2010 ACS Content Test Evaluation - Property Income

January 26, 2012

2012 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESEARCH AND EVALUATION REPORT
MEMORANDUM SERIES #ACS12-RER-11

MEMORANDUM FOR

ACS Research and Evaluation Steering Committee

From:

Charles Nelson /Signed/
Chief
Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division

Prepared by:

Edward J. Welniak Jr., Amanda R. Noss, and Kirby G. Posey
Income Statistics Branch
Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division

Subject:

2010 ACS Content Test Evaluation Report Covering Property
Income

Attached is the final 2010 ACS Content Test Evaluation Report Covering Property Income. This
report describes the results of the 2010 Content Test with a change to the Property Income
question. Final results indicate the test question wording will be implemented for 2013 ACS. If
you have any questions about this report, please contact Edward Welniak at (301)763-5533,
Amanda Noss at (301)763-6675, or Kirby Posey at (301)763-5548.
Attachment: (2010 ACS Content Test Evaluation Report Covering Property Income)
cc:
ACS Research and Evaluation Steering Committee
ACS Research and Evaluation Team
Todd Hughes
(ACSO)
Debra Klein
Donna Daily
Jennifer Childs
Jennifer Tancreto
(DSSD)
Tony Tersine
Mary Davis
Charles Nelson
(SEHSD)

American Community Survey Research and Evaluation Program
January 26, 2012

2010 ACS Content Test
Evaluation Report Covering
Property Income
FINAL REPORT

Edward J. Welniak Jr.
Amanda R. Noss
Kirby G. Posey
Social, Economic, and
Housing Statistics Division

Intentionally Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv
1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Motivation for the 2010 Content Test ..................................................................................1
1.2 Previous Testing or Analysis ...............................................................................................2
1.3 Recommendations from Cognitive Testing .........................................................................3
1.4 Recommendations from the Expert Review Panel ..............................................................4
2. SELECTION CRITERIA ...........................................................................................................4
3. METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................4
3.1 Data Collection Methods .....................................................................................................4
3.2 Sample Design .....................................................................................................................5
3.3 Methodology Specific to Property Income ..........................................................................6
4. LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................6
5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESULTS ............................................................................7
5.1 Response to the Content Test and Content Follow-Up .......................................................7
5.2 Is the response distribution of Property Income comparable to the 2010 Current
Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) distribution
of Property Income? ...................................................................................................................8
5.3Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the number of persons
receiving Property Income? ......................................................................................................8
5.4 Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the estimate of Property
Income? ......................................................................................................................................9
5.5 Do the changes to the Property Income question affect the response distribution,
shifting the lower wage categories of the distribution higher? ..................................................9
5.6 Do the changes to the Property Income question result in the same or lower item
missing data rates? ...................................................................................................................10
5.7 Do the changes to the Property Income question lower response error (i.e., bias) in
the estimate of Property Income recipiency and amount? .......................................................11
5.8 Do the changes to the Property Income question (together with changes in the
Wages and Cash Public Assistance questions) lower the estimate of poverty rate? .............11

i

5.9 For each mode of data collection, do the changes to the Property Income question
affect the estimates of recipiency and Property Income, the distributions of Property
Income, the item missing data rates or response error (i.e., bias)? ..........................................12
5.10 For each mail response stratum, do the changes to the Property Income question
affect the item missing data rates, the estimates of Property Income recipiency and
amount or response error (i.e., bias) for these two estimates ...................................................14
5.11 Does either question version elicit respondent or interviewer behaviors that may
contribute to interviewer or respondent error?.........................................................................14
6. SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................15
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................15
References ......................................................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Tables .................................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: CATI and CAPI Versions of the Control and Test Questions ...............................B-1
Appendix C: Flow of the Content Follow-Up Interview .............................................................C-1
Appendix D: Information Page ................................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: CFU Wording ......................................................................................................... E-1

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Content Test Response Rate Comparison Between the Control and Test
Treatments........................................................................................................................................8
Table 2. Response Distribution CPS/ASEC ....................................................................................8
Table 3. Recipiency Rates................................................................................................................9
Table 4. Mean and Median Estimates of Property Income ..............................................................9
Table 5. Shift in Distribution .........................................................................................................10
Table 6. Item Missing Data Rates ..................................................................................................10
Table 7. Net Difference Rates for Recipiency and Amount ..........................................................11
Table 8. Poverty Rate .....................................................................................................................11
Table 9a. Recipiency by all modes ................................................................................................12
Table 9b. Net Difference Rates for Recipiency by Mode ..............................................................12
Table 9c. Shift in Distribution (CATI/CAPI) ................................................................................13
Table 9d. Shift in Distribution (CAPI) ..........................................................................................13
Table 9e. Item Missing Data Rates for Recipiency .......................................................................13
Table 10a. High and Low Stratum Recipiency ..............................................................................14
Table 10b. Net Difference Rates-Low Response Stratum .............................................................14
Appendix Tables
Table A-1. Item Missing Data Rates- High Response Stratum .................................................. A-1
Table A-2. Item Missing Data Rates-Low Response Stratum .................................................... A-1
Table A-3. Net Difference Rates- High Response Stratum ........................................................ A-1

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Test Objective
In late August through mid-December 2010, the Census Bureau conducted a field test of
new and revised content in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Content Test.
The results of that testing will help determine the content to be incorporated into
production ACS in 2013.
Research shows that respondents have difficulties remembering all the information read
to them in a single, verbose question (Webster, 2006). If a question contains a long list of
components or concepts for respondents to consider, respondents tend to focus on the last
items in the list and forget the others when the list is presented orally. In the case of the
ACS CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) /CAPI (Computer Assisted
Personal Interview) Property Income question, respondents are asked if they received
―interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and
trusts.‖ We believe respondents are focusing on reporting whether they received income
from estates and trusts, royalty income, or net rental income and missing the reporting of
interest and dividend income. We have anecdotal evidence to support this belief. A
similar situation occurs with another income question. For example, while observing
ACS interviews, we noted that respondents report having a wage/salary job but report
having no ―wages, salary commissions, bonuses or tips‖ from that job. Because this ―end
of the list‖ effect only seems to occur in telephone or personal interviews – not in mail
mode responses – changes are being made to the CATI/CAPI questions only for this test.
However, the analysis will study the impact on responses to the Property Income question
across all modes, since we do not publish ACS data by mode. An investigation of the
impact of the change will be done by mode for informational purposes only.

