1

Self and Proxy Reporting 

In the Consumer Expenditure Survey Program

Nancy A. Mathiowetz

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

November, 2010

Paper Prepared for the Consumer Expenditure Methods Workshop

Bureau of Labor Statistics

December 8-9, 2010
2

Introduction

The issue of self versus proxy reporting is a classic methodological issue facing 

survey designers: how to maximize the quality of data while minimizing the costs

associated with data collection. In the past, response rates have served as an 

easily produced measure of quality. Allowing one respondent to provide 

information about him or herself as well as other members of the household is 

one means by which to increase response rates. It is much easier to get any one 

individual within a household to respond as compared to a randomly selected

respondent or all respondents to participate. From a cost perspective, with costs 

measured as time or the dollar expenditures associated with a data collection 

effort, once again, the use of proxy reported data aids in the reduction of per 

person unit costs. 

However, we know that the true measures of quality and cost are not limited to 

response rates, time and money. Recent research which focuses not on 

response rates but on nonresponse bias has moved the industry away from 

blithely accepting the notion that lower response rates are indicative of lower 

quality data (Keeter, et al, 2000; Groves, 2006). Quality is a far-ranging concept, 

which includes (but is certainly not limited to) assessment of coverage of the 

population, examination of imputation rates, as well as the measurement of 

validity and reliability of survey items and the resulting data. Costs too are not 

simply a function of the traditional measures of time and money related to data 

collection, but can be measured in terms of realized sample sizes, sampling 

error, post-survey adjustments, as well as public confidence in estimates.

I raise these issues early in this paper so as to frame the discussion at the end of 

the paper concerning alternative designs and methodological investigations. 

Many of the options facing the Bureau of Labor Statistics with respect to the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey Program will involve alternative design options 

that juxtapose questions of survey quality and survey costs, not just with respect 
3

to the use of self versus proxy reporting, but with respect to other design features 

to be discussed at the workshop. What measures we use to assess quality and 

costs (and the emphasis placed on those measures) will have ramifications for 

the evaluations of alternative design options.

It is also useful to consider the nature of how self and proxy reporting potentially 

differ in the Quarterly Consumer Expenditure Interview (CEI) as compared to the 

Consumer Expenditure Diary (CED). In both the CEI and the CED one 

household member usually serves as the respondent/recorder of information. 

CEI sampled household units are interviewed once per quarter for five 

consecutive quarters; the respondent is asked to report on consumer unit 

expenditures for the past three months (for interviews two through five). The 

initial interview collects demographic and family characteristics, an inventory of 

major durable goods, and expenditures for the past month, all information to be 

used as bounding data for future interviews. The nature of the questionnaire, 

with its emphasis on retrospective recall, most closely parallels the design of 

other federal surveys which rely on a single household respondent. With respect 

to the CEI, we could frame the research issue concerning self and proxy 

response as a question of how to minimize response error related to the long 

term recall of detailed expenditure items. We know little with respect to the 

quality of both self and proxy reports for the CE, so research aimed at reducing 

bias associated with proxy-based reports should not ignore the onerous reporting 

task that faces the self-respondent. The CED is a prospectively-placed diary with 

two one-week daily expense records serving as the primary means of capturing 

detailed descriptions of all expenses for all members of the household. Here, the 

key research issue is not one of how to improve retrospective recall for self and 

proxy reporting (although a percentage of diaries are completed via retrospective 

reports); the key research question is how to best maximize participation and 

compliance by all members of the household. 
4

Background

Two literatures are relevant to the issue of self and proxy reporting in the CE 

surveys: (1) the literature on the quality of proxy retrospective reporting and (2) 

the literature on participation and compliance in self-administered diary surveys 

placed in households. 

Retrospective recall: self and proxy response status

The use of proxy accepted responses is most evident in large federal surveys. 

