Households in the weekly visit group report farm labor at 25 points in time, starting with the baseline survey (visit 0) and ending with the endline survey (visit 24). Baseline, weekly visit, and endline hours are then summed to arrive at season-wide hours of farm labor per person per plot. Recall households, though asked at baseline to provide a listing of plots and households members working in agriculture, provide all information on farm labor in the endline survey. We combine data on the number of days worked during the season and the typical number of hours worked per day to calculate season-wide hours of farm labor per person per plot. As shown in **Table 2** , recall households report 19 more hours (18 percent) of farm labor per person per plot over the season. This difference is statistically significant at the 1 percent level.

**Table 2: Recall bias in farm labor, descriptive estimate**

||**Weekly visit**|**Recall**|**Difference**|
|---|---|---|---|
|Season-wide hours per person per plot|106.40|125.72|19.33***|
||(2.81)|(4.75)|(5.16)|
|Number ofperson-plots|2,787|1,675||

Note: Reported days and hours worked have been winsorized at the top 1 percent of the distribution. Standard errors are shown in parentheses. T-test on difference in means with *** indicating the difference is significant at the 1% level.

As discussed in the previous section, households in the weekly visit group were slightly larger, cultivated slightly more plots at baseline, and their plots were at a shorter distance than households in the recall group - it is important to adjust for these differences. **Table 3** pools recall and weekly visit households to regress season-wide hours per person per plot on an indicator variable ( _Recall_ ), which equals unity for households in the recall group and controls for the household number of plots and workers at baseline, and the average distance to their plots. This delivers an estimate of conditional recall bias of 10.3 hours per person per plot. Though lower than the unconditional estimate, it is still about 10 percent of the average in the weekly visit group, and the difference is statistically significant at the 5 percent level.

**Table 3: Recall bias in farm labor, regression estimate**

||**Season-wide hours per person per plot**|
|---|---|
|Recall|10.317**|
||(5.203)|
|N|4,462|
|R2|0.021 0.024|

Note: Regressions control for household size and number of plots, and the average distance between the household’s residence and the plots (all at baseline). ** denotes significance at the 5% level.

A potential concern of our identification strategy is that weekly visits to farm households may have behavioral impacts, which would confound our estimate of recall bias. The analysis relies on the identifying assumption that the survey methodology affects the quality of the data only, not behavior. Though it seems unlikely, there is a possibility that weekly visits and repeated interviews about farm labor activities may have induced farmers in the weekly visit group to organize their farm work more carefully or to spend more time farming than they would otherwise do (akin to Hawthorne effects).

As a robustness check, and to rule out that the survey methodology affected farm labor, and not just its measurement, we analyze differences in maize yields between weekly visit and recall households for 10