Scope of the Research and Development Program 

The CE has not been redesigned for over 30 years. This may be one reason why many of the new 

designs suggested by the NAS panel and others have included very significant changes to the current 

methodology (Dillman and House, 2013; Westat, 2011; Mathiowetz et al, 2011). These designs have 

all tried to address two basic issues. One is to reduce the overall burden on CE respondents. Many 

have pointed to burden as one of the root causes of measurement error and response rate issues 

associated with the survey (e.g., Lessler, 1987). To reduce the burden, the basic structure of the CE 

has to be reconsidered. The second issue is related to the evolution of computer assisted 

interviewing (CAI). The CE currently uses CAPI, but the landscape for data collection is evolving 

very rapidly. Many respondents are able to access their own computers or mobile devices, which 

should make it easier to collect data on expenses. This should improve data quality. 

The research and development program that we propose targets the main changes to the current 

design, including integrating the interview and diary components, the adoption of a web-based diary, 

changing the content of the two surveys and changing the number of interviews per household. To 

fit within the financial constraints, the proposed research and development program does not allow 

for as much exploratory research as is optimal. For a number of the key decisions, the plan assumes 

it is possible to narrow down the new methodology to a single design without a significant field test. 

At several points, the development could benefit from testing alternative methods against one 

another before narrowing to a final design. Examples include: 

1. Testing several different versions of the web diary. The assumption in the current 

plan is that a single version will emerge from the initial development and testing. This 
Evaluation Plan 

III 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

59 

 

may be premature. It would be better to consider the possibility that several different 

versions may seem promising and carried forward to more testing. 

2. Testing several different versions of the content of the interview and diary surveys. 

The plan assumes that an optimal single design will emerge from the preliminary 

testing. 

3. Alternative spacing of the two interviews. One key feature of our design is the 

recommendation to incorporate two rounds of CE interviews, 12 months apart. The 

12-month lag between interviews – albeit a reduction in total burden placed on the CE 

unit – will require the development of field methods to maintain a high response rate 

for the second interview. Alternative spacing, such as 3 months or 6 months, also has 

implications for the recall of expenditures and the analytic utility of the data. 

4. Integrating the sample design. For reasons stated in chapter 2, we have recommended 

integrating the interview and diary samples. The testing plan has a final test for this 

plan. However the plan does not allow for much time (or resources) to experiment 

with different ways to integrate the sample. For example, there was considerable 

discussion about whether the diary should be administered prior to conducting the 

interview. In our judgment, doing the interview first will provide respondents with a 

better idea of what is needed when completing the diary. This order should also be 

less redundant than the other way around. However, this is not based on empirical 

data and could benefit from more work at the development stages. 

This list is purely illustrative of the types of studies for which the R&D effort could benefit. It is not 

meant to be exhaustive or in any priority order. Each of these activities would add an additional 

round of field testing to narrow down the alternatives before conducting a larger field test that 

compares the results against the current design. 

A second issue related to cost is the sample sizes proposed for the larger field efforts. In particular, 

it would be prudent to significantly increase the size of the tests. As shown above, the power to 

detect differences in mean expenditures is not particularly high. 

We fully understand that R&D has to be done within an environment of fixed funding and 

competing demands. Nonetheless, spending $5 to $6 million on the redesign of a major survey like 

the CE, which has data collection costs of approximately $30 million per year, strikes us as low. We 

would urge allocating more resources if at all possible. 
Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

59 

 

A major constraint in creating the revised design was the requirement that it be cost neutral. As we 

considered various design elements, we kept this requirement firmly in mind, and endeavored to 

avoid designs that would clearly be too costly. However, we did not continually develop cost 

estimates as we developed our recommendations for redesigning the CE program. Rather, we 

carried the design work to a nearly final state before we began to estimate the cost of the revised 

design. 