For many of these studies, persons who are home at the time of the interview are 

asked to report about themselves and everyone else in the household or the 

household information is gathered from a ―most knowledgeable‖ member of the 

household for the particular topic of interest. Although many of these survey 

programs have moved to designs which attempt to maximize self report (e.g., 

National Crime Victimization Survey) or designs in which a randomly selected 

target within the household is asked to report for him or herself only (e.g., the 

National Health Interview Survey), the Consumer Expenditure Surveys (both the 

Diary and the Interview) are unique in that the analytic unit of interest is not the 

individual per se but rather the consumer unit. 

Moore’s (1988) excellent review of the literature with respect to self/proxy 

response status and survey data quality noted that, for the most part, much of 

what we know about the quality of proxy reports is based on observational 

studies in which the characteristics of the response status are potentially 

confounded with the measures of interest. He concludes his review by stating 

―the literature finds little support for the notion that self-response survey reports 

are of generally better quality than proxy reports‖ but also went on to state ―that 

there is really not enough evidence to draw solid conclusions‖ (Moore, 1988, p 

169). Experimental studies are limited, examining a small range of topics, and 

for the most part, are inconclusive with respect to the inherent superiority of self 
5

reports (e.g., Mathiowetz and Groves, 1985). The exception to these studies 

appears to be Turner’s (1972) experimental study with respect to the 

measurement of crime, in which an all-self response treatment was compared to 

a knowledgeable household respondent treatment; the all-self response 

treatment lead to consistently higher incidence of crime rates across eight crimes 

examined. Sans validation data, Turner’s comparison (as well as most studies 

which compare self and proxy reports) only assesses the relative rate of 

reporting a behavior across response status, indicating that the biases differ 

across the types of response rules, not that one rule or the other elicits more 

accurate data. 

Examining the issue of self vs. proxy reporting within the context of the cognitive 

stages of the question and answer process, Sudman, Bradburn, and Schwarz 

(1996) suggest that reporting for an ―other‖ differs from reporting for oneself with 

respect to the encoding, the storage, and the retrieval of information. With 

respect to encoding, the richness of the encoded material depends upon the 

means by which the information about another’s behavior is obtained. Shared 

behavioral experiences allow for the elaboration of the behavior across multiple 

sensory inputs: seeing, hearing, possibly hearing and taste, as well as the 

encoding of emotions and feelings about the behavior. Learning about a 

behavior via communication from another (or via a third party, for example, 

paying a bill related to another person’s purchase) involves the encoding of 

information related to the acquisition of that knowledge rather than the encoding 

of the behavior itself. 

Information organization and storage most likely differ for oneself as compared to 

others, impacting the retrieval and reporting strategies used for oneself as 

compared to reporting for others. Rare or salient behaviors experienced by an 

individual are often stored episodically in memory; episodic storage is most likely 

not the case for behaviors that are not learned about via shared participation. 

From the work of Blair and Burton (1987) as well as others (Bradburn, et al, 
6

1987; Schwarz, 1990) we know that frequency reports of mundane and frequent 

behaviors are often based on estimation strategies whereas the reports for rare 

or salient events and behaviors involve the use of retrieve and count (episodic) 

strategies when reporting for oneself. The lack of episodic information 

concerning others (for non-shared behaviors) often leads to estimation strategies 

on the part of proxy reporters (Blair, Menon, Bickert, 1991). 

Sudman, et al (1996) in their review of the literature assert that

...the findings ....encourage the use of proxy reports. For many 

behaviors and even for some attitudes, proxy reports are not 

significantly less accurate than self reports. Obviously accuracy 

depends on the proxy’s observation of and discussion with 

others.....(p. 243)

Diary Studies: Multiple respondents per household

What is a self and what is a proxy report for a diary survey? The delineation of 

self and proxy response status is not as clear cut in surveys that involve the use 

of prospectively placed diaries. Even if only one household member is enlisted 

to maintain the diary, the prospective placement provides opportunity for selfreported (or more specifically, recorded) data for each household member. If all 

household members took advantage of the opportunity to self report (in the main 

diary) then the self-proxy issue would be moot. As with other self/proxy issues 

cooperation at the household level is, for the most part, easier when the request 

is for a single respondent to participate. 

