1

Asking Questions about Household Member Activities 

to Improve Expenditure Reporting

Follow-Up to 2012 Proxy Reporting Lab Study

Erica Yu

Office of Survey Methods Research

September 20, 2013

Background

The Consumer Expenditure Quarterly interview survey (CEQ) relies on proxy reporting, a single 

respondent reporting expenditures on behalf of others, as a source of data. There are two 

known sources of error: knowledge and recall of others‘ expenditures (BLS Position Paper on 

Proxy Reporting, 2010; Mathiowetz, 1987). Respondents cannot report information they do not 

have and recall is often flawed even when the respondent is knowledgeable.

Previous research has found that the quality of proxy reporting varies as a function of several 

factors, including involvement in proxy purchases, communication style, and relationship type 

(Kojetin & Jerstad, 1997). However, these findings have been primarily focused on whether and 

how proxy information is encoded in memory. The current study aims to understand how to 

enable respondents to retrieve what proxy information is already in memory.

In 2012, Book and Edgar investigated ways to reduce the impact of the recall problem in proxy 

reporting. Focusing on errors of omission, Book and Edgar (2012) created a protocol designed 

to raise respondents‘ awareness of others‘ spending. Book and Edgar developed four questions 

that ask respondents to think about: the ways that others in their household spend money that 

they themselves do not, the hobbies and activities that others in their household like to do, the 

trips that were taken by others in their household, and any unusual purchases made by others 

in their household. When administering the CEQ, the interviewer used the information gleaned 

from the initial questions about others in the household to prompt the participant to think about 

any expenses that might have been forgotten. In response to the additional questions and 

probes, the 20 participants identified more than 20 items worth more than $3,200 – which 

otherwise would not have been reported. These results suggest that additional survey questions

designed to remind respondents‘ to include other household members may be effective at 

reducing underreporting of others‘ expenditures. However, Book and Edgar (2012) relied on 

highly-personalized questions, which require agility and familiarity with the CEQ categories on 

the part of the interviewer to maintain in memory and use effectively the provided responses 

throughout the survey. Non-scripted questions also require a high level of interviewer skill to be 

administered effectively. The current study develops standardized versions of the questions that 

may be more appropriate for field use.

While the evidence suggests that additional survey questions may reduce underreporting of 

others‘ expenditures, they also lengthen the survey duration. It is likely that the longer the 

interviewer spends with the respondent discussing household members‘ expenditures, the 

better able the interviewer will be to prompt the respondent for additional expenditures during 

the CEQ. Research suggests that respondents need several seconds to retrieve information 

(Reiser, Black, & Abelson, 1985) and that the amount of time allowed for participants to access 

events and the amount of time used to formulate responses can impact what type of response 

strategy is used and ultimately the type and quality of information that is retrieved in some recall 
2

tasks (Blair & Burton, 1987; Burton & Blair, 1991). Longer response times are often associated 

with more accurate recalls while shorter response times are associated with inferior response 

strategies such as estimation. Implementing the proposed additional questions efficiently will 

require understanding the minimum time needed for participants to provide meaningful openended responses. The current study includes a timing manipulation to test the effect of 

interviewer pacing on responses to the proposed questions. 

The primary aims of the current study are to refine the proxy reporting questions developed by 

Book and Edgar (2012), by standardizing script wording to be used in a production setting. A 

secondary goal of the current study is to understand the minimum amount of time needed to 

spend on these additional questions. 

Method

Design of timing study

All participants received the same cognitive interviewing protocol except for one difference 

during the initial proxy questions: half of the participants were given a minimum of 10 seconds to 

complete their open-ended responses while the other half of the participants were given a 

minimum of 2 seconds. This design aimed to investigate whether additional time would enable 

participants to more thoroughly search memory for additional reports. The latter group aimed to 

approximate a style of interviewing wherein the interviewer continued on after the participant 

gave any response. A computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) instrument was 

developed using Visual Basic to enable the interviewer to input summaries of the participants‘ 

responses, implement the 2 and 10 second manipulations, and record the time spend on each 

proxy question. When administering the 10 second minimum interval, the interviewer maintained 

normal interviewing style despite any silences by continuing to type or otherwise appear to be 

working until the minimum interval had passed.

Materials for proxy protocols

The initial proxy questions asked participants to consider how others in their household spend 

their money based on the four questions tested in Book and Edgar (2012) with several 

modifications. Question scripts and the full protocol are included in Appendix A. These 

questions ask participants to think of general, dispositional characteristics of others in their 

household (converging on a common reporting strategy that proxy respondents have been 

found to engage in; Schwarz & Wellens, 1997). A question about changes to day-to-dayroutines was added to capture behavioral changes that are more likely to be recalled than 

expenditures but nonetheless result in expenditures (Reiser, Black, & Abelson, 1985). The 

addition of this question is further supported by evidence that household members commonly 

retrieve from memory information about proxy purchases by thinking of usual behaviors; a 

question asking about changes to routines may cue new information. Second, household 

member names were included in each question to further prompt participants to consider each 

household member. And third, the hobbies question was shifted to the end to reduce overlap 

with responses to the other questions due to its broadness. The open-ended proxy questions in 

the current study asked about:

(1) types of things others spend their money on that the participant did not, 

(2) vacations or trips others had gone on without the participant, 

(3) changes to the day-to-day routines of others, 

(4) unusual or out of the ordinary purchases made by others, and 

(5) hobbies of others. 
3

Follow-up probe questions were developed to be standardized and appropriate for field use. 

