Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 3

1 Stinson, L., et. al., Creating a “UserFriendly” Expenditure Diary, Consumer

Expenditure Survey Anthology, U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics Report 967, pp 3-17, April 2003. 2 Figueroa, E., et. al., Is a User-Friendly

Diary More Effective? Findings from a Field

Test, Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology,

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Report 981,

pp 2-8, April 2005. 3 Cues are examples of goods and/or

services in each major expenditure category.

To, N., et. al., The Efficacy of Cues in an

Expenditure Diary, Consumer Expenditure

Survey Anthology, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics Report 981, pp 9-17, April 2005.

Evaluation of the 2005

Redesigned Consumer

Expenditure Survey

Diary

Nhien To and Lucilla Tan

Nhien To and Lucilla Tan are economists in

the Branch of Research and Program Development, Division of Consumer Expenditure

Surveys, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A diary is one of two data collection instruments for theConsumer Expenditure Survey

(CE). Diary keepers are asked to

record their consumer unit’s expenses

in a weekly diary, for 2 consecutive

weeks. Since the Diary Survey requires

extended participation by diary keepers, survey managers recognized that

simplifying the diary keeper’s recording task was critical to improving survey participation rates, which had declined from about 80 percent in 1998 to

about 69 percent in 2004. However,

data quality could not be compromised

in the process of simplifying the recording task. Both these considerations, therefore, were taken into account in the recent efforts to redesign

the CE diary to be more user friendly.

After several years of research and

testing, a new CE diary, the Redesigned

Diary, was introduced as the new instrument for data collection beginning

in January 2005. This article highlights

findings from an evaluation of the Redesigned Diary against the old diary.

The Redesigned Diary performed better than the old diary on most, but not

all, quality measures used to compare

the two diaries.

Background

Beginning in 2000, the CE embarked on

a research program to redesign the diary. Three prototypes were developed,

cognitively tested, and refined using

feedback from survey diary keepers,

field interviewers, and program staff.1

Based on this feedback, a fourth diary

design was developed, the Redesigned

Diary, which CE management selected

for field testing in 2002. The field test

indicated no difference in response

rates between the Redesigned Diary

and the Production Diary (the data

collection instrument in use), however, the Redesigned Diary performed

better in collecting item attributes, item

details, higher expenditure means, and

more detailed item descriptions in 3 of

the 4 major expenditure categories.2

The Redesigned Diary that was field

tested was further modified by the addition of cues at the top of the recording pages.3

 In January 2005, the Redesigned Diary became the new data

collection instrument for the CE Diary

Survey.

The Redesigned Diary. The Redesigned Diary was designed to be more

user friendly to encourage diary keeper
4 Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008

participation and elicit better reporting

of purchased items. The following is a

summary of the new features of the

Redesigned Diary:

1. Redesign of form layout. The

Redesigned Diary has a simpler

organization. It is smaller in size

than the former diary (the diary

used for data collection from

1993 through 2004) and is now

in portrait, rather than landscape,

format. Each diary day consists

of four pages, with one page for

each major expenditure category:

• Food and Drinks Away from

Home (MLS)

• Food and Drinks for Home Consumption (FDB)

• Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and

Accessories (CLO)

• All Other Products, Services,

and Expenses (OTH)

If diary keepers have more than one

page of entries for a major expenditure

category, additional pages are available at the end of the diary.

2. Elimination of most sub-category entries within major expenditure categories. In FDB, CLO,

and OTH, all subcategories were

eliminated in the Redesigned

Diary. In MLS, subcategories of

vendor type were eliminated,

but replaced with vendor-type

checkboxes. Differences in expenditure categorization between the Redesigned Diary and

the former diary are summarized

in table 1.

3. Addition of more checkboxes

to solicit detail about items purchased. Checkboxes were added

to the MLS recording page for

the attributes of meal type, vendor type, and alcohol type. On

the CLO recording page, checkboxes for gender and age were

added to the CLO recording

page. (Formerly, the diary keeper recorded the gender-age item

attribute by selecting a value

from a list of coded values for

gender and age.)

4. Clarification of instructions to diary keepers. Instructions, rules,

and definitions were clarified; a

greater variety of examples was

added with important recording

instructions highlighted. Additionally, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) were introduced.