The major self/proxy design issue for the design of a diary survey is not to 

understand the factors that lead to congruence between self and proxy reports 

but rather to address how to minimize reliance on proxy provided data. The 

major advantage of the diary method is to capture and record expenditures 

which, for the most part, are mundane and ill-remembered for anything other 

than the shortest recall period. As stated succinctly by Grootaert (1986) ―the 

method of individual books [diaries] is to be preferred from the point of view of 
7

completeness of reporting, but that major problems with cooperation can occur‖ 

(p. 938). 

One of the largest data collections that rely on the individual-level selfadministered paper diaries is the Arbitron Radio Diary data (Arbitron, 2010). 

Each household member, 12 years of age or older, is eligible to participate. 

Households are initially contacted by mail, informing the household of their 

selection for the study. The next contact is via telephone in which basic 

demographic information about the household is collected and participation is 

solicited. The mailing that follows includes a 7-day diary for each household 

member age 12 and older and a cash incentive for each person. Calls are made 

to consenting households during the diary week to address any questions and to 

encourage full compliance. Each diary is relatively small (fold-out) and the diary, 

is, for the most part, open-ended with space to record time of day (start and stop 

times), radio station identifier, and the place where the respondent was when 

listening to that particular station. The diary week begins on a Thursday and 

ends on a Wednesday, start and end dates that were examined empirically so as 

to maximize reporting for both week and weekend days. 

Empirical Findings

Retrospective recall: self and proxy response status

Validation studies comparing self and proxy reports to objective measures are 

virtually nonexistent. In the absence of objective empirical data to assess the 

degree of bias in self and proxy reports, many studies have relied on 

comparisons of reports from both self and by proxy to assess the quality of proxy 

reports. Apart from questions (more specifically the responses to questions) that 

raise issues of self presentation or social desirability, the assumption underlying 

these comparisons is that self response provides more accurate data than those 

obtained via proxy. 
8

I focus on the empirical findings from two studies that examined the congruence 

between self and proxy reports specifically with respect to the reporting of 

expenditure data. The Intra-household Communication Study (ICS) conducted 

by BLS in the early 1990s is an example of such a study. The ICS examined the 

relationship between within-household knowledge, relationships, and reports of 

expenditures for household members. Although conducted with limited sample 

sizes, this research found that, at the family and at the dyadic level, 

communication between family members and characteristics of the family were 

related to congruence between self and proxy reports (Kojetin and Miller, 1993; 

Tucker and Miller, 1993; Kojetin and Mullin, 1995; Mulling and Tonn, 1993). For 

instance, at the dyadic level, self and proxies agreed on purchases of clothing, 

groceries, and medical supplies 63% of the time, that self-response resulted in a 

larger number of items purchased and higher dollar amounts for those items, and 

the degree of disagreement varied across types of purchases. The ways in which 

proxies learned about expenditures and the relationship between the self and the 

proxy target were related to level of agreement between the self and proxy 

response. For example, proxy reports by parents for their children had lower 

levels of agreement than spouses reporting for each other or even children proxy 

reporting for their parents (Harris-Kojetin and Miller, 1993). 

In a study conducted for BLS by the Joint Program in Survey Methodology, Olson 

(2002) examined the congruence between approximately 1000 teenagers self 

reports and reports provided by their parents of expenditures for the past 24 

hours. The reporting task for this study was easier than the detail required for 

the CE program in that teens and their parents were only asked to report on 12-

categories of expenditures and provide expenditure data overall for the category, 

not per item. Overall, parents and their teenagers agreed with respect to 

whether or not a purchase had been made in a category of expenditures 
9

approximately 85% of the time1, with a mean underreporting of expenditures by 

parents (as compared to their teens) by about $6.75 (absolute difference of 

approximately $14). 

Although examined less frequently in the empirical literature, the issue of 

reliability of measurement for self as compared to proxy reports is an important 

one. Table 1 displays measures of reliability for self and proxy reports of 

educational status, occupational status, and usual hours worked per week. The 

table findings indicate significantly lower reliability for reports provided by proxy 

(specifically by the spouse) as compared to self reports. 