Another constraint was to develop the cost estimate so that it would represent the Census Bureau’s 

cost for conducting the revised design. BLS informed us at the start of this project that a decision 

had been made to continue working with the Census on the CE, throughout the development and 

implementation phases of the redesign and beyond. Thus, we were faced with the task of developing 

cost estimates for another organization to perform the work, with only high-level summary 

information about their costs from the current design. The Census Bureau’s data collection 

operations and cost structure differ from other national survey organizations in the U.S. in a number 

of important ways. In consultation with BLS, we decided not to stray far from the summary CE cost 

data that Census provided, but to supplement it with our own understanding of Census operations 

on projects like the CE and our own cost experience on similar projects where necessary. 

The timeline for design and implementation of the revised CE program is about 10 years. The cost 

estimate is intended to apply to a typical year beyond that, after the implementation was complete. 

Creating cost estimates was quite challenging because the CE is a complex set of activities and 

technologies, and 10 years is beyond the horizon for estimating survey program costs on most 

projects. 

Objectives 

The cost exercise had three objectives: 

1. To estimate the annual cost of the revised design in its steady state, after 

implementation; 

Costs for New Design IV 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

60 

 

2. To create assumptions based on recent cost data provided by the Census Bureau; and 

3. To specify the assumptions used for each cost element. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics provided summary cost data from the Census Bureau for conducting 

the CE in 2011. Total cost was about $30,000,000. This cost included both the CED and CEI 

components. It did not include any program costs at BLS. These figures are not actual costs but 

represent average cost estimates for a typical year of CE operations, rounded to the nearest $100,000 

level. 

The Census costs were broken out into four categories: 

5. Total field activity tasks $6.4 million 

6. Interview only $10.7 million 

7. Diary only $3.5 million 

8. Overhead $9.2 million 

Interview costs were also specified by wave and interview status (complete or non-complete) for 

each of the five waves in the current design, and mileage was given for the “interview only”

category. No additional cost detail was provided. 

Assumptions and Limitations 

The first assumption we made was to provide costs in 2011 dollars. BLS and Census can choose to 

apply an inflation factor to convert to equivalent costs in later years. 

Another assumption was that, wherever our own cost experience on similar projects differed from 

the data provided by the Census Bureau (for example, on cost relationships between waves of a 

panel study), we accepted the Census cost data as the basis for estimating the redesigned CE costs. 

This assumption is a limitation of the redesign estimate; its quality is dependent on the Census 2011 

data, which have very little detail and no supporting documentation. 

A standard approach to developing cost estimates is to identify fixed and variable costs. Clearly 

interviewing costs vary with sample size, and the cost of salaried labor for headquarters staff is 

largely fixed, regardless of sample size (over a relatively broad range of sample sizes). However, this 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

61 

 

division of cost categories is not clearly delineated in the CE cost data provided by the Census 

Bureau. Therefore, we inferred fixed costs from the brief labels and descriptions that accompanied 

the cost data, and focused attention primarily on the costs we knew were mainly variable. 

The Census provided no information about the structure of their fixed direct and indirect costs. 

Therefore, we made the simplifying assumption that the indirect costs for the redesign would be 

similar to the 2011 overhead. In 2011, Census overhead was $9.2 million, about 45 percent of direct 

costs. 

The fixed part of direct costs was also not defined, but we assumed they were included in the 

category “total field activity tasks.” The Census Bureau gave three examples of activities included in 

this category: re-interviews; senior field representative conference; and address research. These 

examples suggest that activities included in this category may not be specifically related to the 

volume of data collection (in that they can be scaled to fit a pre-determined need, somewhat 

independent of sample size), and therefore might be considered fixed. However, we have no way to 

estimate what mix of activities might be included in such costs after implementation. Total field 

activity costs were $6.4 million in 2011, 45 percent of the interviewing and diary costs, so we assume 

they would be 45 percent after implementation of the redesign. 

Extrapolation of Essentially Variable Costs from Census Cost 

Information and Westat Experience 

The variable costs in 2011 were divided between “interview only” and diary. Our approach for 

estimating these was to: 

 Identify cost elements that can be mapped between the current design and our 

recommended redesign, or that are only in the redesign; 

 Plug in design features of the redesign (e.g., sample size, number of waves); and 

 Apply common cost metrics. 

