1 

Global versus Specific Questions for the Consumer Expenditure Survey

Andy Peytchev, RTI International 

Introduction

The choice in the level of specificity of survey questions has far-reaching implications. In 

general, asking global questions as opposed to questions on behaviors within more specific 

subcategories leads to a shorter survey instrument. This reduction is at the expense of obtaining 

less detailed information. The tradeoff between global and specific questions, however, is far 

more complex and ill-understood – and can be quite unique to a survey. This paper presents 

likely causes of differences between global and specific questions and suggests areas for further 

study, in the context of the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) program. 

The CE includes specific questions on purchases of goods and services that fall within 

relatively narrow subcategories. For example, within the clothing and sewing materials category, 

respondents are asked to report whether they purchased any items that fall in the vests 

subcategory. Each subcategory is further followed by multiple questions asking for additional 

details, such as a description of the particular item, for whom it was purchased, their name, age 

range, and gender, the amount, and whether it included taxes. While this level of detail is used in 

the creation of the weights for the Consumer Price Index (CPI), it is taxing to the respondent 

through the amount of information that is requested and the sheer length of the survey. The latter 

can be expected to be adversely affecting response rates. Since the expected length of the survey 

is longest for those who have more expenditures to report, increased nonresponse due to these 

reasons can induce nonresponse bias in expenditure estimates. 

Whether it is the length of the interview, the difficult-to-recall information being 

requested, the lack of interest in reporting expenditures, or a combination of these and other 

factors, there is evidence for decreased reporting of expenditures both within and across waves 

of the CE. Although the order of modules has not been experimentally manipulated, Biemer 

(2000) found greater underreporting of expenditures asked later in the interview, based on latent 

class analysis. There is also evidence showing decreased reporting by the same respondents 

across interview waves (Silberstein and Jacobs, 1989; Shields and To, 2005)1

 

1 The fact that there was a tendency for a steady decline in reporting across waves means that not all could be 

explained by telescoping in the first interview.

 although some 

have failed to observe this when excluding the first interview that is used for bounding (Cho, 

Eltinge and Steinberg, 2004). Methods to reduce the length of the interview have the potential to 

alleviate these effects on reporting in the CE.
2 

The decision to use global questions, and for which categories, needs to be informed by 

an understanding not only of the differences in estimates and their properties, but also by the 

causes for the differences. There can be several key influences on reporting acting 

simultaneously when changing the question format and structure. Thus, obtaining a lower 

estimate of expenditures for clothing based on a global question can be a desirable outcome for 

some respondents, undesirable for others, and overall, can be eliciting reports to a different 

construct and through different cognitive processes. 

There are several dimensions along which global and specific questions differ, which can 

produce differences in the data that they yield. The next section presents these differences and 

the likely mechanisms of how they affect reporting of behaviors informed by the extant literature 

and the last section presents suggestions for future research.

Differences between Global and Specific Questions and Likely Mechanisms 

Affecting Survey Estimates

For simplicity, the Clothes and Sewing Materials category will mostly be used as an 

example in the following discussion. The text for this expenditure section is provided in the 

Appendix. The discussion, however, pertains to the other categories as well. It is also important 

to note that the mix of influences on reporting to any given global question compared to 

reporting to the specific questions can be different across categories.

Global questions may not be interpreted uniformly 

A global question on clothes or furniture can be interpreted across respondents as 

including a different set of expenditures (e.g., Schober and Conrad, 1997; Conrad and Schober, 

2000). The same degree of vagueness is unlikely for the specific expenditures, such as shoes and 

lamps. That is, the ease of defining whether an object is a lamp is easier and less ambiguous to 

the respondent than defining whether a lamp is furniture. There are ways to alleviate this 

problem, such as providing a list of examples in the global question to help define what 

expenditures should be included. Another option is to include explicit definitions—this may take 

less time to administer if they are not needed by all respondents, but leaves the potential for 

respondents to assume they use the intended definition when that is not the case. 

Global questions ask for a wider array of “targets” 

It may seem fairly straight-forward to state that a global question that encompasses the 

content of multiple specific questions requests information on expenditures for a greater set of 

items (“targets”). This does not necessarily imply a more difficult respondent task for a single 

question. 