Table 1. Reliability of estimates for self and proxy reports

Reliability Estimates

Question Content Study Self Spouse N

 Years of Schooling NES 70s .971 .930 815

 Years of Schooling SAF Mothers .954 .910 799

 Occupational Status NES 70s .887 .806 299

 Occupational Status NES 90s .859 .717 197

 Hours worked/week NES 70s .835 .710 212

 Hours worked/week NES 90s .881 .612 141

Total .898 .781 6

t = 3.365, p = 0.020

Source: Alwin (2007) p. 153

Diary Studies: Multiple respondents per household

One of the earliest examinations of individual diaries comes from the household 

expenditure survey in Hong Kong (Grootaert, 1986). All household members 

aged 14 years and older were requested to record his or her expenditures for the 

two-week period during which the household participated. Overall, 28% of all 

household members completed the diaries. Individual participation declined with 

age and was a function of the relationship to the household head. Eligible 

members in large households were more likely to refuse than in smaller 

 

1

In part, the agreement rate is inflated by the fact that for many of the categories of expenditures, the rate is 

based on agreement of no expenditures. 
10

households. Expenditures, especially for personal items such as clothing 

footwear, and services, were significantly higher in households assigned to the 

multiple diary treatment. The findings indicated that the treatment of requesting 

multiple diaries (even if full participation was not realized) had a significant effect 

on the overall levels of expenditures; once the effect for the multiple requests (as 

compared to a single diary) was controlled, the impact of complete participation 

was not significant with respect to changes in the level of biweekly expenditures. 

A field study conducted by BLS in 2006 (Edgar, et al, 2006) compared the diary 

reports from households assigned an experimental treatment to the standard 

production procedures. In the experimental treatment, the field representative 

placed one main diary (the same form used in the CE production cases) and 

individual diaries with each consumer unit (CU) member aged 12 and older. 

Compared to the standard production cases, the experimental treatment resulted 

in an increase number of expenditure items reported as well as an increased 

dollar value of the expenditures. The experimental study did have a lower 

response rate than the production data and completed interviews required more 

trips on the part of field interviewers as compared to the production cases. 

Discussion: Alternative Designs and Research Programs

The background paper for this session listed a number of questions to be 

addressed. Before addressing these specific items, I would like to identify 

several aspects of the CE program or design that I believe are worth further 

investigation: 

1. Understand how respondents are dealing with the two surveys

Does BLS fully understand how respondents are approaching the tasks for the 

two surveys? The diary experiment conducted in 2006 shed light on reactions to 

the individual diary program, but does such information exist for the CEI and the 
11

main CED? To what extent do CEI respondents rely on records and thereby 

reduce the disparities associated with self and proxy reports? For example, 

expenditures for gasoline are based on the CEI2. It is highly unlikely that 

respondents are relying on episodic retrospective recall for either their or other 

household members’ gasoline purchases for a three-month recall period. How 

are respondents answering these questions in the CEI? 

How does the bounding (initial) interview for the CEI aid in setting up the 

information the respondent needs to collect for the subsequent interviews? To 

what extent is the respondent informed of the need to gather information from 

others so as to be prepared to answer questions for all household members?

Thinking about the diary, how is the placement of the CED communicated to 

other household members? Where is it placed, what reminders exist to record 

information (e.g., magnets on refrigerators; IVR outbound calls to reminder 

respondents)? How much effort is expended to encourage full participation or is 

the need for full participation minimized so as to not impact response rates?

Finally, to what extent do we understand the privacy issues within consumer 

units? That is, for some household members there may be an outright desire to 

conceal information about the expenditures. Or the concealment could be 

specific to particular expenditure items. Are there means by which individual for 

whom the data are obtained by proxy can amend information in a confidential 

manner?

To develop a research program to address key aspects of proxy reporting for the 

CE program, the first step is to fully understand the nature of how the task is 

presented to household respondents and the role of proxy reporting for the two 

tasks. 