Methodology
The Content Test compared two versions of Property Income questions. The control
version replicated the wording and response categories used in the current production
ACS question:
―Did you receive Interest, Dividends, Net Rental Income, Royalty Income, or
income from estates and trusts? Report even small amounts credited to an
account.‖
<1> Yes
<2> No
The test version asked three separate questions while still keeping all components…
―The next few questions are about income DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS,
that is from to … ―

iv

―DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did you receive any interest or dividends?
Report even small amounts credited to an account.‖
<1> Yes
<2> No
[if yes] ―What was the amount? ―
―Did you receive any rental income?‖
<1> Yes
<2> No
[if yes] ―What was the net amount—that is, the total amount after expenses for the
PAST 12 MONTHS?‖
―Did you receive any royalty income or income from estates and trusts?‖
<1> Yes
<2> No
[if yes] ―What was the amount for the PAST 12 MONTHS?‖

Research Questions and Results
Is the response distribution of Property Income comparable to the Current
Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) distribution
of Property Income?
Yes. The overall distribution of Property Income for the test version is comparable to that
of the CPS ASEC. However, formal comparisons were not made since the Content Test
data were not edited or imputed, adjusted for nonresponse, nor raked to known
population totals.
Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the number of persons
receiving Property Income (i.e., Property Income recipiency)?
Yes, changes to the Property Income questions significantly raise the estimate of persons
receiving Property Income.
Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the estimate of Property
Income amount?

v

No, the changes to the Property Income question do not raise the estimated mean or
median of Property Income.
Do the changes to the Property Income question affect the response distribution,
shifting respondents from lower Property Income categories to higher categories?
No, the changes to the Property Income question do not significantly affect the response
distribution.
Do the changes to the Property Income question result in the same or lower item
missing data rates?
No, the changes to the Property Income question do not significantly affect the item
missing data rate for recipiency; however, the item missing data rate for amount is
significantly higher in the test version. This may be due to having three questions versus
one question. The second and third questions are getting ―don’t know‖ responses.
Do the changes to the Property Income question lower item response error (i.e.,
bias) in the estimate of Property Income recipiency and amount?
Yes, the changes to the Property Income question significantly lower the NDR (net
difference rate) for recipiency compared with the control. However, the test version
NDRs for amount are not significantly lower than the control version values.
Do the changes to the Property Income question (together with changes in the
Wages and Cash Public Assistance questions) lower the estimate of poverty rate?
No, changes to the Property Income question (together with changes in the Wages and
Cash Public Assistance questions) do not lower the estimate of the poverty rate.
For each mode of data collection, do the changes to the Property Income question
affect the item missing data rates, the estimates of Property Income recipiency and
amount, or response error (i.e., bias) for these two estimates?
There are significant results in all modes: Test version estimates of recipiency are
significantly higher in all modes except mail. Also, test version recipiency NDRs are
significantly lower than control in all modes except mail.
In CATI/CAPI, the estimated proportion of total Property Income in the $500+ category
is significantly lower for the test version; and in CAPI the estimated proportion in the $0
or Loss category is significantly higher for the test version.
Item missing data rates for recipiency are significantly higher for the test version for
CATI/CAPI combined and CATI.
For each mail response stratum, do the changes to the Property Income question
affect the item missing data rates, the estimates of Property Income recipiency and
amount, or response error (i.e., bias) for these two estimates?
vi

Recipiency for the test version is significantly higher than control for both the high and
low response strata. The test version recipiency NDR is significantly lower for both the
high and low response strata. For the low response stratum, the test version amount NDR
is significantly lower than the control value for the DK/REF (don’t know/ refusals)
category; while the test version item missing data rate for amount is significantly higher
than the control version rate.
Does either question version elicit respondent or interviewer behaviors that may
contribute to interviewer or respondent error?
Results indicate that for the series as a whole the test version performs better on
interviewer behavior. For respondent behavior, the test series did not perform as well as
the control.

1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Motivation for the 2010 ACS Content Test
To evaluate proposed changes to the content of the American Community Survey (ACS),
the Census Bureau conducted the 2010 ACS Content Test. The objective of the ACS
Content Test, for both new and existing questions, was to determine the impact of
changing question wording, response categories, and redefinition of underlying
constructs on the quality of data collected.
Through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Interagency Committee on the
ACS, subject matter experts from the Census Bureau and key data users from other
federal agencies collaborated in identifying revised and new questions for inclusion in the
Content Test. The suggested new and revised questions affected both the housing and
detailed person sections of the ACS questionnaire.
In the housing section, the food stamps question was altered to reflect a name change for
the food stamps program. In addition, a series of new questions were added related to
household computer ownership and Internet subscription.
Several changes were made in the detailed person section. First, a change in data needs
for the veteran series led to a revised set of response categories for the veteran’s status
and period of military service questions. Second, the question wording of the cash public
assistance income question was modified to address under-reporting of assistance on
behalf of children and single payment recipients. Third, to simplify the income questions
related to wages (wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips) and Property Income
(interest, dividends, rental income, royalty income or income from estates and trust),
these questions were broken up into smaller questions for the Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI)
instruments only. Fourth, a set of new questions on parental place of birth were added to
1

to allow data users to divide the population into ―first generation‖ (the foreign born),
―second generation‖ (the children of immigrants), and ―third or higher generation‖
(native born with no foreign-born parents).
To meet the test objective of the 2010 ACS Content Test, analysts evaluated changes to
question wording, response categories, instructions, and examples relative to a control
version of the question or another version for new questions. Specifically, this report
discusses Property Income.