One critical issue is how respondents organize this information in memory. Are the 

targets disparate and encoded in the respondent’s memory separately, or is the broader category 
3 

of expenditures more coherent and therefore encoded together? If the former tends to be true for 

most respondents, then asking global questions will require additional aides to help recall and 

greater reliance on the ability of respondents to do arithmetic tasks to compute expenditures as 

noted in earlier research on the CE (Mullin, 2000). If the latter, that different expenditures in the 

same category are encoded together, then a global question should simplify the respondent task 

by omitting the additional decomposition task.

Another issue is whether respondents consider all targets when asked a global question – 

such questions may offer fewer memory queues and even when scripted, may not be delivered to 

the respondent as intended for a number of reasons. In our example, respondents may not think 

of hosiery or uniforms when reporting clothing. Note that this is not the same as the definitional 

problems discussed in the previous subsection, but rather a lack of cueing the respondent’s 

memory. Specific questions explicitly ask for subcategories; global questions rely on the 

effectiveness of additional cues, such as adding lists of items in the question and including 

definitions. 

Providing such additional cues has been found to increase reporting of underreported 

events and can improve the design of global questions. Based on experimental work on the crime 

victimization screening questions in the National Crime Survey (Martin, Groves, Matlin and 

Miller, 1986), subsequent feasibility studies in 1988, and a field test in 1989 (Hubble, 1990), a 

redesigned screener was tested in 1992 and 1993 with half of the sample receiving the existing 

(global) victimization questions and the other half receiving more elaborate versions of the 

(global) questions that provide multiple examples of types of crimes in each category. For the 

majority of the crime types, the new questions that provided additional cues led to significantly 

higher crime victimization estimates (Hubble, 1995). This technique shows promise in 

addressing a limitation of global questions. The drawbacks of this approach, however, are similar 

to those of the use of specific questions as they lengthen the survey—although not nearly as 

much as they do not ask for separate reports. 

Global questions require the recall of a greater number of events at the same time 

Inclusion of a greater number of targets in a single question leads to the need to recall a 

greater number of events. This has at least two related implications. First, the higher frequency of 

events can spur greater use of estimation rather than enumeration of expenditures (Blair and 

Burton, 1987; Burton and Blair, 1991; Means and Loftus, 1991; Conrad, Brown and Cashman, 

1998) – reporting of an estimated number as opposed to a sum of individual recalled instances. 

This can lead to a different error structure in expenditure reports. If respondents tend to use 

enumeration in the specific questions design, particularly as the current design follows these 

questions with particular details about each event, expenditures are likely to be underreported 

due to the failure to recall all individual purchases. 
4 

If a greater proportion of respondents resort to estimation when global questions are used, 

it is unclear whether it would lead to over- or under-reporting as the recall technique respondents 

choose to employ can be influenced by many factors. There is evidence that for larger categories 

estimation can also lead to underreporting, but that for smaller categories (decomposed into 

subcategories) estimation can lead to overreporting (Belli, Schwarz, Singer and Talarico, 2000). 

This is often tied to frequency with high frequencies being underreported and low frequencies 

being overreported when estimation is used (e.g., Fiedler and Armbruster, 1994). The findings by 

Belli and colleagues, however, were based on questions about the number of telephone calls and 

the extent to which they apply to expenditure questions remains unanswered. 

 For the purposes of the CE, particularly for developing the weights for the CPI as they 

are currently defined, information based on estimation alone is not sufficient. Respondents may 

still be required to use enumeration even for global questions in order to provide detailed 

information on particular purchases. It seems reasonable to speculate that even when 

enumeration is employed, the underreporting observed for global questions will be larger than 

for specific questions due to the possibility of omitting certain targets and events. 

Thus, there are two related aspects of recall that influence the level and accuracy of 

reporting to global questions relative to specific questions: whether estimation leads to more or 

less accurate responses, and whether if enumeration is required, it can lead to comparable levels 

of accuracy. The accuracy of reporting for the various expenditures collected in the CE by recall 

method may be of greatest interest—not just overall measurement error bias, but also 

measurement error variance. Further research in this area is needed. 