 

2

See Appendix C. Survey Source of Data for Integrated Tables, 2007.
12

2. Understand the Error Properties Associated with the CE 

program

The task for this discussion was to focus on self and proxy response. The 

questions posed assume poorer quality data for proxy reported expenditures as 

compared to self reports. I don’t know if there are sufficient empirical data to 

support that supposition across all types of proxy reports and for all types of 

expenditures. Clearly there is empirical support that shows increased reports for 

diaries that include participation of multiple CU members. But the CED 

experimental study also yielded comments from CU members that they felt the 

individual diaries were redundant and unnecessary since the unit makes 

purchases as a unit.

With respect to the CEI, once again, I think we know little about the quality of self 

reports, much less proxy reported information. There may be approaches to the 

improvement of estimates in the CEI that don’t involve increase self participation, 

per se. Alternative designs that improve reporting (e.g. event history calendars), 

mechanisms that attempt to capture data for shorter recall periods, and variation 

in approach to CUs with different compositions are all worthy of exploration if we 

have the means by which to assess the impact of these changes on estimates. 

To frame a discussion of cost-error tradeoffs, one has to have data with respect 

to both the costs and the errors. We know that compared to other benchmarks, 

the CE program underestimates expenditures. The degree to which this is a 

problem of proxy reports as compared to underreporting overall is unknown. 

Similarly, to understand tradeoffs related to changes in response rates, one has 

to be able to assess the degree to which changes impact estimates. The 

Experimental CED project yielded a lower response rate3than the production 

interviews, but also resulted in increased levels of reports of expenditure items 

and expenditures. 

 

3 The experimental CED study reported a 61% for the test cases compared to 77% for the production, but it 

was unclear from the report as to what constituted a complete for the test cases. 
13

3. Redefine the expenditures of interest for the two surveys

In thinking about tradeoffs, I would suggest that an early step in the process 

should be an evaluation of how the burden for the two surveys can be reduced—

regardless of how one addresses the self and proxy issue. The current design 

has redundancies with respect to the information collected across the two 

instruments. 

Consider the data source for various expenditures as used by the Consumer 

Price Index (see Appendix C, Survey Source of Data for Integrated Tables, 2007; 

BLS, 2007). At present, the CEI and the CED have some overlap, for example, 

both questionnaires ask specifically about clothing purchases. In addition, the 

CED has a catch-all page that asks the respondent to report expenditures on ―all 

other products, services, and expenses.‖ Hence, across the two instruments, 

there are redundancies resulting in additional, unnecessary burden.

A quick review of that appendix suggests that the diary is the data source for 

estimates related to food, personal care products and services, prescription and 

non-prescription drugs housekeeping supplies, miscellaneous small household 

items, most clothing items, and a smattering of unrelated items (e.g., vehicle 

insurance, some sports equipment). 

The work of Grootaert (1986) clearly indicated an increased reporting of 

―personal‖ items with the use of individual diaries. So why not make a definitive 

split between the CEI and CED instruments? The focus of the CED would be on 

the mundane, small expense, easily forgotten (or never known to a proxy) 

―personal items‖ and the CEI would be on the items for which there are 

accessible records, are known at the household level, and/or can be estimated 

from known behavioral patterns (e.g., gasoline for cars). By reducing the focus 

of the diary to a set of well defined categories (eliminating the catch-all page), the 
14

burden on the participants would be reduced, thereby potentially increasing 

participation at the individual level. 4

4. Consider prospective participation among CEI households

To what extent is the first bounding interview for the CEI used to proactively 

encourage the retention of receipts, bills, checkbooks, the use of the Infobook 

and other records in anticipation of the subsequent interviews? Is there active 

encouragement of the household respondent to gather these records in advance 

of the interview? What inter-interview outreach activities are used to encourage 

inter-interview recording of information? Can data be captured closer in real time 

rather than relying on a three-month recall period?

As with other suggestions throughout this discussion, the impact on proxy 

reporting is a shift from the reliance on retrospective recall for both self and proxy 

reports to real time capture of information directly from the individual members of 

the consumer unit. Each of these shifts represents a move toward minimizing 

retrospective recall and reliance on proxy reports at the cost of increased interinterview data capture and increased participation from all members of the 

consumer unit. 

