The regressions in Table 3 compare each of the seven modules against the personal diary and confirm the results from the first descriptive table.<sup>22</sup> The results in column (1) show that, with the exception of 7-day recall with the long list, other modules record between 7 and 28 percent less consumption compared with the personal diary. The impact on food consumption is of a similar magnitude (column 2). Having just one respondent complete the diary for an entire household is associated with significantly lower consumption of 14-17 percent, potentially because unobservable personal consumption is not explicitly captured in the design. Differences in frequent non-food expenditures are also observed. The largest deviation, that for the collapsed list (module 4), indicates that this shortcut in food consumption measurement results in significantly less measured consumption even for non-food (where the format is identical across modules). Among non-frequent non-food (collected by recall in every module), we generally see much less difference across modules (column 4). This is expected since the questionnaire wording and structure are identical. Differences can still result from three sources: respondent fatigue, since these recalled items come after lengthy food recall sections in modules 1-5 or a two-week diary; cognitive framing; and differing ability to capture personal nonfrequent non-food consumption outside the purview of the main respondent. Contrary to concerns of respondent fatigue, module 4 with the collapsed food categories and shorter interview time yielded significantly less (14 percent less) non-frequent non-food consumption.

To focus more sharply on the consequences of design differences among recall modules, in Table 4 we compare modules with different recall periods but the same detail of the food list (modules 1, 2, and 5 in panel A) and modules that have varying detail of food lists but the same recall period (modules 2, 3, and 4 in panel B). For all five of these modules, the non-food expenditure questions are identical (in detail and recall period). In panel A, columns 1-4, we see that lower total consumption associated with the longer recall periods is mainly driven by lower food expenditures. In the case of the “usual” food module, frequent non-food is statistically significantly higher (16 percent) than the 7-day module, and the non-frequent non-food is also higher (8 percent) but this difference is not precisely estimated. Given that the non-food questions are identical, we attribute this difference to the adaptation of respondents to the cognitive demands of the “usual” food questions, which immediately preceded the non-food questions.

Comparing the differing length of food lists (panel B columns 1-4), the collapsed list results in lower total consumption as a result of lower measured food consumption. Reported food consumption is almost 32 percent lower while the subset list, when scaled, results in only 6 percent lower consumption. There are no statistically significant differences in either of the non-food

> 22 If, instead of OLS, we estimate quantile regressions at the 35th percentile, a common cut-off for poverty analysis, the results are largely similar to Table 3 (available upon request).