We based the cost metrics on our own experience with similar surveys, but made some adjustments 

for what we know about the Census field staffing configuration and the level of Census field effort 

required for the current CE. 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

62 

 

Table 8 compares the cost elements in the current design with the redesign. The redesign has 28,000 

CE interviews per year, 7,000 fewer than the current design because there is no separate bounding 

interview. The integrated redesign has no additional sample of CUs for the diary component, 

whereas the current design has 7,000 additional CUs for the diary. 

Table 8. Cost elements shared between current design and proposed design 

 Current design Proposed design 

CUs interviewed 7,000 14,000

Interviews completed 35,000 28,000

Bounding interview 7,000 —

Data interview 28,000 28,000

Diary

CUs 7,000 No additional CUs in integrated design

Diary weeks 14,000 14,000

The variable costs related to interviewing in the integrated redesign have 7 basic components: 

 Interviewer labor; 

 Mileage costs; 

 Senior interviewer labor; 

 Survey supervisor labor; 

 Respondent tablets; 

 Respondent incentives; and 

 Handling and transcribing grocery receipts. 

Interviewer labor is the most costly of these components. To estimate interviewer labor for the 

redesign, we made use of data on contact attempts BLS provided from the current design, drawn 

from Census paradata. Table 9 shows mean attempts by wave for the current design. A total of 23.7 

attempts are made over 5 waves to complete CE interviews with the average CU. This includes both 

in person and telephone attempts. Almost all of the first wave interviews have at least one in-person 

attempt, but many interviews in later waves are conducted completely by phone, with no in-person 

visit. The number of contact attempts by mode was not provided to us. 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

63 

 

Table 9. Field representative labor: Contact attempts per consumer unit 

Wave Current design (without diary) Proposed redesign (with diary) 

1 5.4 10.0

2 5.0 6.0

3 4.6 N/A

4 4.4 N/A

5 4.2 N/A

Total 23.7 16.0

The redesign has only two waves of interviewing per CU, 3 less than the current design, but in the 

redesign, the data collection during the two waves require more interviewer effort than any two 

waves of the current design. The additional effort in the redesign includes the following: 

 First Interview. The interviewers conduct the recall interview and place the diary. 

Because there is higher burden for the respondent, more interviewer attempts are 

required to gain cooperation. 

 First Interview. The interviewers track the respondents’ diary entries over the week, 

and call when no expenditures are being entered. 

 First Interview. The interviewers telephone diary-compliant respondents to close out 

the diary. 

 First Interview. Interviewers telephone CUs to collect any corrections or additional 

information that the respondents found on records for the recall interview (to enhance 

the data collected in the interview itself). 

 Second Interview. Interviewers conduct the recall interview in-person. 

 Second Interview. Interviewers follow up on any records or expenses obtained after 

the interview (to enhance the data collected in the interview itself). 

Importantly, a large majority of the Census cases across all five waves in the current design are 

completed with at least some data collected by telephone, although the amount of data collected by 

telephone was not reported by the Census Bureau. Telephone data collection is much less expensive 

than in-person data collection. It is not possible to compare “apples to apples” in contact attempts 

by mode between the current design and the redesign. However, we also note that, although in the 

redesign both waves require an in-person interview (unlike the current design), the number of 

contact attempts in the redesign also reflects a considerable amount of telephone work directly with 

the respondent. We have made the simplifying assumption that the mix of telephone and in-person 

work in the redesign’s two waves is comparable overall to the mix in the current design across its 

five waves. 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

64 

 

The additional effort required by the redesign in its two waves (compared to the effort required by 

the current design in its first two waves) is offset somewhat by the addition of respondent 

incentives. We estimate the first interview will require an average of 10 contacts (almost twice as 

many as the current design), and the second will require 6 contacts on average, one more than the 

current design. Without incentives, the number of contact attempts in the redesign would be greater. 