5. Expand the use of records

Asking respondents to record individual grocery items in 2010 seems arcane and 

excessively burdensome. At a minimum, the diary should be redesigned so that 

respondents have a means for easily compiling receipts for the week of interest. 

This seems most relevant for food purchases (food consumed away as well as at 

home). Interviewers could carry portable scanning machines to capture the data 

(or could return the receipts after scanning is completed by the home office). 

 

4 Note that Grootert (1986) found that the increased reporting of expenditure items and total expenditures 

was attributable to the request for multiple diaries, not a function of complete compliance. 
15

The CEI provides CUs with the Infobook but recent data suggest that less than 

half of the CUs use the information during the CEI (Edgar and Gonzalez, 2009). 

The use of records (utility bills, Infobook usage) is associated with reduced odds 

of the need for editing data (Edgar and Gonzalez, 2009). 

5. Incorporate Technology 

The Homescan project conducted by Nielson is a consumer panel of almost 

300,000 households worldwide. In the U.S., the Homescan reporting device is 

an UPC scanner which facilitate electronic capture and transmission of data on 

an on-going basis (Link, 2010). Media diary studies have moved to the use of 

electronic capture of information (Arbitron’s Portable People Meter; Nielson’s 

People Meter) as have a variety of health surveys that attempt to capture 

physical activities, dietary intake, and medicine compliance via the use of 

technologic innovations. Utilizing a product such as a barcode reading device 

may lead to reduced burden on the household, improved reporting, and facilitate 

longer retention as a diarists, thereby reducing recruitment costs. 

The use of such a device could be tested for both CEI and CED households but 

seems most relevant for CED households. 

And now, to return to the questions raised by BLS:

1. What are some key aspects of proxy reporting that the CE program 

should address during the redesign process?

As noted above, I would begin with fully understanding the nature of both 

self and proxy reporting for the two surveys. For the CEI, to what extent 

are respondents relying purely on unaided recall to answer questions 

about others in the household (as well as for themselves)? The reporting
16

task, whether it is for oneself or for other household members is a difficult 

one for the CEI, given the three month recall period. Episodic recall (for 

oneself or with respect to the behavior of others) will most likely be subject 

to errors of omission whereas estimation-based reports will most likely err 

in both directions. Understanding how respondents complete the task will 

guide the direction of the research to improve the CEI overall, not just for 

proxy reports. For the CED, once again, I know little about how the 

respondents actually approach and complete the task. Do household 

respondents query other members of the CU every evening to capture the 

information? Do the other CU members resent having to participate since 

they were not asked nor agreed to participate? 

In examining how the task is completed, attention should focus on how the 

nature of the task differs across different consumer unit compositions. 

Consumer units structured so as to have a central expenditure gatekeeper 

may require a very different approach to data collection than households 

with three adolescents and parents who each maintain their own credit 

cards and checking accounts. 

2. Are there obvious tradeoffs that CE will need to balance when 

dealing with the topic of proxy reporting? How should the CE 

program manage the tradeoff between requiring participation from all 

CU members and allowing for proxy reporting on behalf of refusing 

members? How should the CE program evaluate and make a 

decision about the tradeoff between increases in respondent burden, 

increased field costs, and improved reporting quality?

From the limited work of Grootaert (1986) it doesn’t appear that full 

participation is key to improving (that is, increasing) the reporting of 

expenditures. Rather it is the request (in his case, the placement of 

multiple diaries) that lead to the reporting of increased expenditures. 
17

Hence it may not be necessary to insist on complete participation for a CU 

to be counted as a responding unit. 

Discussion of tradeoffs should not be presumptive; that is, the nature of 

the questions posed above assumes that burden will increase as will field 

costs. Not all redesigns that encourage participation among multiple 

household members have to lead to increased burden or increased field 

costs. For example, are there designs in which field representatives 

would not need to conduct three personal visits for the completion of a two 

week diary? These are expensive visits for a data collection effort that, for 

the most part, is designed to be self-administered. 

