Lucilla Tan is an economist in the Branch of 

Research and Program Development, Division 

of Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. 

Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 8

An Introduction

to the Contact History 

Instrument (CHI)

for the Consumer

Expenditure Survey

LUCILLA TAN

2

 Bates, N. (2003). Contact histories in personal visit surveys: the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP) Methods Panel. 

AAPOR. http://www.fcsm.gov/committees/

ihsng/aapor2003proceedingforpdf.pdf 3

 Dyer, W. (2004). Contact History Instrument (CHI). http://www.blaiseusers.org/2004/

papers/03.pdf

The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) Program introduced the use of the Contact History 

Instrument (CHI) with the CE Interview 

Survey in April 2005 and for use with 

the CE Diary Survey in March 2006. 

The CHI is designed to capture information about the data collection efforts 

and the interviewer’s perceptions of 

interactions with the respondent when 

contact is made, regardless of whether 

an interview was conducted. Data 

from the CHI will be available for the 

first time with the 2009 CE Interview 

Survey public use microdata files. This 

article provides a brief overview of 

the CHI and a few illustrations of the 

insights that CHI data can provide about 

data collection efforts.

Background of the CHI 

In 2002, the Census Bureau and the 

Interagency Household Survey Nonresponse Group sponsored a Response 

Rate Summit conference. The purpose 

of the summit was to provide a forum 

for discussion among experts in the 

field about how to address concerns 

related to the decreasing response 

rate trend in household surveys.1 One 

of the recommendations that came 

out of the summit was that surveys 

should collect contact history information. This would provide data for 

two primary purposes: 1) to provide 

feedback to field staff about patterns 

that indicate what leads to successful or 

unsuccessful contact attempts, and 2) 

to provide data for a close examination 

of reasons for refusals, successful contact strategies, and differences between 

types of nonrespondents (refusals v. 

noncontact).2

The CHI was developed by the 

U.S. Census Bureau. It was designed 

to be a single instrument for use in all 

surveys that contract with the Bureau 

for data collection.3 The first version 

of the CHI was fielded for the National 

Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 

January 2004, and the NHIS CHI data 

were made available for public use 

with the release of the 2006 NHIS 

public use files. In addition to the 

NHIS and the CE, the Current Population Survey adopted the CHI in August 

2009. 

Description of the CHI

The CHI is a software application separate from the survey data collection 

instrument. The interviewer can access 

CHI via the survey’s case management 

1

 Salvucci, S., Wenck, S., Hamsher, S., 

and Bates, N. (2002). Response Rate Summit: 

National Health Interview & Consumer Expenditure Quarterly Surveys. Summary Report. 

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc., and 

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.fcsm.gov/

working-papers/summitreportfinal.pdf
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 9

system, or can launch CHI whenever 

the survey instrument is closed. The 

interviewer is instructed to record in 

the CHI every attempt made to contact 

the sample unit, and to do so as close as 

possible to the time the contact attempt 

was made.

The CHI prompts the interviewer 

for the following information about 

each contact attempt: the date and time 

of the attempt, the mode of the attempt 

(by personal visit or by phone), strategies the interviewer may have used to 

attempt to reach the respondent, and 

whether contact was made with the 

sample unit at that attempt. If the interviewer is unable to speak to someone 

at the sample unit, he or she can record 

reasons for noncontact. Alternatively, 

if the interviewer makes contact with 

the sample unit, the interviewer records whether or not an interview was 

conducted, and if so, whether it was 

partial or complete. If an interview 

could not be conducted, the interviewer 

records one or more reasons. In addition, regardless of whether there was 

an interview, the interviewer can record observations about the contacted 

sample unit member’s behavior and/or 

concerns regarding survey participation. Exhibit 1 shows an overview of 

the flow of questions through the CHI.

