Use of Financial Records in the 

CE Survey 

Brandon Kopp 

Research Psychologist 

Office of Survey Methods Research 

CE Methods Symposium 

July 16th, 2013

CE Records Study 

 Goals 

What records are available and from whom? 

How do participants’ self-reports compare to 

those records? 

 Methods 

115 participants from North Carolina and DC 

2 visits, 1 week apart 

– Visit 1 – Shortened CEQ interview (9 Sections) 

– Visit 2 – Comparison of financial records to selfreports 
CE Records Study 

What records are available and from whom? 

 Records were provided for 36% of the 

3,039 expenditures reported in Visit 1 

 Participant characteristics positively 

associated with having records: 

 Expenditure characteristics positively 

associated with having records: 

 Non-Hispanic Whites  Women

 DC Residents  Home Owners

 Recent Purchases  More Expensive 

Purchases
CE Records Study 

How do participants’ self-reports compare to those records? 

 Over- and Under- reporting were not common 

 81 items (3%) on records but not reported in Visit 1 

 34 items (1%) reported erroneously in Visit 1 

 Participants’ accuracy in reporting expenditure 

amounts was low 

 Matched record exactly - 30%

 Within 10% of correct amount - 53%

 >5-10% over the correct amount - 33%

 >5-10% under the correct amount - 37%

 On average, participants were off by 36% 

 Over- and Under- estimation tended to cancel each 

other out 
How much better are records than 

self-reports? 

In this sample, much more accurate 

How useful are records in actual 

practice? 
Tin Box 

• Ask respondents to gather 

their records 

• Prospectively 

• Retrospectively 

• Provide those records to 

interviewer for scanning/data 

entry 
Tin Box 

Date Item Description Price

12/22/10 BABY PLD CARR Fresh Vegetables 1.50

12/22/10 CELERY 30 CT Fresh Vegetables 1.99

12/22/10 GREEN CABBAGE Fresh Vegetables 2.80

12/14/12 XFINITY Internet Cable, Satellite, and 

Internet Services 55.95

? 
Types of Financial Records 

• Point-of-Purchase Receipts 

• Bills 

• Website Printouts 

• E-mail Receipts 

• Bank Statements 

• Credit Card Statements 

• Written Notes 

• Financial Software Printouts 

• Package Invoices 

• Service Invoices 
Records Information and 

Feasibility of Use (RIFU) Study 

 Goals 

What information necessary for completing the 

CE surveys is available on financial records? 

What additional information can be collected from 

records? 

 Methods 

152 participants from the Chicago area 

2 visits, 2 weeks apart 

– Visit 1 – Explain record collection task 

– Visit 2 – Scan records, questions about the interview 

experience 

Enter data from records into database 
RIFU Study 

 2,985 records were provided 

Average: 19.6/household 

Range: 0 – 232 records/household 

86.3% or records were receipts, only 0.8% were 

bills 

 9,903 items contained on the records 

Average: 3.9 items/record 

Range: 1 – 133 items/record 

69.5% of items were classified as food purchases, 

9.3% as housing, 4.4% as apparel 
Transaction Date 

• Present on 98.3% of 

collected records 
Item Description 

• Coders attempted to fit item descriptions 

into a 4-tier, 72 category scheme 

• A subset of items were double-coded for 

reliability purposes 

Fully Coded 90.1%

Within 1 tier of full 0.6%

Within 2 tiers of full 2.3%

Within 3 tiers of full 1.2%

Not Coded 5.8%

Full Match 69.3%

Mismatch (same top category) 22.4%

Unmatched 8.3%

1 Food

2 Food at Home

3 Meats, Poultry, Fish, Eggs

4 Poultry

1 Personal Care Products and Services
Item Price 

• Present on collected records 

Item Price 99.3%

Total Price 98.3%

Tax (Amount Paid) 64.9%

Tax Rate 29.4%

Shipping Cost 0.1%
Outlet Information 

Outlet Name 89.3%

Outlet Address 88.6%

Outlet Phone Number 84.6%

• Present on collected records 
Personally Identifiable Information 

(PII) 

• Present on collected records 

Respondent Name 9.1%

Respondent Address 2.7%

Respondent Phone Number 1.4%

Credit Card Number (Full) 0.3%

Credit Card Number (Last 4) 41.4%

Customer ID 10.9%

Name 

Address 

Name 

Address 

Customer ID # 

Customer ID # 
Information Not on Records 

 Food and Drinks Away From Home 

Meal (breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack/other) 

Outlet Type (fast food, full service) 

 Food and Drinks for Home Consumption 

Packaging (fresh, frozen, bottled/canned, other) 

 Clothing, Shoes, Jewelry, and Accessories 

Gender 

Age 
Conclusions 

 Comparison of self-reports and records 

revealed some over/under reporting 

and extensive over/under estimation 

 Collecting records for all household 

expenses is difficult 

 Records, by themselves, provide a lot, 

but not all, of the information CE needs; 

respondent interaction is still needed 
Future Challenges 

 Collecting a comprehensive set of 

records 

Collecting more online/digital records 

 Capturing transactions that do not yield 

records 

 Easily and accurately converting records 

into tabular data ? 
Special Thanks 

 CE Records Study Team 

At BLS: 

– Neil Tseng 

– Janel Brattland 

– Jeanette Davis 

At Census: 

– Chris Stringer 

– Richard Schwartz 

At RTI: 

– Emily Geisen 

– Charles Lau 

– Ashley Richards 

– Joan Wang 

 RIFU Study Team 

At BLS: 

– Nhien To 

– Lucilla Tan 

– Jennifer Edgar 

– Jeanette Davis 

At NORC: 

– Lisa Lee 

– Micah Sjoblom 
Contact Information 

Brandon Kopp 

Research Psychologist 

Office of Survey Methods Research 

www.bls.gov/osmr 

202-691-7514

kopp.brandon@bls.gov