Of course response rates are a very visible measure of survey quality, but 

as noted at the onset of this paper, there is little evidence of nonresponse 

bias among many social surveys. Without an understanding of the bias 

associated with an increase in nonresponse that may accompany a shift 

toward more self response for either of the CE surveys, one can not have 

the discussion of tradeoffs. 

Obviously, costs represent a critical constraint to any redesign. So 

considerations of alternative design options have to also consider how to 

minimize the impacts on costs. For example, use of UPC scanners in 

households is expensive; however, if recruitment costs for CUs can be 

reduced by retaining CUs for longer diary periods, then perhaps 

incorporating the technology can become cost neutral (especially if data 

are transmitted electronically without the need for a field representative to 

stop by every week to obtain the paper diary).
18

3. What designs could potentially reduce the reliance on proxy 

reporting for the CEI and the CED?

Improving the use of records, incorporating technology, and encouraging 

self response via individual diaries appear to be the best means to reduce 

the reliance on proxy reporting. Some of these approaches would have 

the benefit of most likely improving the quality of data for self reports also. 

Once again, reliance on proxy reporting may be fine in some situations 

(particular CU composition, particular types of expenditures). I would 

encourage greater understanding of the error properties of self and proxy 

reports across the two surveys and various expenditures before moving to 

a design that emphases all-self response. 

4. What are best-practice methods for collecting data from all 

household members while balancing the impact on response rates 

as a result of increased overall burden?

Clearly there is no best practice. Part of the answer also has to do with 

how BLS and the Bureau of the Census decide to define response rates. 

With respect to the CED, will a CU only be counted as responding if all CU 

members complete the diary each week? That seems excessively 

conservative and pre-concludes that any move to such a design would be 

a failure, with respect to response rates. I also have to question the notion 

of an ―increased overall burden.‖ Increase participation redistributes the 

burden across an increased number of CU members, but does it actually 

increase the overall burden?

Defining best practice methods really requires a full understanding of how 

the various sources of error impact estimates. Here we have focused on 
19

proxy reporting; BLS has framed the issue as one of increasing 

participation juxtaposed against reducing response rates. While that

tradeoff maybe true the issue needs to be framed from a broader 

perspective (all error sources and knowledge of measurement error 

overall) with an eye toward a multi-faceted solution.

5. What should the next steps be to explore and research this issue for 

a possible change in CE methods?

Conduct a series of ethnographic and/or observational studies to 

gain further information about the nature of self and proxy reporting 

for both the CEI and the CED.

Design studies so as to assess measurement error for both self and 

proxy reports. For example, perhaps partner with Nielson and use 

their Homescan data as a validation source. 

Expand the 2006 experimental study of the individual CED. This 

experiment should include an examination of the main CED so as 

to not have redundant information with the individual diaries and 

include a non-response follow-up study to address the tradeoff 

between increase participation and response rates. 

Redesign diaries so as to capture receipts rather than requiring 

recording of information by hand. In addition, review the CED for 

means by which to reduce the burden by pre-identifying common 

purchases that can be checked off rather than written in by hand. 

Consider eliminating redundancies with the CEI so as to streamline 

the diary instrument. 

Test the feasibility of incorporating technology in the CED.

If technology feasibility study is positive, consider altering the 

design of the CED with respect to the length of time a CU serves as 

a diarist. Tradeoff between reduced costs of enrollment vs. 

increased length of time as a diarist. Examine diary fatigue.
20

Experiment with more aggressive requests for record keeping that 

involves all CU members during the first CEI interview. Support 

and encourage record keeping through the use of outreach, 

including but not limited to postcards, IVR, email, and incentives. 

Consider the use of proactively placed materials (e.g., calendars) 

that encourage real time recording of information.

Experiment with the use of technology for the CEI

6. How would you design a survey or set of surveys to collect detailed 

monthly data on a comprehensive range of expenditures?