Global question effectiveness compared to specific questions can vary depending on the 

particular set of questions

The performance of global questions relative to specific questions is unlikely to be 

uniform across topics. Information for some expenditures may be encoded together, yet for other 

types of expenditures information may be stored separately. For example, respondents may tend 

to group all clothing items together and know how much they spent on clothing especially as 

different garments can be bought from the same stores and on the same trips. Such information 

should therefore be most easily retrieved through a global question and efforts to decompose it 

can contribute to respondent burden and measurement error. For furniture, however, respondents 

may put each purchased item separately in their memory, such as a kitchen table or a set of 

garden chairs. Such information should be most easily retrieved through specific questions so 

that individual items are not omitted and the respondent does not have to combine expenditures 

in order to produce a response. 

 The key argument is that it should be least burdensome to the respondent if there is a 

match between the survey question and the way that the information is encoded by the 

respondent. There is empirical evidence showing that the perceived length of the survey is not 
5 

the same as the actual length (e.g., Galesic, 2002); thus, if the survey is perceived more 

burdensome by the respondent, it may also seem longer. Extending this line of argumentation, 

the ubiquitous use of global questions may not necessarily reduce respondent burden, improve 

reporting, and increase survey participation. 

 The recall method, described earlier, may change only for some topics when transitioning 

to global questions. A global question on food or clothing expenditures can make it more 

difficult for respondents to employ enumeration due to the higher frequency and lower amounts 

of such purchases. For some more rare types of expenditures such as major household 

appliances, enumeration may remain the primary recall method.

Global questions lead to a shorter interview 

 One of the primary objectives of moving from specific to global questions is the 

reduction in survey length. A reduction in the length of the interview can, in turn, be expected to 

lead to a reduction in nonresponse and measurement error—reducing the refusal rate to the first 

interview, lowering attrition across waves, and increasing reporting of expenditures among those 

avoiding a long interview. 

 Survey length is only one measure of respondent burden. Some of the decomposed 

questions may be easier for respondents to answer despite the longer time to administer, as noted 

previously. Therefore, the effect of the introduction of global questions on unit nonresponse and 

attrition can also be topic-specific.

 The effect on measurement error also requires empirical evaluation. In addition to the 

ability of specific questions to decompose expenditure categories that can aid recall of some 

purchases, the longer administration time for specific questions can by itself lead to less 

underreporting. Cannell, Miller, and Oksenberg (1981) showed that merely making the question 

longer can increase the reporting of health events. One of their explanations was that making the 

question longer allows the respondent to spend more time on recalling the requested information. 

Their other explanations were that restating the question twice made it clearer to the respondent 

and that it may have implied greater importance of the question.

With respect to measurement error it is of critical importance to understand the causes of 

differences in reporting to global compared to specific questions. Understanding the causes will 

allow asking the question of how to implement global questions instead of whether to use them. 

The global questions can then be designed to address the causes of inaccurate reporting, such as 

providing more examples, definitions, or making the questions simply longer. 

Global questions may be less susceptible to question order effects 

Larger categories can be more mutually exclusive. Some people may find difficulty in 

distinguishing between “tailored jackets and pants” and “suits,” and between “pants and shirts” 
6 

and “uniforms.” The distinction is inarguably greater between clothes and any other expenditure 

category in the CE. When categories are not seen as mutually exclusive, question order effects 

can arise (e.g., Schwarz, Strack and Mai, 1991; Schwarz and Hippler, 1995), where interpretation 

of a question depends on the previous questions. 

 However, some global questions will include expenditures that are currently in other 

categories, as noted in an earlier report (Mullin, 2000). This has implications for how the data are 

used as the definitions for the current expenditure categories will have to be slightly revised. 

 Any downward biasing (underreporting) effect of order may also be reduced when using 

global questions due to shortening of the survey, especially if global questions are not followed 

up with as many questions about the purchases as the specific questions. Respondents have been 

found to learn to avoid subsequent questions by not reporting events and behaviors that lead to 

additional questions, and there is evidence suggesting that this learning occurs not only across 

waves of the CE (Silberstein and Jacobs, 1989; Shields and To, 2005) but also within the 

interview (Biemer, 2000). Thus, a desirable outcome from the use of global questions would be a 

reduction in underreporting particularly of expenditures asked late in the interview. 

Global questions may be more susceptible to social desirability influences

 Although few, some expenditures in the CE can be expected to be influenced by social 

desirability. Some research has shown that reports of alcohol consumption, which is typically 

underreported in Western societies, are increased when the questions about frequency and 

amount are decomposed further by location (Mooney and Gramling, 1991). Without a gold 

standard to evaluate the accuracy of the reports, such a finding relies on the assumption of higher 

reporting is more accurate. As other research has shown that decomposition can lead to 

overreporting (Belli et al., 2000), this suggests the need for further research particularly focused 

on socially undesirable expenditures, in which the accuracy of reports can be evaluated.