We assume each contact attempt will require 2.5 hours of interviewer time. This estimate does not 

imply literally that the interviewer will spend 2.5 hours on each CU contact attempt. Rather, it is the 

result of dividing total interviewer hours on the survey by the total number of contact attempts 

made, across all interviewers and all cases (not just completed interviews, but all sampled cases). This 

produces a convenient metric that can be useful in estimating and monitoring costs. 

For the redesign, we will complete 28,000 interviews, with half being a first contact (10 contacts per 

complete) and half being a second contact (6 contacts per complete). At 2.5 interviewer hours per 

contact attempt, we have 560,000 hours of interviewer time per year. We assume $19 per interviewer 

hour, so the total labor cost for interviewers is $10.6 million. 

In addition to labor costs, interviewers have expenses while working in the field. By far the biggest 

component of field expenses is mileage; it typically accounts for 90 percent or more of field 

expenses. From the cost data provided by Census, it appears that the total number of interviewer 

miles driven divided by the number of CE completed interviews in 2011 was about 75. This is 

consistent with our experience with similar study designs. In 2011, the government mileage rate was 

51 cents per mile. Applying these assumptions to the redesign, we have 28,000 completed interviews 

times 75 miles per interview at $.51 per mile, or about $1.1 million in mileage cost. 

Senior interviewers can be viewed as the first level of interviewer supervision in the field. Senior 

interviewers coach new interviewers, help them resolve problems, and have specialized refusal 

conversion skills. We assume a ratio of 1:20 for senior interviewers to interviewers. 

We estimated the number of interviewers using the following calculation: 

 560,000 interviewer hours per year;

 Interviewers work an average of 10 hours per week on the CE, for 48 weeks each year, 

so each interviewer averages 480 CE hours per year; and 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

65 

 

 560,000 total interviewer hours divided by 480 hours for one interviewer = 1167 

interviewers. 

Applying the ratio of 1:20 results in an estimated 58 senior interviewers. Assuming the senior 

interviewers work 20 hours per week on the CE for 48 weeks each year, at an average rate of $25, 

we arrive at an estimate of $1.4 million for senior interviewer labor. 

Survey supervisors are the next layer of field management. These supervisors may have 

responsibility for 100 interviewers or more. Senior interviewers report to the survey supervisors. We 

assume a ratio of 1:4 for survey supervisors to senior interviewers, so with 58 senior interviewers we 

would have 15 survey supervisors. If we assume the survey supervisors work 20 hours per week and 

48 weeks per year, at an average rate of $30 per hour, we arrive at an estimate of $.4 million for 

survey supervisor labor. 

The redesign anticipates that each respondent in a CU will use a tablet, laptop, or other computing 

device for entering diary data. (This is a unique feature of the redesign, not included in the current 

design.) The majority of respondents will choose to use their own technology, but for those who do 

not, or who have no computing device, we assume the interviewer will provide a tablet. We assume 

40 percent of the 14,000 CUs will house 1.5 respondents who require a survey-supplied tablet, so 

8,400 respondents would need tablets supplied by the project. They will retain the tablets for less 

than a month, so during the year there would be a continuous flow of tablets going out to CUs and 

coming in from CUs. We assume that peak usage in any given month would be about one-sixth of 

the 8,400, so no more than 1,400 tablets would be deployed or in transit at any point during the year. 

We assume a monthly charge of $50 for these tablets. This includes amortization of their purchase 

cost over their expected life (perhaps $15 per month), and software license fees, data charges, and 

maintenance costs averaging perhaps $35 per month. The total estimated cost per year is 1,400 

tablets at $50 each per month for 12 months, or $.8 million. 