The reporting of contact attempt 

strategies (exhibit 2), reasons for noncontact by mode of attempt (exhibit 3 

for personal visit, exhibit 4 for phone), 

reasons for why an interview could 

not be conducted at a specific contact 

(exhibit 5), and the interviewer’s observations about respondent behavior 

and concerns (exhibit 6) are made from 

“check all that apply” lists of options 

that accompany each of these questions. Exhibits 2 through 6 are screen 

shots from the CHI that show the response options for these characteristics 

of contact attempts.

Illustrations of information describing data collection effort 

from CHI

In addition to interviewers’ notes 

recorded about a case, the CHI data 

constitute another source of information about interviewer-respondent 

interactions. The CHI data also provide 

insights to the overall data collection 

effort, and allow for the possibility of 

uncovering factors or behavior that 

promote or inhibit successful data collection. We offer a few illustrations of 

these insights, using CHI data from the 

CE Interview Survey for Interview 1 

cases fielded in 2009. CHI information 

at Interview 1 is of methodological 

interest, because it provides a systematic description of interviewer effort, 

likelihood of contact, and the nature of 

interactions with sample unit members 

who are approached for the first time 

in the survey. 

Effort expended to resolve a case.The 

number of contact attempts made to 

resolve a case with a final disposition 

is an indicator of the amount of effort 

interviewers exert to close out a case. 

A "final disposition" means that the 

interviewer closed out the case by 

classifying it as a completed interview, 

a noninterview, or ineligible (because 

the sample unit did not belong to the 

target population for the survey). The 

level of effort varies, but tends to be 

associated with the final disposition 

of the case. Completed interview cases 

are usually associated with relatively 

more cooperative respondents, and, 

thus, generally require fewer contact 

attempts to resolve the case. This fact 

is reflected in the CHI data. About 

70 percent of the 12,106 sample units 

in the 2009 sample (for which there 

were CHI data) had been resolved as 

completed interviews by the fourth 

contact attempt, as illustrated in chart 

1. Ineligible cases were also resolved 

fairly quickly—about 90 percent of 

these cases were classified as such by 

the fourth contact attempt. In contrast, 

relatively more effort was expended to 

resolve cases as noninterview—less 

than half of these cases were resolved 

by the fourth contact attempt, an 

indication that interviewers have to 

try harder to reach residents of these 

sample units, or that more attempts are 

needed before giving up on securing an 

interview. The CHI data also show that 

a lot of effort is expended to resolve 

the last 1 or 2 percent of cases still in 

the field. (It takes 15 or more contact 

attempts to resolve these cases.)

“Good” day-and-time combinations 

for first attempt to contact sample unit. 

Since costs are associated with each 

contact attempt, especially attempts 

made by personal visit, it would be 

cost effective if interviewers attempted 

to contact sample units at times when 

successful contacts and interviews are 

most likely to occur. The CHI data indicate that of the 12,106 first attempts 

made to contact sample units, 38.4 

percent were made between 8 a.m. and 

4 p.m. on Mondays through Thursdays, 

and 30.9 percent of those attempts 

resulted in contact with a sample unit 

member. (See chart 2.) However, it 

appears that evenings (4 p.m. to 9 p.m.) 

and weekends have slightly higher successful contact rates at first attempt. 

Therefore, interviewers may want to 

consider making a larger proportion of 

first attempts to contact sample units in 

the evenings and on weekends. 

Contact strategies attempted prior to 

first contact with sample unit. Among 

the 9,465 first contacts made with 

sample unit members, 86.3 percent 

were made by personal visit. An average of 2.2 attempts was made to obtain 

a first contact by personal visit and 3.5 

attempts to obtain a first contact by 

phone. An average of 1 strategy was 

used when a first contact with a sample 

unit member was made by personal visit (1.1 strategies), as well as by phone 

(1.2 strategies). The most frequently 

reported contact strategies used prior 

to first contact by both personal visit 

and phone were similar: “left appointment card or note with the sample 

unit,” “checked with neighbor,” and 

“advance letter given.” (See chart 3.) 