Directions for Future Research

 By simplifying the respondent task and shortening the survey interview, global questions 

show substantial potential to reduce measurement error by minimizing underreporting within and 

across CE interview waves and to reduce unit nonresponse by limiting refusals to the first 

interview and reducing attrition across waves.2

 

2 Speculation can also be made that asking for less specific information may also reduce item nonresponse and 

reduce reliance on imputation models.

These benefits need to be measured empirically 

and weighed against any drawbacks, such as reduction in the data that are collected or potential 

reduction in accuracy. 
7 

 The experiences from the redesign of the global questions that are used in the current 

National Crime Victimization Survey is a valuable resource for a CE redesign both in terms of 

evaluation and implementation process and in terms of findings. A series of gradated empirical 

studies was used to develop, test, and implement a revised set of crime victimization questions. 

The ideas behind using a different question structure were first tested, followed by a field test of 

the complete set of redesigned questions, which culminated in a phase-in period during which 

half of the sample started to receive the newly redesigned questions. The CE may also benefit 

from the findings of these experiments; instead of moving to brief and concise global questions, 

less underreporting may occur if they incorporate extensive cues for the types of expenditures 

that should be included. 

 A necessary step in the construction of a comprehensive program to evaluate the use of 

global instead of specific questions is a concise list of the primary uses of the data from the 

questions being considered for redesign or omission. For example, having a clear understanding 

of the CE data that are actually used in the construction of the CPI weights is needed in order to 

construct global questions of mix of global and specific questions that meet the study objectives. 

This, of course, does not exclude the possibility of identifying other sources for some of the 

information that is currently derived from the CE. Of great importance yet more difficult to 

gauge, however, is an understanding of how the broader array of data users employ CE data—

changes to the CE instrument can have important implications for data users.

A total survey error approach is needed; the impact of the use of global questions should 

be evaluated for multiple error sources. By shortening the survey, making it less repetitive, and 

requesting less information can lead to higher survey participation and hopefully reduce 

nonresponse bias. Similarly, these factors may lead to higher participation on reinterview 

attempts (waves 2 through 5), reducing nonresponse bias due to attrition.3

Information on cognitive processes that cause differences between reports to global and 

specific questions can help the selection and the improvement of the survey questions. The 

survey response process model (Cannell, Marquis and Laurent, 1977; Cannell, Miller and 

Oksenberg, 1981; Tourangeau, 1984; Strack and Martin, 1987; Tourangeau, Rips and Rasinski, 

2000) can serve as a framework through which to identify causes of differences, within each 

process (comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response).4

 

3 It can be argued that wave 2 nonresponse is not attrition bias as the first wave is the bounding interview, which is 

not used in survey estimates.

For example, a critical process to 

track is the extent to which respondents use estimation as opposed to episodic enumeration for 

4 Encoding is another process that does not occur at the time of responding to a question, but affects how questions 

should be asked and how respondents answer them. Some versions of the response process model have slightly 

different categories of processes, which is a matter of preference.
8 

expenditure information retrieval. Use of either process can be encouraged if comparability of 

estimates using global and specific questions is desired.

Rigorous scrutiny needs to be given to the “more is better” assumption for reduction of 

measurement error. Although specific questions have been found to lead to underreporting, 

obtaining higher reports does not imply greater accuracy. 

 Ideally, expenditures for all household members will be known for a probability-based 

national sample of households and different questionnaire designs randomly assigned to these 

sample members. Failing to meet these objectives, assumptions need to be made and a common 

remedy is the use of multiple approaches to the evaluation of the design feature, each making a 

different set of assumptions. For example, multiple approaches to the estimation of measurement 

error can be included, such as obtaining replicate measures from the respondents, using reverse 

record checks from obtained receipts after the interview, obtaining reports from other household 

members, and modeling changes in reported expenditures across waves. 