The FAQs and examples are printed on flaps of the diary cover for

easy access. These flaps can also

serve as bookmarks, to help diary

keepers mark their place.

5. Visual enhancement of the diary

form. Photographs and additional color are used in the Redesigned

Diary, to give the diary a contemporary and less-intimidating

look.

Evaluation of the 2005

Redesigned Diary

Data collected in January through December of 2005 in the Redesigned Diary were compared with data collected

over the same months of 2004 in the

former diary. Evaluation was based on

approximately 14,000 completed diaries

for each type of diary. Ideally, comparison would be based on data collected

from the Redesigned Diary and the

former diary fielded over the same time

period so data collection conditions—

such as economic climate and consumer confidence—would be the same for

both instruments; and, therefore, any

differences found could be more directly attributed to changes in the format.

However, the former diary was retired

when the Redesigned Diary was released for data collection.

Since the evaluation was based on

comparing data from two time periods,

time-sensitive measures, such as expenditures and the relative shares of

each major expenditure category of

total expenditures, are not reported

here, since such data could be biased

by changes in economic conditions

across the years. For that reason, the

focus in the evaluation is on measures

which reflect how entries are recorded, since these measures can be primarily associated with form design.

Measures. Form designers hoped that

the smaller, more attractive questionnaire with its simplified layout would

encourage more diary keepers to participate in the survey. It was decided

that the Redesigned Diary would be

an improvement over the former diary,

if the Redesigned Diary improved response rates and collected higher quality data (that is, more complete and

detailed recording of purchased items).4

Variances for statistical tests to measure significant differences between

estimates from the Redesigned Diary

and the former diary were computed

using the method of random groups.

(See appendix A.)

A. Participation Rates

Completion response rates and attrition rates are two measures of participation. Completion response rate measures the proportion of all diaries successfully placed with eligible households and completed.5

 Completed cases are cases where the household completed the weekly diary or where the

household was temporarily absent for

the week.6

4 An underlying assumption of the Consumer

Expenditure Surveys is that surveys are subject

to significant recall error [Silberstein, A.,

Recall Effects in the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey, Journal of Official Statistics

5 (2) 1989, pp. 125-142.]. Therefore, a result

at higher levels of reporting is “better” and

closer to the true value. 5 Eligible housing units are those in the

designated sample, less housing vacancies,

housing units under construction, housing

units with temporary residents, destroyed or

abandoned housing, and units converted to

nonresidential use 6 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

counts cases that will be temporarily absent

for the entire data collection period as

completed cases for the Diary survey. The

parallel Consumer Expenditure Quarterly

Interview Survey (a second household

expenditure survey conducted by the CE to

obtain large and infrequent expenditure items)

collects data for diary keepers who are away

from home on trips. Since Diary and

Interview data are later merged, this practice

avoids double-counting the same set of

expenditures.
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 5

Attrition rate measures the proportion

of eligible diaries successfully placed

and completed in the first week, but

not in the second week. (That is, diary

keepers dropped out of the survey after the first week.)

B. Data Quality Measures

Data quality is measured by the extent

to which purchased items are reported

with the required amount of detail, and

can be used, as reported, without further editing. Editing refers to the various processes of cleaning originally

recorded diary data that were misclassified, recorded with inadequate detail,

or the requested item attributes failed

to be reported.

1. Entry misclassification rate.

Entry or item misclassification

occurs when the diary keeper

records an entry in the wrong

major expenditure category of

the diary. For example, the diary

keeper recorded “disposable diapers” in the All Other Products,

Services, and Expenses (OTH)

section; and the correct major

expenditure category for the entry is Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry,

and Accessories (CLO). The

entry disposable diapers has

been misclassified in OTH, and

will be moved to CLO during data

processing. If the diary layout

has been effectively simplified

and the recording instructions

improved, we should expect a

lower item misclassification rate

in the Redesigned Diary.