1.2 Previous Testing or Analysis
In the case of the ACS CATI/CAPI Property Income question, respondents are asked if
they received "Interest, Dividends, Net Rental Income, Royalty Income, or Income from
Estates and Trusts". We believe respondents are focusing on reporting whether they
received income from estates and trusts or net rental income and missing the reporting of
interest and dividend income. While observing ACS interviews we noted that respondents
report having a wage/salary job but report having no ―wages, salary, tips, bonuses, or
commissions from that job. The same was believed to be happening to the Property
Income question as well. When given a long list of items respondents tend to focus on a
few items and disregard the rest. (Webster, 2006)

2

1.3 Recommendations from Cognitive Testing
Prior to conducting the Content Test, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Westat, and
Research Support Services (RSS) conducted cognitive interviewing, under contract, to
assist in identifying a final set of questions for the field test. Multiple versions of each
question topic were tested with the goal of choosing the best one for the revised questions
and the best two for the new questions. The questions were pretested in the three modes
used in the ACS data collection (paper, telephone interview, and personal interview) in
English and Spanish. Cognitive interviews consisted of one-on-one interviews using the
proposed questions in the context of the ACS survey. Survey methodologists also
conducted respondent debriefings.
Most respondents had no difficulty articulating the types of income that would be
included in these questions. Among those respondents who reported having received rent,
royalties, estate income, or trusts, their comments were directed more to their own
personal situations, with a focus on the type of income they receive. Other respondents
who did not report receiving income of these types provided adequate explanations of the
intent of the question with only a few exceptions.
RTI International tested two versions of proposed new ACS questions about Property
Income (interested and dividends) as a source of income. The text in both versions was
very similar, but Version 2 had an additional point of clarification added. The Version 1
text read, ―Report even small amounts credited to an account.‖ The Version 2 text read,
―Report even small amounts credited to a checking or savings account.‖ Many
respondents were confused about the mentioning of accounts. It was recommended for
CATI and CAPI version to emphasize ―amounts credited to an account‖ meaning, money
that the individual did not actually deposit on their own. During the reporting of rental
income, royalties, and income from estates and trusts, respondents showed no difficulty
responding.
The main recommendation was to include the emphasis on income sources ―during the
past 12 months‖ for all three questions. It was also suggested to fill in the months
whenever the phrase ―the past 12 months‖ is used. For example: ―The next few questions
are about income DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, which is from to
.‖
For more information see (RTI International, ―Cognitive Testing of the American
Community Survey Content Test Items.‖)

3

1.4 Recommendations from the Expert Review Panel
Following the cognitive testing, an expert review panel, composed of government survey
methodology experts, reviewed and added changes to the final question versions
proposed to move forward from the cognitive testing into the field test. The proposed
changes for each question topic were approved by the corresponding OMB interagency
subcommittee responsible for initiating the research. The OMB provided final approval
of the proposed changes.
The expert panel’s recommendation was to change the cognitive test question wording
slightly by making ―during the past 12 months‖ present for all three questions. It was also
recommended to remove ―net‖ from ―net rental income‖. See appendix B for question
wording tested.

2. SELECTION CRITERIA
The research questions in sections 5.2 through 5.10 appear in order of importance for the
decision of whether the test version of the question is better than the control question.
The selection criteria below are also shown in order of importance to the decision.
The overall distribution of Property Income for the test version should have been
comparable to that of the CPS ASEC. An increase in Property Income receipt and the
amount of Property Income received in the test version implied a positive change since
this item is presumed to be underestimated. Also, the lower part of the distribution
should shift higher. The item missing data rates and response error (i.e., bias) were
considered together when determining whether the test version performs better.
Since changes to the Property Income question appear only in the CATI/CAPI instrument
(and not in the mail questionnaire) the following items were evaluated together by
response mode: item missing data rates; the estimates of property recipiency, wages
income amount means and medians; distribution of Property Income among five
categories; and response error, as measured by net difference rates.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection Methods
The initial stages of the Content Test consisted of content determination, cognitive
laboratory pretesting, and expert reviews for the purpose of developing alternate versions
of question content. The field test portion of the ACS Content Test used the data
collection methodology currently used in the production ACS (i.e., mail questionnaire,
follow-up CATI, and follow-up CAPI) with an added reinterview conducted via a CATI
instrument known as the Content Follow-Up (CFU). Additional data were collected on
respondent and interviewer behavior during the field test via Computer Audio Recorded
Interviewing (CARI) technologies for a subset of respondents during the CATI and CAPI
follow-up modes of data collection.
4

The Content Test followed the same schedule and procedures for the mail, CATI, and
CAPI operations as the September 2010 ACS production panel. Questionnaires were
mailed to sampled households at the end of August 2010. The Content Test used an
English-only mail form but the automated instruments (CATI, CAPI, and CFU) included
both English and Spanish versions. Households not responding by mail and for which we
had a phone number were contacted for a CATI interview during the month of October
2010. In November 2010, Census Bureau field representatives visited a sample of
households that did not respond by mail or CATI to attempt a CAPI interview. The CAPI
operations ended December 2, 2010.
The field test included a CATI CFU reinterview to collect additional measures for the
study of response error. This operation started approximately two weeks after the initial
mail out of questionnaires and ended two weeks after the end of the CAPI follow-up data
collection operation. The CFU included all occupied households for which we received a
response in the original interview and had a telephone number. A response was defined
as a case where the household provided data through at least the first person’s place of
birth question for mail cases or at least a sufficient partial interview for CATI/CAPI
interviews. The reinterview was conducted about 2 to 4 weeks after the original
interview and with the original respondent when possible. Note that the CFU CATI
interview was an abbreviated version of the original Content Test interview. The CFU
instrument included the basic demographic section and only those questions preceding
the questions being tested in the housing and the detailed person sections to provide
context (see Appendix F for the flow of the CFU instrument).
The ACS Content Test did not include all of the production data collection operations and
processes. First, while the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance program’s toll-free
number was available to Content Test respondents for assistance, the CATI instrument
did not include content changes from the Content Test. Therefore data collected from
Content Test respondents via TQA CATI interview were not included in our analysis.
Second, since our objective was to study response error using unedited data, the Content
Test excluded the Failed Edit Follow-up (FEFU) CATI operation and the edit and
imputation data processes.