The original probe scripts are included in Appendix B. Probes were designed to remind the 

respondent of the information he or she had provided at the start of the interview about other 

household members‘ spending habits, trips, routines, unusual purchases, and hobbies. The 

interviewer followed closely the question scripting and did not use unscripted probes. 

To preview the main finding of this report, however, the scripted probes did not elicit additional 

expenditures as expected. While the 2012 study found that 10 of 18 participants added at least 

one expenditure report after hearing a proxy probe, the current study found that 0 of the first 11 

participants added expenditures. Given that the current study was intended to improve upon the 

2012 study, the protocols were re-evaluated. The primary difference between the 2012 study 

and the current study was identified to be the scripting of the proxy probes used during the CEQ 

portion of the study. In the 2012 study, the interviewer asked conversational probes that were 

tailored to each participant‘s situation. The probes were not scripted in advance and varied 

across participants. One example was: 

―You mentioned that your wife bought some school books, has she done that in the past three 

months?‖ 

In contrast, the current study‘s original scripting dictated that the interviewer asks: 

―You mentioned that your wife made a change to her day-to-day routine. Are there any other 

expenses that you want to add related to that?‖ 

Despite the small size of the sample, the lack of additional proxy expenditure reports was 

deemed compelling enough to warrant modifying the probe scripts. Assuming that the current

study‘s original probe scripts lacked sufficient cues to help participants recall proxy 

expenditures, the new probe scripts were designed to include more information from 

participants‘ initial open-ended responses while still maintaining standardization across 

participants. Using the same example, a modified probe script might read:

―You mentioned that your wife started school. Did she have any school-related expenses that 

we haven‘t talked about yet?‖

The modified scripted probes were used for the remaining 14 participants; the protocol for each 

type of proxy report is included in Appendix B.

Following both the proxy protocol questions and the CEQ reporting sections, the participant was 

asked debriefing questions. The debriefing questions asked after the proxy protocols targeted 

the participants‘ comprehension of the proxy questions and knowledge of other household 

members‘ spending. The debriefing questions asked after the CEQ reporting sections targeted 

participants‘ judgments about reporting accuracy and value of the probes used. The scripted 

debriefing questions are included in Appendix C; additional unscripted debriefing questions 

were used as needed. 

Materials for CEQ reporting sections

The CEQ was administered using the CAPI instrument used for training (v.14.43_05-24-2013). 

Training cases were selected from Wave 2 or Wave 3 and household rosters were modified to 

include at least two people.1

 

1 Despite using cases with multi-person households, scripts throughout the CAPI instrument prompted the 

interviewer to ask whether  ̳you‘ had any expenses, rather than the inclusive  ̳you or anyone in your 
4

Participants

Twenty-five participants were recruited from the Office of Survey Methods Research (OSMR)

database using two eligibility criteria: household size of at least two people (mean = 2.92 

people, SD = 1.15) and the purchase of CEQ items (e.g., books, entertainment expenses, 

things for the home) during the reference period. Eligibility based on household size was further 

restricted to include people that were considered  ̳family‘ to target those households with shared 

expenses. The recruiter was also asked to select individuals across a range of education (Table 

1), gender (number of male participants = 12), age levels (mean = 45.4 years, SD = 13.58; 

missing age data on 3 participants), income (Table 2), and varying roles in the household (e.g., 

parents with teenage kids, member of extended family; Table 3). The most common household 

types were participants living with children younger than 18 years (12 participants) and 

participants living with their partner only (6).

Table 1. Respondent education level (n=25)

Education level n

Some high school 1

High school diploma 2

Some college 6

College degree 11

Advanced degree 5

Table 2. Respondent Income level (n=25)

Income level n

Less than $40,000 8

$40,001-$60,000 7

$60,001-$75,000 2

More than $75,001 8

Table 3. Respondent household composition (n=25)

Household type n

Adult and partner 6

Adult and child(ren) 6

Adult and extended family, mixed ages 5

Adult and roommates 4

Adult and partner and child(ren) 2

Adult and partner, visited by child for summer 1

Adult visited by child regularly 1

 

household‘. Debriefings from early interviews confirmed that at least some participants thought primarily 

of their own personal expenses when hearing the  ̳you‘ prompt. Later interviews corrected this error.
5

Procedure

Eligible individuals were brought into the OSMR lab for interviews. Before beginning the 

interview, the interviewer gave a brief introduction to the purpose of the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey, the purpose of the study and the task and collected informed consent and permission to 

record audio. The interviewer then collected household composition, household income level, 

and respondent education level. Respondent age and gender are on file in the participant 

database.