Reasons for incomplete interview 

or noninterview at first contact with 

sample unit. The primary reasons cited 

for an incomplete interview or noninterview at first contact with a sample 

unit are similar, regardless of whether 

first contacts were made by personal 

visit or by phone. The most frequently 

reported reason—more than a third of 
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 10

9

 Bates, N., Dahlhamer, J., Phipps, P., Safir, 

A., and Tan, L. (2010). Assessing Contact 

History Data Quality and Consistency Across 

Several Federal Surveys. Paper to be presented 

at the Joint Statistical Meetings of the American 

Statistical Association. 

the sample unit refused the interview, 

and 3.1 percent as noninterview due 

to noncontact with the sample unit 

(no one home). There is also no verification that the correct reason for a 

noncontact is reported. Despite these 

limitations with the CHI data, survey 

methodologists have found information such as sample unit behavior and 

concerns reported by interviewers in 

the CHI to be very useful, especially 

in the absence of other information 

about nonrespondents. 

A study on the quality of the CHI 

data for the CE Interview Survey is 

currently underway. This study is a 

collaborative effort undertaken with 

the National Health Interview Survey 

and the Current Population Survey, the 

other two surveys that also utilize the 

CHI.9

 The study will examine how the 

CHI is being used by the three surveys, 

and compare findings from the CHI 

across the three surveys. Without a 

“gold standard” to evaluate the CHI 

data, this comparative approach will 

shed some light on the extent of consistency of the CHI data within and 

across the three surveys.

Summary

This article gave an overview of the 

Contact History Instrument (CHI) and 

provided illustrations of how the CHI 

data can provide information about 

the data collection effort. CHI data for 

the 2009 CE Interview Survey will be 

released with the 2009 CE Interview 

Survey public use microdata files. 

The CHI data included in the public 

use files are for Interview 1 through 

Interview 5, for all eligible cases (that 

is, completed interviews and noninterviews) that have CHI records. 

the time—was “inconvenient time” for 

the sample unit. (See chart 4.) The next 

most frequently cited reason was reluctance on the part of the respondent.

Respondent concerns, attitude, and/or 

behavior at first contact with sample 

unit and final disposition. Interviewer 

observations about the contacted sample unit member, regardless of whether 

an interview was conducted, appear to 

be associated with final disposition of 

a case. For example, nearly two-thirds 

of cases where interviewers reported 

that respondents were concerned about 

time (“too busy”, “interview too time 

consuming”) or privacy had a final 

disposition of “completed interviews.” 

(See chart 5.) In contrast, fewer than 

a third of cases where interviewers 

reported the contacted sample unit 

member exhibited hostility (“hang up/

slam door”, “hostile behavior”) had a 

final disposition of “completed interviews.” This is consistent with research 

studies supporting the usefulness of 

these interviewer-respondent interactions recorded in the CHI for predicting 

survey nonresponse.4 

Recent survey methodological 

studies on the Consumer Expenditure 

Interview Survey have drawn on CHI 

data in their analyses. For example, in 

a study that attempted to quantify the 

magnitude of relative nonresponse 

bias for key survey measures in the 

CE Interview Survey, respondents 

were classified as harder-to-contact 

when more than 45 percent of their 

contact attempts resulted in noncontact 

and were treated as proxies for nonrespondents.5

 In a study of the effect of 

incentives, indicators of respondent 

cooperation and estimates of field collection costs in the study were based 

on contact attempt information from 

the CHI.6

 In an exploratory study that 

examined trade-offs between fundamental survey performance measures 

for establishing the “optimal number” 

of contact attempts, CHI information 

were utilized to form comparison 

groups for analysis, and were inputs 

to the construction of a summary 

index for reporting quality.7 In another exploratory study, interviewer 

reported observations about respondent 

behavior and concerns about survey 

participation in the CHI were found 

to strongly differentiate between the 

risk of first occurrence of nonresponse 

between groups of respondents with 

different types of concerns.8 

Limitations of the CHI

A weakness of the CHI data is that 

it is based on each interviewer’s self 

reports. There is no mechanism to 

ensure that the interviewer enters 

every contact attempt for a case in the 

CHI, or that any contact attempt will 

be recorded for a case. For example, 

out of the 12,304 Interview 1 sample 

addresses fielded in 2009 for the CE 

Interview Survey, 1.6 percent (198 

cases) did not have any CHI records. 