 Designs that exploit the panel nature of the CE can be considered in order to obtain the 

desired information with minimal respondent burden—by carefully balancing a mix of global 

and specific questions. Global questions can be used in a matrix survey design where some, but 

not all, specific questions are also asked. In a basic design, specific follow-up questions can be 

asked only on a random subset of purchases reported to a global question. The probabilities of 

asking a particular specific question can vary across respondents and modules in order to 

optimize the utility of the collected information. The burden to the respondent can also be 

managed at the person rather than at the interview level—specific questions in any given module 

may be asked only during one of the five waves (or four waves if the first is not to be used). Such 

burden reduction optimization problems have received attention in the past (e.g., Tortora and 

Crank, 1978) but have not seen wide use in household surveys. 

 Finally, the broader scientific community can be used not just for feedback on how CE 

data are used, but also to conduct analyses focused on the survey’s methodology. Granting free 

access to the CE data for methodological research, including paradata (data about the survey 

process to include interviewer observations, call records, and question timing data), and releasing 

datasets from any experiments can be beneficial to the future of the CE for a number of reasons. 

Unfortunately, field experiments on large national surveys are seldom released to the research 

community as public use files when they are not part of the main data collection and although 

they have served their purpose in answering the key a priori questions, much can be gleaned 

from further analysis with different perspectives. Similarly, the release of paradata can be 

valuable for methodological studies and at least for a subset of paradata elements, NCHS and the 

U.S. Census Bureau have been able to release such data for the National Health Interview Survey 

while protecting respondent confidentiality. These data are beginning to prove their usefulness 

(e.g., Bates, Dahlhamer and Singer, 2008; Dahlhamer and Simile, 2009) and hopefully more 
9 

surveys will join—and a broader array of paradata elements will begin to be released in the 

future.
10 

References

Bates, N., J. Dahlhamer and E. Singer (2008). "Privacy Concerns, Too Busy, or Just Not 

Interested: Using Doorstep Concerns to Predict Survey Nonresponse." Journal of Official 

Statistics

Belli, R. F., N. Schwarz, E. Singer and J. Talarico (2000). "Decomposition Can Harm the 

Accuracy of Behavioural Frequency Reports." 

24: 591-612. 

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Biemer, P. P. (2000). An Application of Markov Latent Class Analysis for Evaluating Reporting 

Error in Consumer Expenditure Survey Screening Questions. RTI International, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, Technical Report for the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

14: 295-

308. 

Blair, E. and S. Burton (1987). "Cognitive Processes Used by Survey Respondents to Answer 

Behavioral Frequency Questions." Journal of Consumer Research

Burton, S. and E. Blair (1991). "Task Conditions, Response Formulation Processes, and 

Response Accuracy for Behavioral Frequency Questions in Surveys." 

14(2): 280-288. 

Public Opinion 

Quarterly

Cannell, C., P. Miller and L. Oksenberg (1981). "Research on Interviewing Techniques." 

55(1): 50-79. 

Sociological Methodology

Cannell, C. F., K. H. Marquis and A. Laurent (1977). A Summary of Studies of Interviewing 

Methodology. 

12: 389-437. 

Vital Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 69

Cho, M. J., J. L. Eltinge and B. P. Steinberg (2004) "Temporal Patterns of Survey Response 

Rates and Reporting Rates in the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Interview and Other Panel 

Surveys." 

. Rockville, MD, National Center 

for Health Statistics: 77-1343. 

BLS Statistical Survey Papers

Conrad, F. G., N. R. Brown and E. R. Cashman (1998). "Strategies for Estimating Behavioural 

Frequency in Survey Interviews." 

. 

Memory

Conrad, F. G. and M. F. Schober (2000). "Clarifying Question Meaning in a Household 

Telephone Survey." 

6(4): 339-366. 

Public Opinion Quarterly

Dahlhamer, J. M. and C. M. Simile (2009). 

64: 1-28. 

Subunit Nonresponse in the National Health 

Interview Survey (NHIS): An Exploration Using Paradata

Fiedler, K. and T. Armbruster (1994). "Two Halfs May Be More Than One Whole: CategorySplit Effects on Frequency Illusions." 

. Joint Statistical Meetings of 

the American Statistical Association, Section on Government Statistics, Washington, DC.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 

633-645. 
11 

Galesic, M. (2002). Effects of Questionnaire Length on Response Rates: Review of Findings and 

Guidelines for Future Research

Hubble, D. L. (1990). National Crime Survey New Questionnaire Phase-in Research: 

Preliminary Results, U. S. Bureau of the Census. 