The interviewer administered the proxy questions using a CAPI instrument. After this section of 

questions was completed, the interviewer asked debriefing questions regarding comprehension, 

sensitivity, and ease or difficulty of answering the questions. Where a response along a scale 

was requested, show cards were used.

The interview continued onto the CEQ portion of the study, in which the interviewer selected 

and administered relevant CEQ sections. The interviewer aimed to complete at least 3 sections, 

including at least one section indicated by the initial proxy-related questions and at least one 

section not indicated. Proxy-related sections were selected as categories that contained at least 

one of the responses provided during the proxy questions. As two examples: if the respondent 

said that a household member had a hobby of playing video games, Section 17 was 

administered; if the respondent reported that a household member had a change in their day-today routine because of a new job and so was spending more money on clothes, Section 9 was 

administered. Sections were chosen on-the-fly as those most appropriate for the participant‘s 

situation and thus not all participants were administered the same CEQ sections. At the start 

and end of each relevant CEQ section, the interviewer administered the relevant probes 

(Appendix B). After the CEQ portion was completed, the interviewer asked debriefing questions

about the study overall.

Results

Effect of timing manipulation on the number of reports for proxy questions

Overall, participants reported a median of 6.0 items or activities across the 5 initial proxy 

questions (minimum=2.0; maximum=35.0). The overall mean number of items or activities 

reported is 7.3 (SD=6.9); however, this number is inflated due to one participant‘s 35 reports. 

The manipulation of minimum response interval was designed to enable participants more time 

to reflect on the question and generate their response. The data suggest the additional time 

may have led to additional reports: the median number of reports in the short interval group is 

4.0; the median in the long group is 6.0. Given the small sample size, it is difficult to interpret 

such differences between the timing groups. Unless otherwise noted, the groups have been 

combined for all analyses.

Additionally, at least two participants initially answered ―none‖ to a question and used the 

remainder of the minimum 10 second interval to continue thinking about the question and 

change their response. An interviewer using the standard pacing style would likely have moved 

on to the next question and missed collecting information. 

Representation of other household members

Overall, for each of the five proxy questions asked, participants were able to provide information 

for the other members in their CU. The first question (―Are there some types of things that 

[name] spends money on that you don‘t?‖) was repeated for each individual in the CU. For this 
6

question, 16 out of 48 consumer unit (CU) members across all participants were reported for as 

―none‖ or ―nothing‖, though this consists primarily of young children. 

The four later questions (trips, routines, unusual purchases, hobbies) are asked at the CU-level 

though the question wording includes each CU member‘s name and the information is recorded 

at the individual level. As shown in Table 4, a substantial proportion of participants responded 

simply ―none‖ or ―nothing‖ to questions except the question about hobbies. These high 

proportions may indicate that participants did not understand the question, did not find the 

question relevant to their household, or refused to answer.

Table 4. Number of respondents reporting no expenditures or behaviors (n=25 for each 

question)

Proxy question n

Trips without participant 12

Changes in routines 11

Unusual purchases 16

Hobbies 2

Expenditure categories identified during proxy questions

Responses from the proxy questions may indicate the typical types of expenditures that 

respondents are able to recall and report for. The first proxy question (―Are there some types of 

things that [name] spends money on that you don‘t?‖) elicited the expenditure categories shown 

in Table 5 (a participant contributes at most one time to each category, regardless of the 

number of CU members indicated in response to the questions). The most common category 

was clothing, with 13 out of 25 participants naming clothing as an expense of at least one CU 

member.

Table 5. Categories generated in response to open-ended question about how others 

spend money

Category named n

Clothing and accessories 13

Movies, books, and entertainment 7

Food 7

Vehicle expenses 5

Rent, mortgage, insurance, and utilities 5

Cosmetics and personal care 5

Toys 3

Electronics and video games 3

Transportation 2

Exercise and recreation equipment 2

Travel expenses 1

Home goods 1

Medical expenses 1
7

Thirteen participants reported that at least one CU-member went on a trip without them. 

Destinations included California (2 participants), Louisiana, West Virginia, and Arkansas; the 

beach (3); a cruise (2); going back and forth to college; Europe, Dominican Republic, and 

Switzerland. 

Eleven participants reported that at least one CU-member experienced a change in their day-today routine. Responses included health conditions (3), family vacations (3, not included as 

response to the trips question), getting out of school for summer (2), summer camp, purchasing 

a vehicle, joining the gym, and canceling a phone plan. 

Nine participants reported that at least one CU-member had made an unusual purchase. These 

purchases included trip souvenirs (2), jewelry, plane tickets, handbags, a car battery, toys, a 

DVD, and a stun gun.

Twenty-three participants reported a hobby for at least one CU-member, as shown in Table 6.

The most common category reported was participating in sports or recreation. Additional 

categories named by only one participant include cars, watching sports events, shopping, and 

going to museums.