Of these cases without CHI, 58.1 

percent were resolved as ineligible, 

28.3 percent as completed interviews, 

5.6 percent as noninterview because 

6

 Goldenberg, K.L., McGrath D.E., and Tan, 

L. (2009). "The effects of incentives on the 

Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey." Paper 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research. 7

 Safir, A., and Tan, L. (2009). Using Contact 

Attempt History Data to Determine the Optimal 

Number of Contact Attempts. Paper presented at 

the Annual Meeting of the American Association 

for Public Opinion Research. 8

 Tsai, S. and Tan, L. (2010). An exploratory 

study on the effect of pre-paid incentives on the 

first occurrence of nonresponse in the Consumer 

Expenditure Interview Survey. Internal BLSDCES Internal Report.

4

 Groves, R. and Couper, M. (1996). Contactlevel influences on cooperation in fact-to-face 

surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 12, pp. 

63–68. 5

 King, S.L., Chopova, B., Edgar, J., Gonzalez, J.M., McGrath D.E., and Tan, L. (2009). 

Assessing nonresponse bias in the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey. Proceedings of the Section 

on Survey Methods Research, American Statistical Association, pp. 1808–1816.

 
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 11

Are you making a contact attempt or just looking at a 

case?

1. Contact attempt 

2. Looking at a case. Exit

Are you entering the CHI at the 

time of a contact attempt?

1. Yes 

2. No

Exit CHI

Enter date (mm/dd/yy) and tme (hh:mm a.m./p.m.) of contact 

attempt

Was this a personal visit or telephone 

contact attempt?

1. Visit 

2. Phone

Outcome of contact attempt

1. Contact with sample unit member 

2. Contact with nonsample unit member

3. Noncontact

Outcome of contact

1. Case final disposition assigned, ready to 

transmit

2. Partial interview

3. Unable to conduct interview

Reasons for partial interview , 

or unable to conduct interview.

Enter all that apply: 

 1-8 for CE Diary Survey

 1-7 for CE Interview Survey

Noncontact (personal 

visit attempt). 

Select reasons. 

Enter all that apply 1-14.

Noncontact (phone 

attempt). Select reasons.

Enter all that apply 1-7.

Respondent concern/ behavior / reluctance

Select categories that describe respondent 

concerns, behavior, or reluctance during this 

contact attempt.

Enter all that apply 1-23.

Contact strategies attempted. 

Select the categories that describe the 

strategies used on this contact attempt.

Enter all that apply 1-23.

Exit CHI

Exhibit 1. Question Flow in Contact History Instrument 

2

1

2

 1 or 2

1

2 or 3

2 or 3

Attempt made 

by personal 

visit

1

1

Attempt made 

by phone

Enter date (mm/dd/yy) and time (hh;mm a.m./p.m.) of contact 

attempt
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 12

Exhibit 2. CHI: response options for contact attempt strategies attempted

Exhibit 3. CHI: response options for contact attempt by personal visit resulting in noncontact

Exhibit 4. CHI: response options for contact attempt by phone resulting in noncontact

Exhibit 5. CHI: response options for unable to conduct or complete interview when contact is made with sample

unit.
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 13

Exhibit 5. CHI: response options for unable to conduct or complete interview when contact is made with sample

unit.

Note: Both CE Interview Survey and CE Diary use the same Contact History Instrument. Option 7 is valid only for

the CE Diary.