3.2 Sample Design
The 2010 Content Test consisted of a national sample of 70,000 residential addresses in
the contiguous United States (the sample universe did not include Puerto Rico, Alaska,
and Hawaii). The sample design for the Content Test was largely based on the ACS
production sample design with some modifications to meet the test objectives. The
modifications included adding an additional level of stratification by stratifying addresses
into high and low mail response areas, over-sampling addresses from the low mail
response areas to ensure equal response from both strata, and sampling units as pairs.
The high and low mail response strata were defined based on ACS mail response rates at
the tract-level. The paired sample selection formed pairs by first systematically sampling
an address within the defined sampling strata and then pairing that address with the
5

address listed next in the geographically sorted list. However, the pair was not likely
comprised of neighboring addresses. One member of the pair was randomly assigned to
the control group and the other member was assigned to the test group. Those addresses
assigned to the test group received the revised ACS questions and the questions new to
the ACS. The control group received the current questions on the production ACS as
well as different versions of the new questions.
Another modification to the production ACS sample design included adding a third
sampling stage. At the first stage, the production 2010 ACS first stage sample was used
as the Content Test first stage sample. At the second stage, all housing units in the ACS
first stage sample not selected in the production 2010 ACS second-stage sample were
selected as the Content Test second-stage sample. In addition, any units that were
selected to be in other operations (e.g., training, other tests, etc.) were not selected in the
Content Test second stage sample. At the third stage, addresses were selected using a
sampling method similar to the production ACS second stage sample design with the
exception of adding the high and low mail response stratification.

3.3 Methodology Specific to the Property Income
Only persons 15 or older were considered in the universe for the analysis, since all
income questions are only asked of this universe. On the mail questionnaire, public
assistance recipiency was determined if there was a ―Yes‖ response in the recipiency
field or if a dollar amount greater than zero was in the Property income amount field.
Using data from the Content Test and CFU, net difference rates were compared between
the control and test versions. Instead of reasking the same questions in the CFU, ASEC
questions were instead used as a ―truth measure‖. See appendix E for the CFU question
wording. Finally, an estimate of the poverty rate, based on unedited data, between the
control and test versions was compared.

4. LIMITATIONS
Control and test CATI-CAPI workload assignments were not assigned using an
interpenetrated experimental design. That is, interviewers were allowed to administer
interviews for both control and test cases, in addition to production ACS cases. The
potential risk of this approach is the introduction of a cross-contamination or carry-over
effect due to the interviewer administering multiple versions of the same question item.
Interviewers are trained to read the questions verbatim to minimize this risk, but there
still exists the possibility that an interviewer may deviate from the scripted wording of
one question version to another. This could potentially mask a treatment effect from the
data collected.
The CFU reinterview was not conducted in the same mode of data collection for
households that responded by mail or CAPI in the original interview since CFU
interviews were only administered using a CATI mode of data collection. As a result, the
6

data quality measures derived from the reinterview may include some bias due to the
differences in mode of data collection.
Respondents needed to provide a telephone number in the original Content Test interview
in order for the Census Bureau to contact them for a CFU interview. As a result, 18.4
percent of the respondents from the original interview were not eligible for the CFU
reinterview.
We did not have the same respondent in the CFU that we had in the original interview for
about 9.1 percent of the CFU cases. This means that differences between the original
interview and the CFU for these cases could be due in part to having different people
answering the questions.
The Content Test does not include the production weighting adjustments for seasonal
variations in ACS response patterns, nonresponse bias, and under-coverage bias. The
CFU portion of the Content Test did include a unit nonresponse adjustment for those
Content Test cases that responded to the Content Test, but failed to respond to the CFU.
As a result, the statistics derived from the Content Test data do not provide the same level
of inference as the production ACS to the entire population of housing units and persons
in the contiguous United States.

5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND RESULTS
5.1 Response to the Content Test and Content Follow-Up
Table 1 shows the unit response rates for each of the modes of data collection and all
modes combined (excluding CFU) by the control and test groups. The comparison
between control and test show that respondent participation was similar for both control
and test for each of the modes of data collection and all modes combined, with the
exception of the CATI mode. The test treatment produces a CATI rate of response that is
3 percentage points higher compared to that of the control. We can not explain the
decrease in response due to the test treatment for the CATI mode of data collection other
than by random occurrence given that the conditions affecting unit response were
equivalent between the test and control groups.

7

Table 1. Content Test Response Rate Comparisons Between the Control and Test Treatments
Standard
Standard
Test Standard
Test
Error
Control
Error
Control
Error
Mode
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Significant
All Modes
(CFU
95.4
0.2
95.7
0.2
-0.3
0.3
No
excluded)
Mail
58.1
0.5
57.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
No
CATI
52.6
1.2
49.6
1.0
3.0
1.5
Yes
CAPI
90.4
0.5
91.5
0.5
-1.1
0.7
No
CFU
54.3
0.5
53.5
0.6
0.8
0.7
No
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey Content Test