Respondent incentives are another unique feature of the redesign, not used in the current CE. For 

costing purposes we assume a $2 incentive in advance, $25 per completed interview, and $10 per 

completed diary with 2 diaries per CU. With 14,000 initial contacts ($2 + $25 + 20 = $47) and 

14,000 second interviews ($2 + $25 = $27) the total is around $75 per CU ($47+$27 = $74). For 

14,000 CUs this would total about $1.1 million.7 We have factored the benefits of these incentives 

 

7

 Note that with 12 months between interviews, and once the rotation schedule is fully balanced, there would be 28,000 CU’s interviewed in any 

particular annual period.. Half the CU’s will be experiencing a first contact and half a second contact..
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

66 

 

into our assumptions about interviewer level of effort to achieve response rates comparable to the 

current CE. Without incentives, we would need to assume that more contact attempts would be 

needed per completed interview. With some experimentation it might be possible to identify a costneutral point at which the tradeoff between incentive cost and interviewer labor cost would be zero, 

but the literature on incentives in surveys suggests that incentives are cost-effective. That is, 

incentives can increase response rates more cheaply than additional interviewer labor, up to some 

threshold. 

Table 10 summarizes the estimated Census interviewing costs in the redesign. The total cost is 

estimated at $15.3 million. 

Table 10. Estimated Census interviewing costs in redesign 

Component Estimate 

Field representation labor $10.6 million

Mileage costs $1.1 million

Senior field representative labor $1.4 million

Field supervisor labor $.4 million

Respondent tablets $.8 million

Respondent incentives $1.1 million

Total interview costs $15.3 million

Table 11 shows the total estimated annual costs for the redesign in a steady state at Census. 

Table 11. Total costs for redesign in steady state at Census 

Interviewing costs $15.3 million

Other field activities @ 45% of interviewing costs 6.9 million

Total direct costs 22.2 million

Overhead @ 45% of direct costs 10.1 million

Total costs 32.2 million

Benchmarking and Sensitivity 

At the suggestion of BLS, we checked our assumptions against the current CE interview. We used 

the same cost metrics from the redesign, but applied them to the current design, with 7,000 CUs, 

5 waves, 24 contacts per CU per year, and no incentives or respondent tablets. The result was an 

estimate of $9.3 million, very close to the cost data the Census provided for the CE interview 

($9.4 million). 
Costs for New Design 

IV 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

67 

 

By far the single most important cost driver in our estimate is the number of contacts per CU. 

Changing the assumption for number of contacts per CU per year from 16 to 17 would increase the 

total cost by about $2.0 million. Contact data is notoriously imperfect, but we assume the same error 

properties from year to year, and from one design to another in the Census contact record data. 

We conclude that the redesign costs are estimated to be approximately the same as the current 

design costs. Our estimate for the redesign costs is very sensitive to the degree of field effort 

required to achieve the desired number of completed interviews and diaries and the response rate 

targets. 

As part of these cost activities, we have produced a set of metrics and assumptions that can be 

modified as the redesign effort unfolds over the next several years, and as BLS acquires more cost 

experience with the redesigned CE program. 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

68 

 

References 

 

Baumgartner, R., and Rathburn, P. (1997). “Prepaid Monetary Incentives and Mail Survey Response 

Rates.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public 

Opinion Research, Norfolk, VA, 1997. 

Beatty, P. (2010). “Considerations Regarding the Use of Global Survey Questions.” Presentation at 

the Consumer Expenditures Survey Methods Workshop, December 8-9, 2010, Suitland, MD. 

Berlin, M., Mohadjer, L, Waksberg, J., Kolstad, A., Kirsch, I., Rock, D., and Yamamoto, K. (1992). 

“An Experiment in Monetary Incentives.” American Statistical Association, Proceedings of 

Survey Research Methods Section, Alexandria, VA: 393-398.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). “Survey Source of Data for Consumer Expenditures Survey 

Integrated Tables, 209. Available at http://www.bls.gov/cex/ce_2009source.pdf. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). “Recall Period In the Consumer Expenditure Surveys Program.”

Presentation at the CE Methods Workshop, December, 2010, Washington, DC.

Cantor, D. (2010) “Discussion of Plans for Designing the Recall Period for the Consumer 

Expenditure Interview Survey.” 2010 Consumer Expenditure Survey Methods Workshop, 

U.S. Bureau of Census, December 8 and 9. 