Exhibit 6. CHI: response options for respondent behavior or concerns perceived by the interviewer when contact

is made with the sample unit.  
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 14

2.3

38.4

27.3

7.5

4.1

9.0

4.0 4.1 3.2

24.8

30.9

40.8

31.8

34.1

38.0

32.3 32.9

37.7

Overnight Mon-Thu Day Mon-Thu Evening Fri Day Fri Evening Sat Day Sat Evening Sun Day Sun Evening

Percent

Day of week and time

Chart 2. Day and Time of 1st Contact Attempts and 1st Contact with Sample Unit 

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Percent distribution of 1st attempts (N=12,106) Percent of 1st attempts that resulted in contact (N=4,195)

NOTE: Day: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Evening: 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Overnight: 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

Cumulative percent

Number of contact attempts

Chart 1. Number of contact attempts to final case disposition

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Completed interview (n=7,364) Noninterview- refused(n=1,361) Noninterview-noncontact (n=421)

Noninterview - other(n=424) Ineligible sample units(n=2,536) Overall (n=12,106)

Chart 1. Number of contact attempts to final case disposition

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

NOTE: Day: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Evening: 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Overnight: 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.

Chart 2. Day and Time of 1st Attempts and 1st Contact with Sample Unit

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Percent distribution of 1st attempts (N=12,106) Percent distribution of 1st attempts that resulted in contact (N=4,195)

2.3

24.8

38.4

27.3

40.8

38.1

7.5

34.1

4.1

9.0

4.0 4.1

38.0

32.3

3.2

37.7

32.9

Overnight Mon-ThuDay Mon-Thu Evening Fri Day Fri Evening Sat Day Sat Evening SunDay Sun Evening

30.9

Days of week and time

Percent

Cumulative percent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

Number of contact attempts

0

10

20

30

60

50

40

90

80

70

100
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 15

28.6

8.4 7.3 7.3

2.1

5.7

59.1

16.6

12.6

17.6

12.6 10.6

Left 

note/appointment 

card

Checked with 

neighbor

Advance letter given Left promotional 

information

Left message on 

answering machine

Requested "No One 

Home" letter

Percent reporting

Strategy

Chart 3. Most frequently reported contact attempt strategies used 

prior to first contact with sample unit member

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1 

First contact by personal visit (N=8,167) First contact by phone (N=1,298)

68.4

19.4

12.4

4.7 3.0 2.6

65.2

19.4

4.3 6.9

0.6 1.5

Inconvenient time Reluctant 

respondent

Eligible person 

unavailable

Spoke with someone Language problem Health problem

Percent reporting

Reason

Chart 4. Reasons for incomplete interview or noninterview at first contact

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

First contact by personal visit (N=4,574) First contact by phone (N=794)

Chart 3. Most frequently reported contact attempt stategies used prior to first contact with sample unit member

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Chart 4. Reasons for incomplete interview of noninterview at first contact

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Checked with Advance letter given

neighbor

Left

note/appointment

card

Left promotional

information

Left message on

answering machine

Requested "No One

Home" letter

Inconvenient 

time

Reluctant

respondent

Eligible person

unavailable

Spoke with someone Language problem Health problem

First contact by personal visit (N=4,574) First contact by phone (N=794)

Reason

Percent reporting

Strategy

68.4 65.2

19.4 19.4

12.4

4.3 4.7 6.9 3.0 0.6 2.6 1.5

Percent reporting

28.6

59.1

8.4

16.6

7.3

12.6

7.3

17.6

2.1

12.6

5.7

10.6

First contact by personal visit (N=8,167) First contact by phone (N=1,298)
Consumer Expenditure Survey Anthology, 2011 16

67.8

62.6 62.7

49.4

41.2

32.6

16.4

Too busy Too time consuming Privacy Anti-government Not interested Hang up/slam door Hostile behavior

Percent reporting

Concern

Chart 5. Selected respondent concerns reported at first contact and 

completed interviews

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1 

Percent of cases reporting concern that were completed interviews

Chart 5. Selected respondent concerns reported at first contact and completed interviews

2009 Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey, Interview 1

Too busy Too time 

consuming

Privacy Anti-government Not interested Hang up/

slam door

Hostile behavior

Concern

Percent of cases reporting concern that were completed interviews

Percent reporting

67.8

62.6 62.7

49.4

41.2

32.6

16.4