2. Allocation rate. If the description of an item is recorded with

inadequate detail, the item’s

reported expenditure will be

allocated among related items.7

The allocation rate of entries in

a major expenditure category

was measured as the proportion

of the number of entries needing allocation to the total number of entries in the major expenditure category. The recording

task in the Redesigned Diary was

simplified by eliminating expenditure subcategories that served

as cues for the universe of products to be reported on the recording page, as well as lessening the

level of detail to report. Additionally, with the Redesigned

Diary, diary keepers write in entries on a more free-form page.

The elimination of subcategories in the Redesigned Diary was

expected to have the following

effects:

• Increase the allocation rate in

FDB in the Redesigned Diary.

FDB was the major expenditure

category with the highest number of subcategories (15), and

the eliminated FDB subcategories were not replaced with

checkboxes. Furthermore, the

subcategories in FDB were also

cues to the level of reporting

detail requested from the diary

keeper. (For example, beef, pork,

poultry, other meats were four

subcategories in FDB that tell

the diary keeper it is not sufficient to record an entry as

‘‘meat.”) (See appendix B.)

• Decrease the allocation rate in

MLS with the replacement of

vendor type subcategories with

checkboxes and the addition of

new cues (checkboxes) for meal

type.

• The loss of subcategories in

CLO and OTH was expected to

have a less-severe impact on reporting detail in CLO and OTH

than in FDB. This is because—

like MLS—the subcategories in

CLO and OTH served as cues to

the universe of products relevant for reporting, and not as

cues to the level of reporting

detail, as in FDB.

3. Item attribute imputation rate.

Imputation in the CE Diary is

performed only on item attributes, not on expenditures.

Item attributes collected by the

CE Diary are:

• type of meal purchased, in MLS

• type of vendor from whom meal

was purchased, in MLS

• type of alcohol purchased with

meal (if any), in MLS

• type of item packaging, in FDB

• gender-age for whom item was

purchased, in CLO

The imputation rate for each attribute is measured by the proportion

of entries in each major category that

are missing the attribute that should

have been reported.8 Item attributes

collected in the diary are described

below:

• Meal attribute in MLS. In the

former diary, classification of the

type of meal purchased (breakfast, lunch, dinner, or snack/

other) was dependent on the diary keeper’s written description.

If the diary keeper failed to specify the meal type in the entry, that

detail was lost. In the Redesigned

Diary, checkboxes for each meal

type are provided as a cue to the

diary keeper that we want that

detail. (The imputation rate for

meal type was expected to be lower in the Redesigned Diary.)

• Vendor attribute in MLS. Diary

keepers are asked to specify the

type of vendor from whom a meal

was purchased. To simplify the

diary keeper’s recording task in

the Redesigned Diary, the vendor type subcategories of the

former diary were eliminated and

replaced with four vendor type

checkboxes. (See appendix C). 7 An example of a description with

inadequate detail is “groceries.” Instead, the

diary keeper should have recorded the items

purchased that make up groceries.

8 The missing value is indicated by an

‘invalid blank’ flag.
6 Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008

In the former diary, if the diary

keeper made an entry in the MLS

section of the diary, the entry

would have had to be written in

one of the vendor subcategories,

so the vendor type was always

reported. In the Redesigned Diary, a diary keeper can make an

MLS entry and omit marking off

a vendor type checkbox, so the

vendor attribute can be missing.

Thus, the reporting of vendor

attribute is not directly comparable between the former diary

and the Redesigned Diary.

• Alcohol attribute in MLS. In the

former diary, there was a Yes/No

screener alcohol purchase question for whether alcohol was purchased with the meal, but there

was no question asked for the

type of alcohol purchased. (See

technical note C.) In the Redesigned Diary, the screener alcohol purchase question has been

eliminated; instead, diary keepers are asked to indicate the type

of alcohol purchased with the

meal, by marking one or more of

the three types of alcohol (wine,

beer, or other) checkboxes.

Thus, reporting of the alcohol

attribute is not directly comparable between the former diary

and the Redesigned Diary.

• Package type attribute in FDB.

Checkboxes indicating an item’s

package type (fresh, frozen,

bottled/canned; other) in the

Food and Drinks for Home Consumption section are identical in

the Redesigned Diary and the

former diary. Thus, we did not

expect much difference in the

imputation rate of an item’s package type in the FDB expenditure

category.

• Gender-age attribute in CLO.