I would hate to design a study before I had some of the questions outlined 

above addressed. But sitting here today, if I was forced to design such a 

study, I would try to take as much advantage of records and technology as 

possible, knowing that for most of the items of interest, retrospective recall 

is poor, regardless if reported by self or by proxy. I would want to try to 

design a study so as to minimize burden for the CU with an eye toward 

maintaining them in the study longer than 2 weeks (CED). I would also 

want to consider integrating the two designs –that is, selected CUs would 

participate in both aspects of the study, with diaries for the small 

expenditures, the interview for the large and periodic expenditures.
21

References 

Alwin, D (2007) Margins of Error. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Arbitron (2010) “The Arbitron Radio Listening Diary. Available at 

http://www.arbitron.com/home/content.stm

Blair, E and S. Burton (1987) “Cognitive Processes Used by Survey Respondents in 

Answering Behavior Frequency Questions.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14: 

280-288.

Blair, J., G. Menon, and B. Bickart (1991) “Measurement Effects in Self vs. Proxy 

Response to Survey Questions: An Information-Processing Perspective” in P. Biemer, 

R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman (eds) Measurement Errors in 

Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bradburn, N., L. Rips, and S. Shevell (1987) “Answering Autobiographical Quesitons: 

The Impact of Memory and Inference on Surveys.” Science, Vol 236: 157-161.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007). BLS Handbook of Methods. Available at 

www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homtoc.htm

Edgar, J., J. Davis, S. Spell, R. Verlander, and G. Wetzel (2006). Individual Diary 

Feasibility Test Final Report. Bureau of Labor Statistics unpublished internal report.

Edgar, J. and J. Gonzalez (2009) “Correlates of Data Quality in the Consumer Expnditure 

Quarterly Interview Survey” Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, 

August, 2009.

Filippucci, C. and M.R. Ferrante (1997). Individual Diaries and Expense Documents in 

the Italian Consumer Expenditure Survey. Journal of Official Statistics, Vol.13, No.2, 

pp. 113-121 

Grootaert, C. (1986) “The Use of Multiple Diaries in a Household Expenditure Survey in 

Hong Kong.” Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 81 (396): 938-944.

Groves, R. (2006) “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys.” 

Public Opinion Quarterly, 70: 646-675.

Keeter, S., C. Miller, A. Kohut, R. Groves, and S. Presser (2000) “Consequences of 

Reducing Nonresponse in a National telephone Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 

64: 125-148.

Kojetin, B. and S. Jerstad (1997). The Quality of Proxy Reports on the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey.

Kojetin, B. and L. Miller (1993). The Intrahousehold Communications Study: Estimating 

the Accuracy of Proxy Responses at the Dyadic Level. ASA.

Link, M. (2010) “Nielsen Homescan and Life360 Technologies” Paper presented at the 

BLS Data Capture Technologies Seminar, March 18, 2010. 

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

Statistics unpublished internal report.
22

Mathiowetz, N. and R. Groves (1985). The Effects of Respondent Rules on Health 

Survey Reports. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 75, pp. 633-639.

Miller, L. and C. Tucker (1993). The Intrahousehold Communications Study: A 

Typology of Family Cohesion. ASA.

Moore, J.C. (1988). Self/Proxy Response Status and Survey Response Quality: A Review 

of Literature. Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 4. No. 2, pp 155-172.

Olson, K. (2002) “Do Knowledgeable Respondents Really Know More? A Comparison 

of Parent and Teen Reports of Teen Spending.” Paper presented at the Annual 

Conference, American Association for Public Opinion Research. 

Schwarz, N. (1990) “Assessing Frequency Reports of Mundane Behaviors: Contributions 

of Cognitive Psychology to Questionnaire Design” in C. Henrick and M. Clark (eds) 

Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sudman, S., N. Bradburn, and N. Schwarz (1996) Thinking about Answer: The 

Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers. 

Tucker, C. and L. Miller (1993). The Intrahousehold Communications Study: Family 

Cohesion and the Level of Knowledge. ASA. 

Turner, A. (1972) Methodological Issues in the Development of the National Crime 

Survey Panel: Partial Findings. Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement Assistance 

Association (unpublished report).