IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2016-11.html

Does repeated measurement improve income data quality?

Author

Listed:
  • Fisher, Paul

Abstract

This paper presents evidence that the quality of survey data on household incomes systematically improves across waves of a panel. Our estimates indicate that the effect of being interviewed for a second time is to increase the mean of reported monthly income by £142 (8 percent). Dependent interviewing - a recall device commonly used in panel surveys - takes effect only after a first interview. It explains approximately one third of the observed increase. The remaining share is attributed to changes in respondent reporting behaviour (panel conditioning). Our analysis suggests that falls in respondent confidentiality concerns are important in explaining the result.

Suggested Citation

  • Fisher, Paul, 2016. "Does repeated measurement improve income data quality?," ISER Working Paper Series 2016-11, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2016-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2016-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2014. "A test based on panel refreshments for panel conditioning in stated utility measures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 236-238.
    2. Bruce D. Meyer & Nikolas Mittag, 2015. "Using Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness and Holes in the Safety Net," Upjohn Working Papers 15-242, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    3. Peter Lynn & Annette Jäckle & Stephen P. Jenkins & Emanuela Sala, 2012. "The impact of questioning method on measurement error in panel survey measures of benefit receipt: evidence from a validation study," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 175(1), pages 289-308, January.
    4. Erik Hurst & Geng Li & Benjamin Pugsley, 2014. "Are Household Surveys Like Tax Forms? Evidence from Income Underreporting of the Self-Employed," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(1), pages 19-33, March.
    5. Marcel Das & Vera Toepoel & Arthur van Soest, 2011. "Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 32-56, February.
    6. Joachim R. Frick & Jan Goebel & Edna Schechtman & Gert G. Wagner & Shlomo Yitzhaki, 2006. "Using Analysis of Gini (ANOGI) for Detecting Whether Two Subsamples Represent the Same Universe," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(4), pages 427-468, May.
    7. Thomas F. Crossley & Jochem Bresser & Liam Delaney & Joachim Winter, 2017. "Can Survey Participation Alter Household Saving Behaviour?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2332-2357, November.
    8. Johannes Haushofer & Jeremy Shapiro, 2016. "The Short-term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: ExperimentalEvidence from Kenya," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1973-2042.
    9. Hilary Hoynes & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach & Douglas Almond, 2016. "Long-Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(4), pages 903-934, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Fransham, Mark, 2020. "Neighbourhood gentrification, displacement, and poverty dynamics in post-recession England," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103905, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2019. "Stable traits but unstable measures? Identifying panel effects in self-reflective survey questions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 83-95.
    4. An Ta & Bert Van Landeghem & Aki Tsuchiya, 2024. "Eliciting public preferences across health and wellbeing dimensions: An equivalent income value set for SIPHER‐7," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(12), pages 2723-2741, December.
    5. Crossley, Thomas F. & Fisher, Paul & Hussein, Omar, 2023. "Assessing data from summary questions about earnings and income," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Davillas, Apostolos & de Oliveira, Victor Hugo & Jones, Andrew M., 2023. "Is inconsistent reporting of self-assessed health persistent and systematic? Evidence from the UKHLS," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Richiardi, Matteo & van de Ven, Justin & Vella, Melchior, 2024. "Mind vs matter: economic and psychologic determinants of take-up rates of social benefits in the UK," Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series CEMPA6/24, Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Nicole Kapelle, 2021. "Why Time Cannot Heal All Wounds: Personal Wealth Trajectories of Divorced and Married Men and Women," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1134, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    9. Paul Fisher & Omar Hussein, 2023. "Understanding Society: the income data," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 377-397, December.
    10. Felix Chan & Laszlo Matyas & Agoston Reguly, 2024. "Modelling with Sensitive Variables," Papers 2403.15220, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2025.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephan, Gesine & Hetschko, Clemens & Schmidtke, Julia & Eid, Michael & Lawes, Mario, 2024. "Feeling Observed? A Field Experiment on the Effects of Intense Survey Participation on Job Seekers' Labour Market Outcomes," IZA Discussion Papers 17347, IZA Network @ LISER.
    2. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Riphahn, Regina T. & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2019. "Benefit underreporting in survey data and its consequences for measuring non-take-up: new evidence from linked administrative and survey data," IAB-Discussion Paper 201906, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    3. McIntosh, Craig & Zeitlin, Andrew, 2022. "Using household grants to benchmark the cost effectiveness of a USAID workforce readiness program," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Karina Colombo & Elisa Failache, 2025. "Screen Exposure in Early Childhood: an Experiment on Parental Practices and Beliefs," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 25-09, Instituto de Economía - IECON.
    5. Naomi Gershoni & Rania Gihleb & Assaf Kott & Hani Mansour & Yannay Shanan, 2025. "Adjustments to Reduced Cash Transfers: Religious Safety Nets and Children's Long-Term Outcomes," CESifo Working Paper Series 11856, CESifo.
    6. Mark Wooden & Ning Li, 2014. "Panel Conditioning and Subjective Well-being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 235-255, May.
    7. Chadi, Adrian, 2021. "Identification of attrition bias using different types of panel refreshments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    8. Van Landeghem, Bert, 2019. "Stable traits but unstable measures? Identifying panel effects in self-reflective survey questions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 83-95.
    9. David Brady & Zachary Parolin, 2020. "The Levels and Trends in Deep and Extreme Poverty in the United States, 1993–2016," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(6), pages 2337-2360, December.
    10. Craig McIntosh & Andrew Zeitlin, 2021. "Cash versus Kind: Benchmarking a Child Nutrition Program against Unconditional Cash Transfers in Rwanda," Papers 2106.00213, arXiv.org.
    11. Hans-Jürgen Andreß, 2017. "The need for and use of panel data," World of Labour, LISER, pages 352-352, April.
    12. Baird, Sarah & McIntosh, Craig & Özler, Berk, 2019. "When the money runs out: Do cash transfers have sustained effects on human capital accumulation?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 169-185.
    13. Juanita Bloomfield & José María Cabrera, 2026. "Long‐term impacts on education of a cash transfer during early life," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 45(1), January.
    14. Schwandt, Hannes, 2016. "Unmet aspirations as an explanation for the age U-shape in wellbeing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 75-87.
    15. Song, Yang & Cheng, Zerui, 2024. "The impact of welfare design on consumption patterns of the poor: Evidence from the recent Dibao reform in rural China11This research is supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (22AZD114 and 21ZDA098). The authors would like to thank," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. Thomas F. Crossley & Jochem Bresser & Liam Delaney & Joachim Winter, 2017. "Can Survey Participation Alter Household Saving Behaviour?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2332-2357, November.
    17. Craig McIntosh & Andrew Zeitlin, 2022. "Skills and Liquidity Barriers to Youth Employment: Medium-term Evidence from a Cash Benchmarking Experiment in Rwanda," Papers 2209.08574, arXiv.org.
    18. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Katrin Hohmeyer & Stefan Schwarz, 2018. "Welfare receipt misreporting in survey data and its consequences for state dependence estimates: new insights from linked administrative and survey data," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 52(1), pages 1-21, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2016-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcessuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.