Table 6. Categories generated in response to open-ended question about others‘ 

hobbies

Category named n

Sports and recreation 16

Electronics/video and computer 

games/surfing the internet 9

Music/movies/television 4

Reading/writing/studying 4

Family and friends 2

The five proxy questions collected a range of information. Importantly, respondents‘ answers 

spanned across many CEQ sections, with breadth and relevance that could not have been 

achieved with more specific questions. Not all responses were directly related to an expenditure 

category, but all reports could be used to prompt participants for additional expenses. In this 

way, probes are relevant to households even while the questions retain standardization across 

the sample. And, while the expenditure categories identified after probing may indicate which 

categories respondents are likely to be unable to proxy report for, it is also highly likely that 

there remain yet more expenditures not recalled at all.

Proxy protocol sensitivity

During debriefing, participants rated how sensitive the proxy questions felt on a scale from 1 to 

5, where 1 represented not at all sensitive and 5 represented very sensitive. The most frequent 

response was that the questions were  ̳not at all sensitive‘, with the majority of responses falling 

along the lower range of the sensitivity scale, as shown in Table 7 (median = 2). However, when 

asked in a follow-up question to speculate about how others might feel, participants revealed 

that they believed the nature of the questions was potentially sensitive (median=3). This 

difference between the self and other ratings suggests that the answers, rather than the 

question, are the sensitive element. It is likely that participants offered no sensitive answers but 
8

could imagine others revealing personal information. Indeed, several participants remarked that 

others‘ expenses were ―not her business‖ or that providing information was ―giving out 

information that was not hers to give.‖ One participant reported that the questions made him feel 

like he ought to know the answers to the questions and so he had a sensitive feeling when he 

did not know an answer. 

Table 7. Sensitivity ratings for proxy questions (n=25)

Rating

Self

n

Others 

n

1 Not at all sensitive 8 5

2 6 2

3 6 8

4 4 6

5 Very sensitive 1 4

Proxy protocol awkwardness

Given the inclusion of a potential silence in the interviewing protocol through the minimum 

response interval manipulation, participants were asked whether they felt the interview and the 

experience of listening to questions and providing answers had felt normal or awkward. Of the 

13 participants in the long interval group, 12 reported that the interactions felt  ̳normal‘; of the 12 

participants in the short interval group, 9 reported  ̳normal‘. However, 6 ratings were given with 

qualifications. Of these 6, 5 participants explained that the questions or the experience of 

thinking of answers was ―unusual‖ or ―not something I had ever thought about‖, indicating that 

their ratings were based not on the interaction but instead on the content of the questions. The 

remaining participant qualified his response by reporting that the interaction felt awkward at first 

but then seemed normal; he was in the group of participants who received a short interval, 

which was meant to approximate standard interviewing style. Although the validity of 

awkwardness ratings collected by the interviewer may be limited, that six participants did give 

critical responses suggests that participants felt comfortable providing honest responses. 

Overall, the slow interviewer pacing seemed not to affect participants‘ view of whether the 

interview proceeded normally. 

Proxy protocol length

Given the inclusion of additional time due to the minimum response interval, participants were 

asked whether the set of proxy questions felt long or short. Of the 25 participants, 23 reported 

that the questions felt short. One participant reported that the questions felt ―in between‖ long 

and short, and the other participant reported that the questions felt long. However, the latter

participant qualified her response by noting that the questions felt long because they were 

difficult to answer. Both participants received the long minimum response interval. Overall, this 

does not suggest that the slow interview pacing affected participants‘ subjective feeling of 

interview length.

Knowledge of others’ spending

The quality of recall of others‘ spending depends on first having knowledge of others‘ spending. 

Participants were asked how much they knew about how other people in their household spend 

money, on a scale ranging from  ̳A great deal‘ to  ̳Not at all‘ (Table 8). Of the 25 participants, all 

felt that they were at least somewhat knowledgeable about others‘ spending. In debriefing, 
9

several participants remarked that they obtain the knowledge through discussions with others, 

by noticing new purchases, or by being the parent who controls a child‘s income. Several 

participants also noted that there are some expenses they just do not know about. For example, 

one participant said: "I just [only] know he got the tennis shoes - I was with him...I didn't want to 

say anything [add more expenses] because I don't know." As expected, most participants said 

they knew only generally the kinds of things that others‘ spend their money on, but not the 

amounts they spent exactly.

Table 8. Ratings of knowledge of other household members‘ spending (n=25)

Rating n

A great deal 8

Quite a bit 12

Somewhat 5

Very little 0

Not at all 0

CEQ expenditures

Participants were administered selected sections from the standard CEQ. The sections were 

chosen to be relevant to the information provided by the participant during proxy questioning. A 

summary of the items and amounts reported is shown in Table 9. The data have been combined 

across all participants, regardless of whether the section was being probed for proxy reporting 

(n probed in Table 9).2

Proxy expenditures added after probing

After completing a probed CEQ section, the participant was reminded of the information given 

during the proxy questions to prompt the participant to think of items not yet reported. As 

described in Appendix B, the initial round of interviews used a highly standardized and 

impersonal probe. None of the first 11 participants added expenditures and so the protocols 

were revised, as described on page 2 and Appendix B. 