5.2 Is the response distribution of Property Income comparable to the 2010 Current
Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) distribution
of Property Income?
Table 2 shows the response distributions of the test and control versions compared to the
2010 CPS ASEC. We cannot make formal statistical comparisons since we did not edit
or impute the content test data, nor adjust for non-response or rake to known population
totals. In the mail mode, there was no interaction with a trained interviewer. Without a
trained interviewer administering the survey, the higher incidents of high income values
in ACS control and test versions may be mail respondents reporting asset values and not
income generated from the asset. The differences between the ACS Content Test
estimates and the CPS ASEC estimates in the $3-$199 category and in the combined
categories of $5,000 and above are partially due to mail responses. Similar differences
are found between ACS production estimates and CPS ASEC.
Table 2. Response Distribution
Test
Control
ASEC
Standard
Estimate (%)
Standard
Estimate (%)
Standard
Estimate
Error (%)
(n=4,217)
Error (%)
(n=3,865)
Error (%)
(%)
$1 or $2
6.9
NA
2.3
0.4
1.3
0.3
$3 - $199
42.2
NA
24.7
1.1
23.4
1.0
$200- $499
12.1
NA
9.8
0.6
9.5
0.5
$500 - $999
7.6
NA
8.0
0.4
7.5
0.5
$1,000 - $4,999
17.5
NA
22.8
0.9
25.0
1.1
$5,000 - $9,999
5.8
NA
10.5
0.6
11.1
0.7
$10,000 - $24,999
5.0
NA
12.8
0.6
13.1
0.7
$25,000 or more
3.0
NA
9.2
0.6
9.0
0.6
Total:
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Category

5.3 Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the number of persons
receiving Property Income (i.e., Property Income recipiency)?
The proportion of people receiving Property Income was computed for both test and
control. The difference in the recipiency proportions was then computed using a onesided test to determine whether there is a statistically significant positive difference
8

between the test and control recipiency proportions, using a significance level of
0.10.

=

Table 3 shows recipiency rates of persons receiving Property Income for the control and
test groups and the difference between the test and control groups. The changes to
Property Income questions significantly raise the estimate of persons receiving Property
Income.
Table 3. Recipiency Rate
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
Test –
Standard
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error
Control
Error
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Significance
Recipiency
15.5
0.3
13.6
0.3
1.9
0.4
YES
Rate:
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

5.4 Do the changes to the Property Income question raise the estimate of Property
Income?
The mean and median estimates of Property Income were computed for the control and
test versions for each panel. Values of 0 were used in the calculations, but missing values
were excluded. The test statistic is the difference between the two estimates divided by
the estimated standard error of that difference.
Table 4 shows median and mean estimates of Property Income for the test and control
groups and the difference between the test and control groups. A one-sided test was used
to determine if the test group had a statistically significant larger median and mean using
an = 0.10. The results showed that the mean and median estimates of Property Income
are not significantly higher in the test version of the question.

Table 4. Mean and Median Estimates of Property Income
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
Test Standard
Measure
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error
Control
Error
Significance
Mean
$8,689
$574
$10,080
$868
-$1,390
$938
NO
Median
$1,944
$29
$1,997
$35
-$53
$48
NO
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

5.5 Do the changes to the Property Income question affect the response distribution,
shifting the lower Property Income categories of the distribution higher?
Table 5 below shows detailed results of the response distribution. The goal was to
determine if there were fewer $0 amounts, $1 or $2 amounts, and the 3 categories ranging
from $3 to $2500 in the control panel and more amounts greater than $2500 in the test
panel. There is no expected Property Income category that should increase due to the
movement out of the lower Property Income ranges. To test whether an overall
categorical response distribution is dependent on the question version (control or test);
the Pearson’s chi square statistic (χ2) was calculated and adjusted for the complex sample
design.
9

For this family of two-sided hypothesis tests, the family wise error rate has been
controlled using the Bonferroni-Holm multiple comparison method at the alpha = 0.10
level. Changes to the Property Income question do not significantly affect the distribution
for any of the categories.
Table 5. Shift in Distribution
Test
Standard
Category
Estimate
Error
(%)
(%)
(n=4,809)
$0 or Loss
9.9
0.5
$1 or $2
2.0
0.4
$3 - $199
22.2
1.0
$200 - $499
8.8
0.5
$500 or more
56.9
1.1
Total:
100

Control
Estimate
(%)
(n=4,483)
11.1
1.2
20.8
8.5
58.4
100

Standard
Error
(%)

TestControl
(%)

Standard
Error
(%)

Significant

0.6
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.2

-1.2
0.9
1.4
0.4
-1.5

0.9
0.4
1.3
0.8
1.7

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

χ2= 7.9 with 4 degrees of freedom, significant at the 10 percent level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

5.6 Do the changes to the Property Income question result in the same or lower item
missing data rates?
Table 6 shows item missing data rates for the test and control versions. The item missing
data rates were compared between the control and the test versions for recipiency and
amount to see whether the control version rates are significantly higher. First, each item
missing data rate was computed. Then the difference was calculated. A one-sided test
was use to determine whether there is a statistically significant negative difference
between the test and control recipiency item data missing rates, using a significance level
of = 0.10.
The test version was not significantly less than the control version; in fact, the item
missing data rate for amount is significantly higher in the test version.
Table 6. Item Missing Data Rates
Test
Standard
Estimate (%)
Error
(%)

Control
Estimate
(%)

Recipiency:

Standard
Error
(%)

Test –
Control
(%)

Standard
Error
(%)

Test
signif.
less than
control?
NO

16.9
0.4
16.8
0.4
0.1
0.6
(n=38,876)
(n=38,896)
Amount:
13.6
0.8
11.8
0.8
1.8
1.1
NO1
(n=5,434)
(n=4,985)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
1
Test is significantly greater than control at the α = 0.10 significance level using a one-sided test.

5.7 Do the changes to the Property Income question lower item response error (i.e.,
bias) in the estimate of Property Income recipiency and amount?