. Paper presented at the German Online Research (GOR) 

Conference 

Hubble, D. L. (1995). The National Crime Victimization Survey Redesign: New Questionnaire 

and Procedures Development and Phase-in Methodology

Martin, E., R. M. Groves, V. J. Matlin and C. Miller (1986). Report on the Development of 

Alternative Screening Procedures for the National Crime Survey. Washington, DC., 

Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.

. Joint Statistical Meetings, 

Orlando, FL. 

Means, B. and E. F. Loftus (1991). "When Personal History Repeats Itself: Decomposing 

Memories for Recurring Events." Applied Cognitive Psychology

Mooney, L. A. and R. Gramling (1991). "Asking Threatening Questions and Situational 

Framing: The Effects of Decomposing Survey Items." 

5(4): 297-318. 

The Sociological Quarterly

Mullin, P. A. (2000). 

32(2): 

289-300. 

Ce Interview Survey Global Questions Research

Schober, M. F. and F. G. Conrad (1997). "Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey 

Measurement Error?" 

. Paper presented at the U. 

S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Selected issues in Price and Consumption Measures 

Conference, Washington DC. 

Public Opinion Quarterly

Schwarz, N. and H.-J. Hippler (1995). "Subsequent Questions May Influence Answers to 

Preceding Questions in Mail Surveys." 

61: 576-602. 

Public Opinion Quarterly

Schwarz, N., F. Strack and H. Mai (1991). "Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Part-Whole 

Question Sequences: A Conversational Logic Analysis." 

59: 93-97. 

Public Opinion Quarterly

Shields, J. and N. To (2005). 

55: 3-

23. 

Learning to Say No: Conditioned Underreporting in an Expenditure 

Survey

Silberstein, A. R. and C. A. Jacobs (1989). Symptoms of Repeated Interview Effects in the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey. 

. American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Miami 

Beach, American Statistical Association. 

Panel Surveys

Strack, F. and L. L. Martin (1987). Thinking, Judging and Communicating: A Process Account 

of Context Effects in Attitude Surveys. 

. D. Kasprzyk, G. Duncan, G. Kalton and 

M. P. Singh, Wiley. 

Social Information Processing and Survey 

Methodology. H.-J. Hippler, N. Schwarz and S. Sudman. New York, Springer-Verlag.
12 

Tortora, R. and K. Crank (1978). The Use of Unequal Probability Sampling to Reduce 

Respondent Burden

Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive Science and Cognitive Methods. 

. American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Survey 

Research Methods Section.

Cognitive Aspects of Survey 

Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines

Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips and K. A. Rasinski (2000). 

. T. Jabine, M. L. Straff, J. M. 

Tanur and R. Tourangeau. Washington, DC, National Academy Press: 73-100. 

The Psychology of Survey Response. 

Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
13 

Appendix

Section 9, Part A - Clothing 

Section 9, Part A deals with purchases of clothing for persons age 2 years old and older. 

IMPORTANT: The Census Bureau does not release to the Bureau of Labor Statistics any 

confidential information such as names and addresses. This information is only used during the 

course of the interview. 

Now I am going to ask you about clothing expenses. You may find it helpful to refer to receipts, 

credit card statements or other records to answer the questions. 

 1. Enter 1 to Continue 

Since the first of the reference month, have you or has any member of your household purchased 

any of the following items, for persons age 2 and over either for members of your household or 

for someone outside your household? 

* Read each item on list.

 1. Coats, jackets or furs 

 2. Sport coats or tailored jackets 

 3. Suits 

 4. Vests 

 5. Sweaters or sweater sets

 6. Pants, jeans, or shorts 

 7. Dresses

 8. Skirts 

 9. Shirts, blouses, or tops 

 10. Undergarments 

 11. Hosiery 

 12. Nightwear or loungewear 

 13. Accessories

 14. Swimsuits or warm-up or ski suits 

 15. Uniforms, for which the cost is not reimbursed 

 16. Costumes 

 17. Footwear 

 99. None/No more items 

[For definitions Information Booklet] 

[For each positive report above, ask detailed questions] 

What did you buy? 
14 

* Describe briefly the item purchased. [enter text] _____________ 

Was this (were these) purchased for someone inside or outside of your household? 

 1. Inside your household 

 2. Outside your household 

For whom was it purchased? 