The revised protocol script elicited at least one additional expense from 5 out of 14 participants. 

These additional items included:

 Fees for participating in races: $30, $58

 Shoes for a visiting child: $30

 Fees for participating in kayaking: $350 ($50 every 2 weeks in the reference period)

 Tennis balls: $60 ($15 every month in the reference period)

 Gasoline for mower: $30

 Jeans: $30

 

Overall, the revised protocol successfully elicited additional expenditures. The probes collected

extra expenditures that would not have otherwise been recorded. The additional reports yielded 

 

2

The only difference between being probed and not being probed that is relevant to initial CEQ reporting 

is the insertion of a sentence at the start of the CEQ section ―When we started, you mentioned that 

[name] might have had some of these expenses. Please keep them in mind as you answer the 

questions.‖ An analysis of the effect of this reminder on CEQ reporting was planned but could not be 

conducted because, as a result of the on-the-fly selection of CEQ sections, there were no sections with 

an appropriate balance of probed and not probed participants. 
10

by the probes totaled $588 and averaged $98 per report. The reports represented between

0.9% and 8% of the reporting participant‘s total expenditures reported during the CEQ. 

Table 9. Summary of CEQ reporting, before additional proxy probing3

n

n

Probed

Count

Items*

Items 

/ n

$ / 

n

$ / 

Items

Sect 6: Appliances, household 

equipment, and other selected items 10 8 75 7.5 $1,467.2 $195.6

Sect 8: Home furnishings and related 

household items 17 3 228 13.4 $1,451.2 $108.2

Sect 9: Clothing and clothing services 18 12 437 24.3 $1,076.6 $44.3

Sect 12: Vehicle operating expenses 5 5 39 7.8 $1,356.2 $173.9

Sect 16: Educational expenses 2 2 7 3.5 $1,520.0 $434.3

Sect 17: Subscriptions, memberships, 

books, and entertainment expenses 20 18 294 14.7 $1,302.4 $88.6

Sect 18: Trips and vacations** 12 11 29 2.4 $2,125.4 $586.3

Sect 19: Miscellaneous expenses 1 1 5 5.0 $326.0 $65.2

*The number of items reported is approximate. Where the data were available, precise figures have been used. In 

some instances, participants reported monthly expenditures (e.g., spending on jewelry, iTunes music, or trips to the 

cinema, monthly). In other instances, where participants did not specify quantity, the interviewer used judgment to 

estimate the quantity.

**For trips and vacations, each trip reported is indicated as an  ̳item‘. Due to a change in protocol to focus on 

identifying trips rather than enumerating expenses, four participants were not asked to report expenditures and so are 

omitted from the calculation of $/n.

The proxy question about household members‘ hobbies had the most impact, yielding a total of

four additional reports. The proxy question about changes in day-to-day routines led to one 

additional report and the question about ways that others spend their money led to one 

additional report. Although the conclusions that can be drawn from this information are limited, 

the impact of the hobbies question indicates that it may be the most effective proxy question of 

those tested.

Retrospective ratings of proxy question usefulness

To assess whether the proxy questions were useful in raising participants‘ awareness of how 

others‘ spend money, participants were asked whether they would have remembered their 

household members‘ purchases even if the interviewer had not reminded them. Respondents 

were evenly split: 12 participants responded  ̳yes‘, 12 responded  ̳no‘, and 1 participant was not 

asked. 

 

3 One participant reported what seemed to be inaccurate, high estimates of amount spent—expenses 

such as three members of the family going to the movies throughout the reference period was reported as 

$1,500 and expenses totaled $25,369 for the 3-month reference period. When removing this participant, 

the overall averages for each section remain similar except for reporting in Section 17: spending per 

participant dropped from $1,302.4 to $342.3 and spending per item dropped from $88.6 to $25.8.
11

Another question asked participants to rate how helpful the proxy questions were in reminding 

them about others' expenses. The results are shown in Table 10. All participants felt that the 

questions were at least somewhat helpful; one participant was not asked. Participants who did 

not report additional expenditures when probed still found the proxy protocols helpful. In other 

words, the initial proxy questions may have caused participants to remember additional 

expenditures before the directed probing occurred at the end of each CEQ section. 

Table 10. Ratings of helpfulness of proxy questions (n=24)

n

1 Not at all helpful 0

2 0

3 4

4 5

5 Very helpful 15

Considering these results, the introduction could be revised to increase cooperation from 

respondents and ensure respondent understanding of the purpose; only a few participants 

understood the purpose of the proxy questions when asked during debriefing and at least one 

participant thought that he did not need to later report the expenses mentioned during the initial 

proxy protocol. 