10

The net difference rates were both calculated for recipiency control and recipiency test.
The difference between the absolute values of the net difference rates was then computed,
as well as the standard error of the difference. A one-sided test was used to determine if
the Test group had a statistically significant lower absolute net difference rate than the
Control group using an = 0.10.
Net difference rates were also calculated for each income range shown in the table below.
The difference in the absolute value of the net difference rates and the standard error on
the difference was calculated. For this family of one-sided hypothesis tests, the
familywise error rate has been controlled using the Bonferroni-Holm multiple
comparison method at the alpha = 0.10 level.
Table 7 shows that changes to the Property Income question significantly lower the NDR
for recipiency compared to the control version. The test version the NDRs for amount are
not significantly lower than the control version values.
Table 7. Net Difference Rates for Recipiency and Amount
Test
Standard
Control
Category
Estimate
Error
Estimate
(%)
(%)
(%)
Recipiency:
NDR

(n=18,738)
-28.9

0.6

(n=18,592)
-30.6

Standard
Error
(%)

TestControl
(%)

Standard
Error
(%)

Test
signif.
less than
control?

0.5

-1.7

0.8

YES

Amount:
(n=4,809)
(n=4,483)
DK/Ref
-38.9
1.3
-40.9
1.6
-2.0
2.2
NO
$0 or Loss
-7.9
0.9
-7.4
1.2
0.5
1.7
NO
$1 or $2
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.5
NO
$3 - $199
10.7
1.1
10.7
1.0
-0.1
1.5
NO
$200 - $499
3.8
0.6
3.6
0.7
0.2
1.0
NO
$500 or more
31.6
1.3
33.5
1.5
-1.9
2.0
NO
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

5.8 Do the changes to the Property Income question (together with changes in the
Wages and Cash Public Assistance questions) lower the estimate of poverty rate?
The crude estimate of the poverty rate was calculated for Property Income questions and
the Wages and Public Assistance changes and compared for the test and control versions.
These changes to the Property Income question (together with changes in the Wages and
Cash Public Assistance questions) did not lower the estimate of the poverty rate.

Table 8. Poverty Rate
Test
Estimate (%)

Standard
Error
(%)

Control
Estimate
(%)

Test –
Control
(%)

Test
signif.
less than
control?
Poverty
32.4
0.4
31.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
NO
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

11

Standard
Error
(%)

Standard
Error
(%)

5.9 For each mode of data collection, do changes to the Property Income question
affect the estimates of recipiency and Property Income, the distribution of
Property Income, the item missing data rates, or response error?
For each mail response stratum, the item missing data rates, differences in distributions
among five income categories, estimates of recipiency and Property Income and net
difference rates were calculated. Statistical significance of differences was determined at
the α = 0.10 significance level using a one-sided test.
There are significant results in all modes. Test version estimates of recipiency are
significantly higher in all modes except mail (see table 9a). Also, test version absolute
values of recipiency NDRs are significantly lower than control in all modes except mail
(see table 9b). In CATI/CAPI combined, the estimated proportion of total Property
Income in the $500+ category is significantly lower for the test version (see table 9c); and
in CAPI the estimated proportion in the $0 or Loss category is significantly higher for the
test version (see table 9d). Item missing data rates for recipiency are significantly higher
for the test version for CATI/CAPI combined and CATI . This may be due to multiple
versions for the test version versus one question for the control version (see table 9e).
Table 9a. Recipiency by All Modes
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Estimate
Error (%)
Estimate
Error
Control
Error (%)
Significance
Mode
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Mail
19.2
0.4
18.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
NO
CATI/CAPI
10.8
0.4
7.2
0.4
3.6
0.6
YES
CATI
18.2
0.8
13.1
0.8
5.1
1.1
YES
CAPI
8.9
0.5
5.8
0.5
3.1
0.7
YES
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Table 9b. Net Difference Rate for Recipiency by Mode
Test
Standard
Control
Estimate (%) Error (%) Estimate (%)
Recipiency:

Mail

Standard
Error
(%)

|Test||Control|
(%)

Standard
Error (%)

Test
signif.
less than
control?
NO

-36.6
0.7
-36.6
0.6
0.0
0.9
(n=12,811)
(n=12,710)
CATI/CAPI
-19.3
1.1
-23.3
0.9
-3.9
1.4
YES
(n=5,927)
(n=5,882)
CATI
-22.8
1.5
-31.1
1.5
-8.3
2.1
YES
(n=2,344)
(n=2,391)
CAPI
-18.4
1.3
-21.4
1.2
-3.0
1.7
YES
(n=3,583)
(n=3,491)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement

12

Table 9c. Shift in Distribution (CATI/CAPI)
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Significant
Category
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error
Control
Error
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=894)
(n=610)
$0 or Loss
2.9
1.0
0.7
0.3
2.2
1.1
NO
$1 or $2
6.9
1.4
4.0
1.0
2.9
1.7
NO
$3 - $199
33.7
3.0
29.2
3.2
4.5
4.2
NO
$200 9.3
1.5
8.7
1.6
0.6
2.2
NO
$499
$500 or
47.1
2.7
57.4
3.3
-10.2
4.1
YES
more
Total
100
100
**χ2= 11.8 with 4 degrees of freedom, significant at the 10 percent level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Table 9d. Shift in Distribution (CAPI)
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Significant
Category
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error
Control
Error
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(n=412)
(n=262)
$0 or Loss
3.8
1.4
0.4
0.3
3.3
1.4
YES
$1 or $2
7.8
2.1
3.9
1.6
3.9
2.6
NO
$3 - $199
34.4
4.0
30.9
4.3
3.5
5.9
NO
$200 9.5
2.2
7.9
2.3
1.6
3.0
NO
$499
$500 or
44.5
3.6
56.9
4.5
-12.4
5.9
NO
more
Total
100
100
**χ2= 10.4 with 4 degrees of freedom, significant at the 10 percent level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Table 9e. Item Missing Data Rates for Recipiency
Test
Standard
Control
Estimate (%) Error (%) Estimate (%)
Mode

Mail

Standard
Error
(%)

TestControl
(%)

Standard
Error (%)

Test
signif.
less than
control?
NO

23.2
0.4
23.9
0.4
-0.7
0.6
(n=24,792)
(n=24,853)
CATI/CAPI
9.1
0.5
7.9
0.5
1.2
0.8
NO1
(n=14,084)
(n=14,043)
CATI
8.2
0.7
5.7
0.5
2.5
0.8
NO1
(n=5,023)
(n=4,941)
CAPI
9.4
0.6
8.5
0.6
0.9
0.9
NO
(n=9,061)
(n=9,102)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
1
Test is significantly greater than control at the α = 0.10 significance level using a one-sided test.

