IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/35680.html

The Anatomy and Evolution of Survey Error

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce D. Meyer
  • Nikolas Mittag
  • Derek Wu
  • Anthony Tatarka
  • Patrick Langetieg

Abstract

Surveys provide much of what we know in social science and are often the only source of information on private behaviors, attitudes and expectations. Strands of the literature document four broad error sources: survey coverage, unit non-response, item non-response, and measurement error. Yet the absence of comparable error measures across sources and over time has left the relative severity of error sources difficult to assess, limiting efforts by survey producers to improve accuracy and users to interpret survey statistics. We unify the fragmented literature by analyzing and decomposing survey error in an empirical Total Survey Error (TSE) framework, quantifying for the first time every error component on a common scale of bias and absolute error. We apply our approach to comprehensively measure survey error in eighteen income and program receipt variables from the CPS ASEC – one of the oldest and most rigorously tested surveys, and the official source of income and poverty statistics in the U.S. – using linked administrative records over more than two decades. For nearly half of the variables, bias exceeds 40 percent and eliminating all individual-level error would require changing more than 80 percent of the true total. Contrary to the conventional emphasis on non-response, we find that the dominant source of bias is measurement error among respondents who fail to report receipt (false negatives). The largest potential gains therefore come from improving the accuracy of respondent reporting rather than raising response rates. This underreporting also propagates into imputed values for non-respondents, which are drawn from (misreported) responses and are particularly noisy, with positive and negative errors that tend to offset in net terms. Moreover, net bias can be an incomplete guide to data quality, as we find that absolute error has tended to rise over time even when net bias is stable. Overall, our approach provides a new method for measuring and decomposing survey error, clarifying which sources of bias require user corrections and where survey design improvements could be most consequential.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce D. Meyer & Nikolas Mittag & Derek Wu & Anthony Tatarka & Patrick Langetieg, 2026. "The Anatomy and Evolution of Survey Error," NBER Working Papers 35680, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:35680
    Note: AG CH LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w35680.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:nbr:nberwo:35680. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.