Timing of proxy questions

The approximate time spent administering the additional proxy questions was recorded using a 

CAPI instrument. The total duration of the questions was measured from when the interviewer 

began reading the introduction for the proxy questions until when the interviewer finished typing 

the participant‘s response to the final proxy question. The time does not include the time spent 

probing during the CEQ reporting sections, as the questions collected expenditure data. The 

measures of average time spent are shown in Table 11; the median time across all 25 

participants was 2m 41s. This median duration for the five proxy questions tested in the current 

study is similar to the median reported by Book and Edgar (2012) of 2m 15s for four questions. 

By design, half of the participants received a longer minimum response interval (a minimum of 

10 seconds elapsing before continuing to the next question). When comparing across groups, 

the participants who received a long minimum response interval spent no longer than the 

participants who received a short interval (long interval group median = 2m 21s, short interval 

group median = 2m 52s). When examining mean duration and accounting for a participant in the 

short interval group whose duration was more than two standard deviations longer than the 

mean (Table 12), the groups are also no different. Indeed, the results show that the participants 

in the long interval group on average completed the questions in less time.

Table 11. Average time (min:sec) spent on initial proxy questions

Median Mean SD Minimum Maximum

All participants 

(n=25) 2:40 2:58 1:15 1:33 7:06

Short interval 

(n=12)

2:52 3:16 1:38 1:33 7:06
12

Long interval 

(n=13)

2:21 2:41 0:40 2:00 3:48

Table 12. Average time (min:sec) spent on initial proxy questions (outlier omitted)

Median Mean SD Minimum Maximum

All participants 

(n=24)

2:31 2:47 0:55 1:33 5:44

Short interval 

(n=11)

2:45 2:53 1:12 1:33 5:44

Long interval 

(n=13)

2:21 2:41 0:40 2:00 3:48

Breaking the durations down by total time spent on each of the proxy questions provides insight 

into why there are no differences between the two timing groups (Table 13). The overall median 

total time spent on each question by each participant in the short interval group is 14.5s, which 

is above the minimum 10s mandated for the long interval group.

Table 13. Average time (sec) spent on individual proxy questions

Median Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Short Interval

Other Types 31.2 45.6 52.6 4.2 198.0

Trips 7.1 14.0 17.7 3.5 67.0

Routines 19.6 29.9 37.3 3.1 138.3

Unusual 8.3 10.8 8.9 2.9 34.1

Hobbies 15.6 21.2 16.3 3.6 53.4

Long Interval

Other Types 24.9 32.8 21.5 12.6 83.9

Trips 12.1 14.8 5.2 11.1 27.7

Routines 12.3 13.4 3.2 10.9 22.3

Unusual 11.8 15.5 6.2 10.7 26.5

Hobbies 13.0 15.8 5.7 10.9 28.0

These findings suggest that slowing interviewer pacing has a smaller effect on overall duration 

than individual respondent differences. 

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to refine and standardize the wording of proxy reporting 

questions and probes for use in production settings. The design of the study built upon the 

methods and results of Book and Edgar (2012), which developed a protocol for raising 
13

respondents‘ awareness of how others in the household spend their money. Overall, the final 

protocols tested in the current study seem to balance sensitivity and burden while still yielding 

additional expenditures that would not otherwise be captured by standard CEQ interviewing.

The final protocols used represent a standardization of the question scripting developed by 

Book and Edgar (2012) and the analyses presented in this report indicate proposals for 

refinement of which questions should be asked and which may be considered for omission.

Initially, this study strictly standardized the proxy questions. However, intermediate results 

indicated that the revisions had decreased the effectiveness of the proxy questions as 

compared to Book and Edgar (2012) and protocols were modified to increase the level of detail 

included in the scripts. With the modified scripts, the probes did yield additional reports. 

However, where the previous study had found over $3,200 in additional expenditures from 10 

out of 18 people, the current study found $588 from 5 out of 14 people using the modified 

scripts. Although it is not advised to directly compare the 2012 study, the first half of the current 

study, and the second half of the current study (at the very least, the 2012 and current study 

differ methodologically on one major point: different interviewers), a cautious judgment of the 

overall pattern of results suggests that tailoring a probe and increasing detail improves its 

effectiveness at eliciting additional expenditures. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the relatively 

low level of personalization used in the final protocol was successful while also being simple for 

FRs to implement as it requires only inserting personal information in a standardized probe.

The results from this study can be used to refine future proxy protocols. The questions about 

how others spend their money, what hobbies or activities others in the household like to spend 

time on, and any changes in day-to-day routines were the only probes to elicit additional 

expenses and should be considered for inclusion in future protocols. In contrast, several 

participants reported that the  ̳unusual purchases‘ question felt sensitive while the majority of 

respondents reported no trips taken by others in their household without them. Given these 

considerations, these latter two questions may not be effective for a broad range of people and 

should be considered for exclusion, thus reducing the duration of the set of proxy questions and 

potentially reducing protocol sensitivity. Given this reduction in length, it may be expected that 

the protocol would require less than or about two minutes to administer. Additionally, it is 

recommended that different family situations be considered: for example, a single parent 

reporting on behalf of a household of young children should not be asked questions about how 

their children spend money. To address this, the protocol could only be administered to CUs of 

more than two people and only include questions about people who control their own purchases 

(e.g., older than 10 years of age and not in poor health). This is expected to raise the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the protocol while also reducing the likelihood that respondents 

would view the questions as irrelevant. 

