Testing the Feasibility of 

Collecting Expenditure Data via 

Individual Mobile and Desktop 

Diaries

Ian Elkin, Brandon Kopp, Brett McBride, and 

Lucilla Tan

Consumer Expenditure Survey Division

2015 FCSM Research Conference

December 3, 2015
I. INDIVIDUAL DIARIES 

OVERVIEW

2
Consumer Expenditure Diary 

(CED) Overview

 The CED currently uses 1 paper diary to collect 

household expenditures for a week (x2) 

 Interviewers “place” the diary in-person and 

conduct up to two more visits 

 The CED gathers more detailed expenditures 

than the Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey

 The Diary is divided into four sections: 

 Food Away From Home 

 Food for Home Consumption 

 Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry and Accessories 

 All Other Products, Services and Expenses 

3
Individual Diaries Background

 The Individual Diaries Feasibility Test (IDFT) was 

designed to inform the operational and data 

quality aspects of collecting expenditures from 

household members using personal electronic 

diaries

 Since 2004, there have been various ongoing 

initiatives to test various forms of instruments 

to address the limitations of one paper diary for 

households with multiple members 

 Two modes of electronic diaries were tested:

 Mobile internet (via smartphone)

 Desktop internet

4
Individual Diaries Logistics

5

 Data Collection Period – Aug - Dec 2014

 Starting Sample Addresses – 1,200 

 Targeted sampling on area mobile usage, 

internet penetration, multi-person 

households, and English speaking 

households

 Diary placement occurs once across the 

2-week recording period

 Interviewers provide username and 

password to Respondents
Individual Diaries Eligible Cases 

& Assignment Protocol

6

 Eligible Individual Diaries Cases

 English only – (No Spanish Diary)

 No Multi-CU HHs or Replacement HHs

 Home internet access via PC, tablet, Smartphone

 Assignment Protocol

 If a household screens in as eligible, household 

members are offered modes sequentially

 Mobile mode first and, if they do not have a 

Smartphone, then

 Desktop mode, including tablet 
Individual Diaries Monitoring 

Protocol

7

 Interviewer Follow-up Calls

 Reminder Calls (or visits if necessary) on Day 3 

and Day 8 were encouraged for all participating 

households

 Tailored follow-up calls were made to households 

that Census flagged for going three consecutive 

days without logging into the instrument
Individual Diaries Training and 

Materials

8

 Training conducted in-person for one day 

and was a departure from standard CE 

training protocols - focused more heavily on 

protocol changes

 Respondent Materials

 Mobile and Desktop User Guides – Focus on 

logging in and entering expenses

 Three YouTube Online Tutorials

 Getting Started

 What to Enter in the CE Diary

 Entering and Editing Expenses
II. SAMPLE PERFORMANCE & 

CHARACTERISTICS

9
Characteristics of Sampled 

Households versus Restricted 

Production

10

 Control Group (CG) – Production cases from 

the same time period and regions restricted to 

match IDFT test sample by only including 

English speaking HHs with internet access who 

had diaries double placed.

 IDFT vs. CG

More homeowners (70.7% vs. 63.2%)

Fewer single-person HHs (16.5% vs. 23.7%)

Lower prevalence of converted refusals (1.2% 

vs. 3.7%)
Characteristics of Individual 

Diarists by HH Assigned Diary Type

 Diary Types – Mobile, Desktop, Mix (Mobile & 

Desktop) & Paper

 Compared to desktop-only HH diarists, mobile 

diarists were more likely to be under the age of 

50, college graduates, white, of Hispanic origin, 

and live in larger HHs.

 Younger members were particularly receptive to 

the mobile diary, as 41% of mobile diarists were 

between the ages of 16 & 34 compared to 27% 

of paper diarists. 

11
Sample Performance

12

 Difference in Rates – (IDFT – RP)

 The higher non-response & screen-out rates in 

the RP sample may be attributed to the IDFT 

sample design.

ID CG Diff % Diff

Screen-out rate 25% 31% -6% -19.4%

Contact rate 96% 95% 1% 1%

Cooperation rate 23% 28% -5% -17.9%

Response rate 22% 27% -5% -18.5%

‘Non-response’ rate 

(or non-placement rate) 

59% 64% -6% -7.8%
III. FEASIBILITY

13
Adherence to Protocol

14

 Multi-member HHs – Interviewer reports of ‘central 

person’ diary recording

 Interviewer monitoring of diary logins

 HHs that were contacted were significantly more likely 

to complete their diaries than those that were not (70% 

vs. 49%)

 HHs that were contacted had a significantly higher 

average number of entries (52 vs. 25)

N % with follow-up attempt

PHI 88 5%

CHI 152 31%

LA 175 4%

Average: 14%
Obstacles to Accessing Web 

Diaries 

15

 URL – https://respond.census.gov/ced

 Password Requirements – 8 characters, including an 

uppercase & lowercase letter, a number, & a special 

character.
IV. EXPENDITURE 

REPORTING

16
Expenditure Reporting: 

Individual vs. Household

17

 Mean and median number of HH entries by group –multiple 

diarists

 Count of HH entries by size and group

N Mean Median

ID 57 70.4 59.0

CG 139 89.4 85.0

Diff (ID-CG) - -19.0 -26.0

% Difference - -21.3% -30.6%

2 diarists/age-eligible 

members

3+ diarists/age-eligible 

members

N Mean Median N Mean Median

ID 47 64.8 57 10 96.8 109

CG 98 82.1 76 41 107.0 114

Diff (ID-CG) - -17.3 -19.0 - -10.2 -5.0

% Difference - -21.1% -25.0% - -9.5% -4.4%
V. INDIVIDUAL WEB MODE 

DATA QUALITY

18
Number of Entries at the HH 

Level

 Mean & median number of HH entries by group 

– all diarists

 Mean & median number of entries per singlemember HHs by group – all diarists

19

No. CUs Mean Median

ID 164 59.4 50.5

CG 190 79.5 72.0

Diff (ID-CG) - -20.1 -22.5

% Difference - -25.3% -31.3%

N Mean Median

ID 30 36.1 37.5

CG 51 52.3 47.0

Diff (ID-CG) - -16.2 -9.5

% Difference - -30.9% -20.2%
Number of Entries by Diary 

Mode

 Descriptive statistics of entries by diary mode 

20

No. diarists Mean Median Min Max

Mobile 87 33.5 21.0 1.0 133.0

Desktop 146 41.9 31.0 2.0 177.0

Recall 16 44.5 32.5 1.0 113.0
VI. CONCLUSION

21
In Summary

 There were challenges implementing the test 

protocol as designed. 

 Lower than expected prevalence of household 

members cooperating.

 Long web site address and complex password 

requirements. 

 Web diary monitoring improvements.

22
In Summary

 No improvement in household cooperation 

rates.

 Contemporaneous reporting of expenses was 

hampered by data limitations. 

 Single proxy respondents versus multi-member 

HHs. 

 Fewer entries and lower reported expenditure 

totals among the ID sample.

 Positive feedback regarding the ease of 

recording expenses and the security of their 

data. 

23
Contact Information

Ian J. Elkin

Senior Economist

Branch of Research and Development

Consumer Expenditure Survey

www.bls.gov/cex

202-691-6865

elkin.ian@bls.gov