* Enter all that apply, separate with commas. [enter text] _______________ 

For whom was this purchased? 

* Enter all age/sex categories that apply to the purchase, separate with commas.

 40. Male 16 and over

 41. Female 16 and over 

 42. Male 2-15 

 43. Female 2-15 

 44. Children under 2 years old 

* Enter name of person. [enter text] _______________ 

How many did you purchase? 

* Enter number of identical items purchased.[enter value] _______________ 

When did you purchase it/them?[enter text] _______________ 

How much did it/they cost?[enter value] _______________ 

Did this include sales tax?

 1. Yes 

 2. No 

* Enter 'C' for a combined expense. 

 1. C 

 2. Not combined 

What other clothing is combined with the item?

* Enter all that apply, separate with commas.

 1. Coats, jackets, or furs 
15 

 2. Sport coats or tailored jackets 

 3. Suits 

 4. Vests 

 5. Sweaters or sweater sets

 6. Pants, jeans, or shorts 

 7. Dresses

 8. Skirts 

 9. Shirts, blouses, or tops 

 10. Undergarments 

 11. Hosiery 

 12. Nightwear or loungewear 

 13. Accessories

 14. Swimsuits or warm-up or ski suits 

 15. Uniforms, for which the cost is not reimbursed 

 16. Costumes 

 17. Footwear 

 77. Miscellaneous combined expense (unable to specify)

For definitions Information Booklet » 

Did you purchase any other clothing? 

 1. Yes [REPEAT ALL FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS]

 2. No 

Information Booklet for Section 9a - CLOTHING AND SEWING MATERIALS

Part A - Clothing (Do not include here -- clothing for children under 2 years of age.)

 1. - COATS, JACKETS, AND FURS, including - 

 down vest raincoat

 fur coat shawl

 jacket winter coat

 outerwear

 2. - SPORT COATS AND TAILORED JACKETS, including blazers 

 3. - SUITS, including - 

 formal suit woman's suit (of two or more pieces) 

 man's suit (of two or more pieces) 

 4. - VESTS (purchased separately, not with a suit), excluding sweater vests and down vests 

 5. - SWEATERS AND SWEATER SETS, including - 
16 

 cardigan ski sweater V-neck sweater

 pullover sweater vest

 6. - PANTS, JEANS, OR SHORTS, including - 

 blue jeans dress slacks overalls

 casual pants jump suit short sets 

 dress pants maternity pants shorts 

 Do not include any athletic shorts. 

 7. - DRESSES, including - 

 formals or semi-formals two-piece dresses

 maternity dresses wedding gown

 8. - SKIRTS, including skorts 

 Do not include any tennis skirts, golf skirts, or other athletic skirts. 

 9. - SHIRTS, BLOUSES, AND TOPS, including - 

 dress shirts knit blouses sport shirts 

 maternity tops T-shirts tops 

 Do not include any sweat shirts or athletic shirts.

 10. - UNDERGARMENTS, including - 

 bras slips undershirts 

 shapewear thermal underwear underwear 

 11. - HOSIERY, including - 

 knee-highs panty hose 

 socks tights 

 12. - NIGHTWEAR AND LOUNGEWEAR, including - 

 night gown pajamas robe 

 house coat night shirt thermal sleeping garments

 13. - ACCESSORIES, including - 

 apron fold-up rain accessories mittens wallet

 bandanas gloves non-prescription sunglasses umbrella
17 

 belts hair accessories purse ties

 bridal headpiece handkerchiefs scarves ear muffs

 14. - SWIMSUITS OR WARM-UP OR SKI SUITS, including - 

 athletic shirt jogging suit swimwear

 athletic shorts leotards swimwear accessories

 hunting wear sweatshirt snow and ski suit 

 Do not include any sports uniforms. 

15. - UNIFORMS, other than sport, for which the cost is not reimbursed, including shirts, pants, 

suits, service apparel, such as: medical, barber, boy or girl scout, mechanic, waiter/waitress, 

plumber and lab smocks, and military apparel. 

 16. - COSTUMES, including costumes for dance, ballet, Halloween, etc.

 17. - FOOTWEAR, including - 

 bedroom slippers dress shoes 

 boots sandals

 casual shoes sneakers, jogging, aerobic, basketball, tennis shoes 

Do not include specialized athletic shoes such as for football, soccer, bowling, biking, or 

baseball.