Casey, W. (2010). “CPI Requirements of CE.” Washington, DC: Office of Survey Methods 

Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Cho, M., Eltinge, J., and Steinberg, B. (2004). “Temporal Patters of Survey Response Rates and 

Reporting Rates in the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Interview and Other Panel Surveys.”

Paper presented at the Annual Conference, American Association for Public Opinion 

Research. 

Chopova, B., Edgar, J., Gonzalez, J., King, S., McGrath, D., and Tan, L. (2008). “Assessing 

Nonresponse bias in the CE Interview Survey: A summary of four studies.” Washington, DC: 

Office of Survey Methods Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Church, A. (1993). “Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A MetaAnalysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 57:62-79

Creech, B., Smith, M., Davis, J., Fricker, S., Tan, L., To, N., and Gonzalez, J. (2012). Measurement 

Issues Study Final Report. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

http://www.bls.gov/cex/ce_statpapers.htm. 

Davis, J., Stinson, L., and To, N. (2002). What does it really mean to be user-friendly when designing an 

expenditure diary? Presented to the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Pete 

Beach, Florida. 
References 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

69 

 

Dillman, D,. and House, C. (2013). (eds.) Measuring What We Spend: Toward a New Consumer 

Expenditure Survey. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Dippo, C., Coleman, J., and Jacobs, C. (1977). “Evaluation of the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure 

Survey.” Proceedings of the Section on Social Statistics, Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Duggan, M., and Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s 

Internet & American Life Project. 

Edgar, J. (2005). “CE Data User’s Survey.” Office of Survey Methods Research, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. 

Edgar, J. (2010). “Respondent Record Use in the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey.”

Paper presented at the Annual Conference, American Association for Public Opinion 

Research, May 13-16, 2010, Chicago, IL. 

Edgar, J. (2011). “CE Methods Workshop Report.” Washington, DC: Office of Survey Methods 

Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Edgar, J., Davis, J., Spell, S., Verlander, R., and Wetzel, G. (2006). Individual Diary Feasibility Test 

Final Report. Bureau of Labor Statistics unpublished internal report. 

Fu, S.J., Wang, R., and Qiu, Y. (2002). “Daily Activity and Internet Use in Dual-Earner Families: A 

Weekly Time Diary Approach.” IT & Society, Vol. 1: 37-43. 

Gelsen, E., Richards, A., and Strohm, C. (2011). “U.S. Consumer Expenditure Records Study.”

Paper prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

Goldenberg, K.L., McGrath, D., and Tan, L. (2009). “The Effects of Incentives on the Consumer 

Expenditure Interview Survey.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference, American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 

Grootaert, C. (1986). “The Use of Multiple Diaries in a Household Expenditure Survey in Hong 

Kong.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 81 (396): 938-944.

Groves, R., Singer, E., and Corning, A. (2000). “Leverage-Saliency Theory of Survey Participation.”

Public Opinion Quarterly, 54: 346-361.

Henderson, S., Passero, B., Rogers, J., Ryan, J., and Safir, A. (2011). “Consumer Expenditure Survey 

(CE) Data Requirements.”

Hicks, W., Connor, S., Ward, P., DiGaetano, R., Goksel, H., Kumar, V., and Lefkowitz, D. (2011). 

“An Experiment Evaluating Different Respondent Monetary Gifts.” Paper presented at the 

Annual Conference, American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ. 

Horsfield, G. (2010). Family Spending: A report on the 2009 Living Costs and Food Survey. Office 

for National Statistics report. 
References 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

70 

 

Iida, M. et al. (2012). Using diary methods in psychological research. In: Cooper, H. (Ed.) APA 

handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Kreuter, F., McCulloch, S., Presser, S., and Tourangeau, R. (2011). “The Effects of Asking Filter 

Questions in Interleafed versus Grouped Format.” Sociological Methods and Research, 40(1): 88-

104.