A secondary goal of this study was to understand how interviewer pacing for open-ended 

questions affects response quality. The results supported the hypothesis that longer minimum 

response intervals were associated with an increased number of reports. Notably, the minimum 

response interval also enabled at least two participants to change their answers. These benefits 

were gained without a costly increase in subjective interview duration or decrease in interaction 

quality.

There are several important limitations to this work that should be considered when interpreting 

these results. The study is based on a small non-representative sample and this challenge was 

further limited by the proportion of participants who lived in households with only young children

that do not spend money. Additionally, it was not possible to check the validity of expenses 

reported and so reports of higher numbers of items and amounts were assumed to be more 
14

accurate. And, as with many interviews, the scripting throughout the interview (proxy questions 

and CEQ) was not always followed precisely, which could lead to unaccounted for differences 

between groups.

The results from the current study and Book and Edgar (2012) indicate that proxy protocols 

warrant further research and testing. Although reliable estimates of effect size are not possible 

to make from this study‘s small sample size, the results indicate that the protocols led to 

increased reporting. However, given that the expected variance in respondent reporting is high, 

it is not recommended that future research hypotheses be based solely on comparisons of

averages between groups to test different protocols. It is recommended that future research 

investigate the proxy reporting question  ̳incrementally‘—building from the simplest protocol and 

adding manipulations to collect the effect of incrementally richer protocols as compared to 

baseline. If an incremental change in protocol leads to an additional expense reported, we can 

be fairly confident that the additional report is due to the incremental change. An additional 

manipulation to test the effectiveness of the proxy questions alone without probes may also be 

of value. The current design, in which all participants receive the initial proxy questions, can only 

provide a conservative estimate of the true effect of the proxy protocols as compared to the 

current production procedures. Given the lower demands on interviewer ability of such an 

approach (i.e., no need to prompt respondents throughout the CEQ), it may prove successful. 

Although these approaches confound participant time spent on the question, they seem to 

provide the most straightforward comparisons between multiple protocol designs.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Target only multi-person CUs with at least one other CU member who 

controls their own spending. Heuristics such as a minimum age of 10 years and no reports of 

poor health could be used to aid the FR in judging whether to include a CU member though 

future research should test this question (cf., Cate-Schaeffer, 2010; Edgar, 2011).

Recommendation 2: Use rich and personalized probes that include specific details and events 

to trigger memory.

Recommendation 3: Use the proxy questions about how others spend their money, what 

hobbies or activities others in the household like to spend time on, and any changes in day-today routines. Do not use the questions about unusual purchases and trips.

Recommendation 4: Encourage interviewers to allow respondents more time to reflect on openended questions and give thoughtful answers.
15

References

Blair, E. & Burton, S. (1987). Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer 

behavioral frequency questions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 280-288.

Book, T. & Edgar, J. (2012). Proxy Reporting Lab Study Report. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

internal report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010). Proxy Reporting in the Consumer Expenditure Surveys 

Program. Bureau of Labor Statistics internal report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Burton, S. & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes, and response 

accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 50 -79.

Cate-Schaeffer, N. (2010). Issues in proxy reporting in the Consumer Expenditure Survey. 

Paper presented at CE Methods Workshop. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Edgar, J. (2011). 2010 CE methods workshop summary. Bureau of Labor Statistics internal 

report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Kojetin, B. & Jerstad, S. (1997). The quality of proxy reports on the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey. Bureau of Labor Statistics internal report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mathiowetz, N. (1987). Questionnaire Design Advisory Conference. Bureau of Labor Statistics

internal report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Reiser, B. J., Black, J. B., & Abelson, R. P. (1985). Knowledge structures in the organization 

and retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 89-137.

Schwarz, N. & Wellens, T. (1997). Cognitive Dynamics of Proxy Responding: The Diverging 

Perspectives of Actors and Observers Journal of Official Statistics, 13, 159–179.
16

Appendix A: Proxy question scripting and protocol

You said that [name1, name2, and name3] live in your household. I‘d like to spend a few 

minutes talking about ways they spend their money. This will help us move faster later in the 

interview, and help you remember things that you might otherwise forget since they‘re not your 

expenses. It‘s best if you take time to really think about each answer for each person. I‘ll give 

you a moment to form your answer to each question.

To start, I want to ask about expenses that the other people in your household have that you 

may not. For example, one person might buy all the clothing, while another handles all the 

vehicle expenses. 

Are there some types of things that [name1] spends money on that you don‘t?

Interviewer starts the timer; the interviewer does not move on until the minimum response 

interval has passed.