On the Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry,

and Accessories recording page,

the diary keeper is asked to indicate the gender and age group

of the person for whom the item

was purchased. In the former

diary, diary keepers were asked

to assign a code to each reported

item by selecting from a list of

five gender-age combinations

(Male 16 or over, Female 16 or

over, Male 2 through 15, Female

2 through 15, Under 2 years).

In the Redesigned Diary, the list

of gender-age combinations was

replaced by two sets of checkboxes, one checkbox to indicate

gender, and another checkbox to

indicate age (Under 2, 2–15, 16

& Over). (See technical note D.)

Age and gender attributes are

then combined during data processing to form the five genderage categories from the former

diary. We expected the use of

the checkboxes in the Redesigned Diary to improve the recording of gender-age attributes, as checkboxes simplify

the recording task.

In summary, only the imputation

rates for the attributes of meal type,

package type, and gender age are comparable between the Redesigned Diary and the former diary.

4. Number of entries recorded. If

the Redesigned Diary were more

effective in soliciting participation and reporting, we anticipated more entries in the Redesigned Diary (other factors being equal). However, since we

are comparing data from the Redesigned Diary and the former

diary using two time periods, we

must be cautious in attributing

differences in the number of recorded entries solely to differences in diary format.

Findings

Participation rates. The diary completion response rate was statistically

significantly higher in the Redesigned

Diary (71.0 percent vs. 68.9 percent).

The proportion of eligible diary keepers who completed diaries for both

weeks was also higher in the Redesigned Diary (66.6 percent vs. 64.5 percent). However, the refusal rate was

not significantly different between the

Redesigned Diary and the former diary (12.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). (See

table 2.)

Entry misclassification rate. Overall,

the proportion of misclassified entries

was higher for the Redesigned Diary

(2.1 percent vs. 1.5 percent). By major

expenditure category, the Redesigned

Diary contained higher rates of misclassified entries in CLO (8.0 percent

vs. 4.8 percent) and OTH (3.5 percent

vs. 1.5 percent), but a lower misclassification rate in MLS (0.4 percent vs.

0.7 percent).

Allocation rate. Overall, the allocation rate in the Redesigned Diary was

significantly lower (8.5 percent vs. 11.7

percent). However, the allocation rate

was significantly higher in FDB (9.9

percent vs. 7.8 percent), and significantly lower in MLS (5.9 percent vs.

34.8 percent) and OTH (7.7 percent vs.

8.3 percent), as anticipated. The much

lower allocation rate in MLS probably

reflects the effectiveness of the additional checkboxes in the Redesigned

Diary. The higher allocation rate in

FDB in the Redesigned Diary probably reflects the loss of detailed cueing

through subcategories that was eliminated in the Redesigned Diary.

Item attribute imputation rate. Among

the three attributes where imputation

rates could be compared, the imputation rates for meal type (4.7 percent

vs. 33.1 percent) and age-gender (16.1

percent vs. 23.7 percent) were significantly lower in the Redesigned Diary.

This is probably due to the effectiveness of the additional checkboxes introduced in the Redesigned Diary. The

imputation rate for package type was

significantly higher in the Redesigned

Diary (6.6 percent vs. 5.7 percent).

Since both diaries had identical package-type checkboxes, it is not possible to attribute the increase in imputation rate to changes in form design.

One possible explanation may simply

be that the comparison is between data

collected in 2 different years.
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 7

Number of entries. Overall, there was

no significant difference in the number of entries. The Redesigned Diary

had a significantly higher number of

entries in MLS, CLO and OTH, but a

significantly lower number of entries

in FDB. As with the worsening in the

allocation rate of entries in FDB, the

lower number of entries in FDB probably reflects the loss of detailed cueing

through the elimination of subcategories in the Redesigned Diary.

Conclusion

In summary, the Redesigned Diary appears effective in most areas. In soliciting respondent participation, the Redesigned Diary had higher completion

rate, but was similar to the Former Diary in refusal and attrition rates. The

Redesigned Diary also performed better in two of the three comparable imputation rates for missing attributes.

However, results were mixed for comparisons of entry misclassifications,

allocation rates, and entry misclassifications.