Krishamurthy, P. (2008). Diary. In: Lavrakas, P. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage. 

Lessler, J. (1987) BLS Conference Report. Report to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 12, 1987. 

Last accessed June 14, 2013: http://www.bls.gov/cex/cesrvymethslessler1.pdf. 

Martinez, S. (2007). “The U.S. Food Marketing System: Recent Developments 1997-2006.”

Economic Research Report Number 42. Washington, DC:. Economic Research Service. 

Mathematica Policy Research. (2011). “Supporting Justification for OMB Clearance of the National 

Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey.” Contract Number AG-3K06-D-09-

0212/GS-10F-0050L. December 5, 2011. 

McGrath, D., McDermott, N., Chopova, B., and Gomes, C. (2007). “The Effects of Incentives on 

the Consumer Expenditure Diary Survey.” Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Internal report. 

McGrath. (2005). “Comparison of Data Obtained by Telephone versus Personal Visit Response in 

the U.S. Consumer Expenditures Survey.” Alexandria, VA: Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 3368-3375.

O’Hare, B. (2008). “Incentives in the Private Sector.” Paper presented to the Council of Professional 

Associations on Federal Statistics, March 10, 2008. 

Office of National Statistics. (2011). “Living Costs and Food Survey User Guide.” ONS Social 

Surveys. 

Rainie, L. (2012). 25% of American adults own tablet computers. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s 

Internet & American Life Project. 

RTI. (2002). “2001 National Household Survey on Drug-Abuse Incentive Experiment. Prepared for 

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration under Contract 

No. 283-98-9008.

Safir, A. (2011). “Survey Design and Data Collection.” Presentation to the CNSTAT Panel on the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey, February 8, 2011. 

Safir, A., and Goldenberg, K. (2008). “Mode Effects in a Survey of Consumer Expenditures.”

Alexandria, VA: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey 

Research Methods, 4436-4443. 
References 

Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey 

71 

 

Silberstein, A., and Scott, S. (1991). “Expenditure Diary Surveys and Their Associated Errors”

Chapter 16 in P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman (eds) 

Measurement Errors in Surveys. New York: Wiley and Sons. 

Singer, E. (2002). “The Use of Incentives to Reduce Nonresponse in Household Surveys” in R. 

Groves, D. Dillman, J. Eltinge, and R. Little (eds) Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley. 

Singer, E., Gebler, N., Raghunathan, T., Van Hoewyk, J., and McGonagle, K. (1999). “The Effect of 

Incentives in Interviewer-Mediated Surveys.” Journal of Official Statistics, 15:217-230.

Sjoblom and Lee. (2012). “Pilot Test Report: Records Information and Feasibility of Use Study.”

Chicago: NORC at the University of Chicago, July 9, 2012. 

Slesnick, D.T. (2001). Consumption and Social Welfare. Living Standards and Their Distribution in 

the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Smith, A. (2012). 17% of cell phone owners do most of their online browsing on their phone, rather than a computer 

or other device. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. 

Stone, A.A. et al. (2002). Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ, 324, 1193-1194.

Tremblay, J., Lynch, J., and Dubreuil, G. (2011). “Pilot Survey Results from the Canadian Survey of 

Household Spending Redesign.” Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ. 

Tucker, C. (1992). “The Estimation of Instrument Effects on Data Quality in the Consumer 

Expenditure Diary Survey.” Journal of Official Statistics, 8(1): 41-61.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2011). “2009 National 

Household Travel Survey Users Guide.” Washington, DC.

Verbrugge, L.M. (1980). “Health Diaries.” Medical Care, 18:73-95.

Westat. (2011a). “Redesign Options for the Consumer Expenditure Survey.” Final report prepared 

for the National Academy of Sciences, NAS Solicitation Number DBASSE-004950-0001-

031411. Washington, DC.

Westat (2011b). Data capture technologies and financial software for collecting consumer expenditure data. (Report 

submitted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Rockville, MD: Westat 

Zickuhr, K., and Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s 

Internet & American Life Project.