When the participant starts speaking, the interviewer records the participant’s response.

When the participant finishes responding, the interviewer asks about the next person in the 

household. 

Are there some types of things that [name2] spends money on that you don‘t?

The interviewer repeats the question for all members of the household, checks that the 

minimum response interval has passed, and then stops the timer and moves on to the next 

question.

For the remaining four questions, the interviewer starts the timer after reading the question and 

does not move on until the minimum response interval has passed. After the participant finishes 

responding, the interviewer moves on to the next question.

Thinking about the last three months since May 1st, has [name1], [name2], or [name3] taken any 

vacations or trips without you?

Thinking about the last three months since May 1st, has [name1], [name2], or [name3] made any 

changes to their normal day-to-day routine that might have changed what they did or did not 

spend money on?

Thinking about the last three months since May 1st, has [name1], [name2], or [name3] bought 

anything unusual or out of the ordinary?

Does [name1], [name2], or [name3] have any hobbies or activities that they like to spend time 

on?
17

Appendix B: Modifications made to probe scripting compared to original scripting

Original Scripting (n=11) Modified Scripting (n=14)

Things others 

spend money on 

that you don‘t

You mentioned that [name] 

spends money on [reported 

item]. Are there any other 

expenses that you want to 

add related to that?

You mentioned that [name] 

spends money on [reported 

item]. Did [name] have any 

other [item type] expenses 

that we haven’t talked about 

yet?

Trips 

You mentioned that [name] 

took a trip recently. Are there

any other expenses that you 

want to add related to that 

trip?

You mentioned that [name] 

took a trip recently. Did 

[name] have any other [item 

type] expenses that we 

haven’t talked about yet?

Changes to dayto-day routine

You mentioned that [name] 

made a change to their day-today routine. Are there any 

other expenses that you want 

to add related to that?

You mentioned that [name] 

[change to their day-to-day 

routine]. Did [name] have 

any other [item type] 

expenses that we haven’t 

talked about yet?

Unusual

purchases

You mentioned that [name] 

bought something unusual or 

out of the ordinary. Are there 

any other expenses that you 

want to add related to the 

unusual item?

You mentioned that [name] 

bought [something unusual or 

out of the ordinary]. Did 

[name] have any other [item 

type] expenses that we 

haven’t talked about yet?

Hobbies

You mentioned that [name] has 

a hobby or activity they like to 

do -- [reported hobby or 

activity]. Are there any other 

expenses that you want to 

add related to that?

You mentioned that [name] 

has a hobby or activity they 

like to do -- [reported hobby or 

activity]. Did [name] have 

any other [item type] 

expenses that we haven’t 

talked about yet?
18

Appendix C: Debriefing questions

Debriefing after initial proxy questions

 What did you think of the questions we just asked you about what the other people in 

your household spend money on, their trips, routines, unusual purchases, and hobbies? 

 Why do you think we asked those questions?

 Do you think you were able to answer them accurately?

 How much do you know about how other people in your household spend their money?

(A GREAT DEAL/QUITE A BIT/SOMEWHAT/VERY LITTLE/NOT AT ALL)

 Do you know the types of things they spend their money on generally?

(YES/NO)

 Do you know the amounts of money they spend, generally?

(YES/NO)

 Do you know exactly?

(YES/NO)

 How long would you say that first set of questions was? Long or short?

(LONG/SHORT)

 How sensitive, or personal, would you say those questions were? On a scale from 1 to 

5, where 1 is  ̳not at all sensitive‘ and 5 is  ̳very sensitive‘.

( 1 2 3 4 5 )

 What do you think other people would say, on a scale from 1 to 5?

( 1 2 3 4 5 )

 How did you feel about the experience of listening to the questions and giving your 

answers? Did it seem normal or awkward?

(NORMAL/AWKWARD)

Debriefing after CEQ reporting sections

 Based on your answers to those questions, when we got to the sections about [insert 

expenditure section with proxy probes], I reminded you about the purchases made by 

other members in your household. If I had not instructed you to remember their 

purchases, do you think you would have? 

(YES/NO)

 How helpful were the questions at the start about what others spend their money on in 

reminding you about others‘ expenses, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is  ̳not at all 

helpful‘ and 5 is  ̳very helpful‘?

( 1 2 3 4 5 )

 Do you think you included all the expenses that people in your household had?

(YES/NO)

 I did not give extra instructions for [insert expenditure category asked without proxy 

probe OR clothing]. I just said [insert expenditure category transition]. Let‘s go back and 

review those questions now. I asked you about this list of items. Do you think you 

included all the expenses that people in your household had?

Show information booklet page 

(YES/NO)

 How helpful would it have been to have additional questions to jog your memory during 

this section, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is  ̳not at all helpful‘ and 5 is  ̳very helpful‘?

( 1 2 3 4 5 )

 We‘re interested in helping people tell us as much as they can about expenses for all the 

members of their household. Do you have any suggestions for how we could have 

helped you report everyone‘s expenses more accurately?