13

5.10 For each mail response stratum, do the changes to the Property Income
question affect the item missing data rates, the estimates of Property Income
recipiency and amount, or response error (i.e., bias) for these two estimates?
For each mail response stratum the item missing data rates, estimates of recipiency and
Property Income and net difference rates were calculated.
Recipiency for the test version is significantly higher than control for both High and Low
Response Stratum. See table 10a. This is a positive result that was expected for the test
version. For the low response stratum, the test version absolute value of the amount NDR
is significantly lower than the control value for the DK/REF category; while the test
version net difference rate for recipiency is significantly lower than the control version
rate. See table 10 b.
See tables A-1 to A-3 in Appendix A for additional testing.
Table 10a. High and Low Stratum Recipiency
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Estimate
Error (%)
Estimate
Error
Control
Error (%)
Significance
Mode
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
High
17.7
0.4
15.6
0.4
2.1
0.5
YES
Low
8.5
0.2
7.1
0.2
1.3
0.3
YES
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Table 10b. Net Difference Rates - Low Response Stratum
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
Category
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error

Recipiency:
Amount:
DK/REFUSED
$0 or Loss
$1 or $2
$3 - $199
$200 - $499
$500 or more

TestControl

Standard
Error

Significant

15.8

0.4

18.6

0.6

-2.8

0.7

YES

25.0
14.2
0.5
10.6
3.3
24.8

2.3
1.6
0.5
1.3
0.9
1.6

32.6
9.2
0.3
10.9
2.9
28.3

1.8
1.6
0.5
1.6
1.0
2.1

-7.6
5.0
0.2
-0.4
0.4
-3.4

2.9
2.2
0.6
2.0
1.4
2.7

YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

**χ2= 11.8 with 4 degrees of freedom, significant at the 10 percent level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

5.11 Does either question elicit respondent or interviewer behaviors that may
contribute to interviewer or respondent error?
Results indicate that for the series as a whole the test performs better on interviewer
behavior. For respondent behavior, the test series did not perform as well as the control.
Overall, the levels of respondent standard behavior were high. Interviewer behavior was
however low for both test and control.
14

See the ACS 2010 Content Test Behavior Coding Report for more details.

6. SUMMARY
There were unfavorable results for the Property Income test question on the item missing
data rates. Item missing data rates for amount were significantly higher for the test
version than the control. There were more questions in the test version. Much of this
difference in item missing data rates for the test version can be explained by more ―don’t
know‖ responses to the net rental income and royalty income questions. No significant
findings were found with item missing data rates by mode for amount. By mode, item
missing data rates for recipiency were higher in CATI/CAPI combined and for CATI
individually for the test version.
There were several positive results that ultimately gave reasoning to go forward with the
recommendation for implementing the question change. The test version raised the
estimate of the number of people receiving Property Income. Specifically by mode,
recipiency estimates increased for CATI and CAPI individually and combined. The net
difference rates for recipiency overall were also lowered.
Based on the test results, it was evident that there were several advantages to changing
the Property Income question. It is recommended that the Property Income question be
changed to that of the test version for CATI and CAPI.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Mary C. Davis and Padraic Murphy for their
contributions to the statistical analysis of this report.

References
RTI International (August 12, 2009). ―Cognitive Testing of the American Community
Survey Content Test Items,‖ Research Triangle Park, NC).
Webster, 2006. ―Comparison of Income from the CPS and ACS,‖ U.S. Census Bureau.

15

Appendix A: Tables
Table A-1. Item Missing Data Rates-High Response Stratum
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Estimate
Error (%)
Estimate
Error
Control
Error (%)
Significance
Mode
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Recipiency
17.9
0.5
17.9
0.5
-0.1
0.7
NO
Amount
3.2
0.3
1.6
0.1
1.6
0.3
NO
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Table A-2. Item Missing Data Rates-Low Response Stratum
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
TestStandard
Estimate
Error (%)
Estimate
Error
Control
Error (%)
Significance
Mode
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Recipiency
15.6
0.3
15.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
NO
Amount
4.2
0.3
0.9
0.7
3.3
0.3
NO
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

Table A-3. Net Difference Rates - High Response Stratum
Test
Standard
Control
Standard
Category
Estimate
Error
Estimate
Error

Recipiency:
Amount:
DK/REFUSED
$0 or Loss
$1 or $2
$3 - $199
$200 - $499
$500 or more

TestControl

Standard
Error

Significant

27.0

0.7

28.4

0.7

-1.4

1.0

NO

41.5
6.7
0.7
10.7
3.9
32.8

1.6
1.1
0.4
1.3
0.7
1.4

42.3
7.1
0.6
10.7
3.7
34.4

1.7
1.3
0.5
1.1
0.8
1.7

-0.8
-0.4
0.1
0.0
0.2
-1.5

2.5
1.9
0.6
1.7
1.1
2.2

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

**χ2= 11.8 with 4 degrees of freedom, significant at the 10 percent level.

A-1

Appendix B: CATI and CAPI Versions of the Control and Test Questions

CONTROL
―Did [FILL1: /you] receive Interest, Dividends, Net Rental Income, Royalty
Income, or income from estates and trusts? Report even small amounts credited to an
account.‖

<1> Yes
<2> No
[if yes] "What was the amount?"

TEST
― The next few questions are about income DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, that is
from to . . .‖
―DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, did [] receive any interest or
dividends? Report even small amounts credited to an account.‖
<1> Yes
<2> No

[if yes] What was the amount?
―Did [] receive any rental income?‖
<1> Yes
<2> No
[if yes] ―What was the net amount—that is, the total amount after expenses for the PAST
12 MONTHS? ―
―Did [] receive any royalty income or income from estates and trusts?‖
<1> Yes
<2> No

[if yes] What was the amount for the PAST 12 MONTHS?