The improvement in completion

rate should be qualified, as there was

a targeted effort to encourage field interviewers to obtain better response

rates for the CE Diary, in 2005. The

completion rate, therefore, will be monitored to see if the improved rate for

the Redesigned Diary will be sustained

in the future. That no improvements

were seen in the Redesigned Diary’s

refusal and attrition rates is probably

a reflection of the unchanged nature of

the underlying task of reporting all of a

household’s expenses for 2 weeks—

even with a more user-friendly redesign.

The addition of checkboxes to elicit item attribute detail appears effective, as two of the three comparable

imputation rates for missing attributes

were significantly lower in the Redesigned Diary.

The diary form simplification and

data quality tradeoff was most evident

in FDB in the Redesigned Diary. The

elimination of subcategories that served

as cues to the product universe and for

the level of reporting detail expected in

the Redesigned Diary probably largely

accounts for the higher allocation rate

and lower number of entries.

Possible future research: The data

suggest that many respondents may

not understand how to record alcohol

only purchases in MLS. While the

present layout provides the necessary

prompts, it does so at a high burden

on processing, as well as with the apparent potential for respondent confusion. To handle this situation, options for consideration are the use of

an alcohol-only checkbox as an additional meal-type checkbox on the MLS

recording page, or the addition of a

separate instruction.

The reporting of gifts in CLO and

OTH, and the purchase of alcohol with

meals, fell in the Redesigned Diary;

and these types of reporting coincide

with the replacement of the Yes/No

checkboxes with a Yes only checkbox

in the Redesigned Diary. We may want

to further investigate the effect of this

aspect of form design.
8 Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008

Part 1. Food Away From Home (MLS)

Fast Food, Take-out, Delivery, Concession Stands,

 Buffet and Cafeteria

Full-Service Meals, Snacks, Drinks

Vending Machines and Mobile Vendors

Employer and School Cafeteria

Board or Meal Plan Food

Catered Affairs

Part 2. Food for Home Consumption (FDB)

Flour, Cereal, and Other Grain Products

Bakery Products

Beef

Pork

Poultry

Other Meats

Fish and Seafood

Fats, Oils and Dressings

Eggs and Diary Products

Fruits and Fruit Juices

Sugar, Sugar Substitutes and Sweets

Vegetables and Vegetable Juices

Other Food Items

Non-Alcoholic Beverages

Alcoholic Beverages

Part 3. Food and Beverages Purchased as Gifts (FDB)

Part 4. Clothing, Shoes and Jewelry (CLO)

Casual, Sportswear, Formal

Undergarments and Sleepclothes

Outdoor, Work, School, Costumes

Shoes

Sports – Team Clothes and Sport Shoes

Jewelry, Accessories, and Sewing Items

Clothing Services

Part 5. All Other Purchases and Expenses (OTH)

Tobacco and Smoking Supplies

Gasoline, Oil, and Additives

Medicines, Medical Supplies and Services

Personal Care Products and Services

Housekeeping Supplies and Services

Housewares and Small Household Appliances

Home Furnishings, Decorative Items, Linens,

 and Major Appliances

Home Maintenance, Hardware, Lawn Supplies and Services

Housing Expenses

Entertainment/Amusements and Sports/Recreation

Transportation Expenses

School Expenses

All Other Expenses

Part 1. Food and Drinks Away from Home (MLS)

Vendor type subcategories changed to checkboxes

Meal type checkboxes added

Part 2. Food and Drinks for Home Consumption (FDB)

Gift purchases subcategory changed to a checkbox

All other subcategories eliminated

Food and Beverages Purchased as Gifts (FDB)

Eliminated as a category

Part 3. Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and Accessories (CLO)

All subcategories eliminated

Part 4. All Other Products, Services, and Expenses (OTH)

 All subcategories eiliminated

Former diary

Table 1. Comparision of main expenditure categories and subcategories

Redesigned diary
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 9

Table 2. Comparison of data from the 2004 former diary and the 2005 Redesigned Diary

A. Participation

Eligible CUs 21,369 21,309

Response rate

Percent completed diaries * 68.9 71.0

Percent eligible CUs who did not participate because:

 - Refused 11.7 12.2

 - Not home 3.3 2.5

 - Other 3.9 4.8

Participation across both weeks:

 Percent completed diaries in both weeks * 64.5 66.6

 Percent completed diary in Week 1 but not in Week 2 2.5 2.6

B. Data quality - Recording of entries

Entry misclassification rate (percent)

Overall * 1.5 2.1

Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and Accessories (CLO) * 4.8 8

Food and Drinks for Home Consumption (FDB) * 1.4 1.4

Food and Drinks away from Home (MLS) * 0.7 0.4

All Other Products, Services, and Expenses (OTH)* 1.5 3.5

Allocation rate - proportion of entries recorded with insufficient detail (percent)

Overall * 11.7 8.5

Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and Accessories (CLO) 8.8 9.4

Food and Drinks for Home Consumption (FDB) * 7.8 9.9

Food and Drinks away from Home (MLS) * 34.8 5.9

All Other Products, Services, and Expenses (OTH) * 8.3 7.7

Missing attributes - proportion of entries requiring imputation (percent)

Type of packaging * 5.7 6.6

Type of vendor na1 4.9

Type of meal * 33.1 4.7

Type of alcohol na2 11.4

Age-gender * 23.7 16.1

Number of entries

Overall 500,672 498,458

Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and Accessories * 17,270 20,333

Food and Drinks for Home Consumption * 261,961 243,570

Food and Drinks away from home * 69,551 81,168

All Other Products, Services, and Expenses * 151,890 153,387

Former diary Redesigned diary

* Indicates statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found between the two diaries.

1 In the former diary, there was no imputation of the vendor attribute, because the diary keeper could only record an entry on the MLS

page by writing it in one of the vendor subcategories. In the Redesigned Diary, a diary keeper can make an MLS entry and omit marking off

a vendor-type checkbox. Thus, the imputation rate of the vendor attribute between the former diary and the Redesigned Diary are not

comparable. 2In the former diary, there was no imputation of the alcohol type attribute, because there was not an explicit prompt for alcohol type.

Instead, there was an alcohol purchase screener question (Yes/No checkbox). In 2004, there were 6.5 percent invalid blanks for the

alcohol-purchase screener question.
10 Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008

Technical note A: Variance computation

The Consumer Expenditure (CE)

Survey has a complex sample

design, and the Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) method of

variance estimation is used to calculate variances. However, as the 2005

Redesigned Diary evaluation is based

on data gathered early in the data processing cycle, replicate weights were

not yet available at the time the evaluation was conducted. Instead, variances were computed using the random groups method.9

 All CUs in the

former diary sample and the Redesigned Diary sample were randomly

assigned into one of 10 groups (called

replicates), with each replicate containing approximately 10 percent of the

universe. For each statistic of interest, the statistic was computed separately for each replicate, as well as for

the full sample.

Then, the variance for the statistic was

estimated by:

where = the full sample statistic

of interest, and = the statistic for the

rth replicate.10

The standard error is estimated by

9 See Sharon Lohr (1999), Chpt 9.2 in

Sampling: Design and Analysis, Sampling

Techniques 3rd Edition. 10 When the full sample statistic of interest is a count, the following modification

is made: First, divide the full sample count by

10, then take the square difference of replicate count and (full sample count/10).

To determine if the statistic of interest

was significantly different between the

former diary ( ) and Redesigned Diary ( ) samples, z-scores (Z) that allow

a statement of statistical significance

were calculated using the following

formula:

where and are the

variance of the Redesigned Diary sample and former diary sample statistics,

respectively.

If the absolute value of the z-score

is greater than 2, the statistic of interest is significantly different between

the former diary sample and the Redesigned Diary sample at 5 percent.

( )

( )

( ) 11010

10

1

2

−

−

=

∑r=

r xx

xVar

x

r x

( ) = ( ) xVarxSE

F x

R x

[ ]

( ) ( ) F R

FR

xVarxVar

xx Z

+

− =

( ) R xVar ( ) F xVar
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 11

Technical note B: FDB layout

Redesigned Diary (2005)

Former Diary
12 Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008

Technical note C: MLS layout

Redesigned Diary (2005)

Former Diary
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2008 13

Technical note D: CLO layout

Redesigned Diary (2005)

Former Diary