B-1

Appendix C: Flow of the Content Follow-Up

C-1

Appendix D: Information Page
Test Design
Two question versions with different wording for CATI/CAPI only (see page
4).
35,000 households per treatment (70,000 total)
Similar to production ACS with an additional level of stratification into high
Sample Design
and low mail response areas.
Mail, CATI, and CAPI, with a CATI content follow-up (CFU) of all
households. The change to this question will only occur in the CATI and
CAPI instruments, however all modes will be considered in the analysis.
Modes
CATI and CAPI interviews will be recorded using Computer-Assisted
Recorded Interviewing (CARI) technology.
Same schedule as the production September panel: mailout in late August,
CATI in October, CAPI in November. CFU goes from mid-September to
Time Frame
mid-December.
Treatments
Sample Size

Research Questions & Evaluation Measures
No.
1

Research Questions

Evaluation Measures

Is the response distribution of property
income comparable to the Current
Population Survey’s Annual Social and
Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC)
distribution of property income?

2

Do the changes to the property income
question raise the number of persons
receiving property income?

3

Do the changes to the property income
question raise the estimate of property
income?
Do the changes to the property income
question affect the response distribution,
shifting the lower part of the distribution
towards the mean?

4

D-1

Compare the response distribution of
property income between the test version
and the CPS ASEC.
We cannot make formal statistical
comparisons since the Content Test data
will not have been edited or imputed,
adjusted for nonresponse, nor raked to
known population totals.
Compare the estimate of the number of
persons receiving property income
between the control and test versions.
Compare the mean and median estimate
of property income between the test and
control versions.
Compare the response distributions
between the control and test versions.

No.

Research Questions

5

Do the changes to the property income
question lower the item missing data
rates?
Do the changes to the property income
question reduce response error (i.e., bias)
in the estimate of property income
recipiency and property income?

6

7

8

9

10

Evaluation Measures

Do the changes to the property income
question lower the estimate of the poverty
rate?
For each mode of data collection, do the
changes to the question affect the item
missing data rates, the estimates of
recipiency and property income, or
response error (i.e., bias)?

For each mail response stratum, do the
changes to the property income question
affect the item missing data rates, the
estimates of recipiency and property
income, or response error (i.e., bias)?
Does either question version elicit
respondent or interviewer behaviors that
may contribute to interviewer or
respondent error?

D-2

Compare the item missing data rates
between the control and test versions.
Using data from the Content Test and
CFU, compare net difference rates
between the control and test versions
(based on answers to more detailed
content follow-up questions).
Compare a crude estimate of the poverty
rate, based on unedited data, between the
control and test versions.
For each mode (mail,CATI,CAPI),
compare the item missing data rates,
estimates of recipiency and property
income, and response error (i.e., bias)
between the control and the test versions.
Comparisons across modes of data
collection cannot be made since
measurable differences cannot be
attributed strictly to the mode of data
collection. Observed differences across
modes may also be due to mode specific
respondent characteristics and
reinterview mode effects (CFU only).
For each mail response stratum (high and
low), compare the item missing data rates,
estimates of recipiency and property
income, and response error (i.e., bias)
between the control and the test versions.
Compare the behavior coding results
derived from the CARI recordings
between the control and the test versions.

Selection Criteria (In order of priority)

Research
Question(s)

Criteria

1

The overall distribution of property income for the test version should be
comparable to that of the CPS ASEC.

2-4

An increase in property income receipt and the amount of property
income received in the test version implies a positive change since this
item is presumed to be underestimated. The lower part of the distribution
should shift higher.

5,6

The item missing data rates and response error (i.e., bias) will be
considered together when determining whether the test version performs
better.

Supplemental Information
Research
Question(s)
7
8-10

Criteria
Not part of the selection criteria. A crude estimate of poverty rate should show
a decrease in the number of households in poverty.
Not part of the selection criteria. These data are presented to give additional
information regarding how the questions performed.

D-3

Question Wording

Control Version
Read lead-in only if person was not employed last year: (The next few questions are
about income DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS….)
Q47c1a. Did [/you] receive any interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty
income, or income from estates and trusts [DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS]? Report
even small amounts credited to an account.
Yes
No
Q47c1b. What was the amount received?
$__________.00

Test Version
Q49c1a. [If respondent did not work, Q49c1a is the first question in the income series,
and fill: The next few questions are about income DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS,
that is from to ….]
Did [/you] receive any interest or dividends [if respondent works, fill: DURING
THE PAST 12 MONTHS]? Report even small amounts credited to an account.
Yes
No -> Skip to Q49c2a
Q49c1b. What was the amount?
$__________.00
Q49c2a. Did [/you] receive any net rental income DURING THE PAST 12
MONTHS?
Yes
No -> Skip to Q49c3a
Net rental income is the total amount after expenses.

D-4

Q49c2b. What was the net amount?
$__________.00
The net amount is the total amount after expenses.
If income was a loss, precede amount with a '-'. Breakeven = 1.
Q49c3a. Did [/you] receive any royalty income or income from estates and
trusts DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
Yes
No -> Skip to Q49d
Q49c3b. What was the amount?
$__________.00

D-5

Appendix E: CFU Questions
(NOTE: INTEREST QUESTIONS)
CPS Q63A1
At anytime in the past 12 months did have money in any kind of money market fund,
interest earning checking account, or savings account?
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q63A2
[At anytime in the past 12 months did ] have any savings bonds?
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q63A3
[At anytime in the past 12 months did ] have any treasury notes, IRAs, certificates of
deposit, or any other investments which pay interest?
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q63c
…ONLY ASK IF AT LEAST ONE CPS Q63A1-3 IS A “YES”…
How much did (name/you) receive in interest from these sources in the past 12 months, including
even small amounts reinvested or credited to accounts?
-Only include interest received from U.S. Savings Bonds cashed in the past 12 months
-Separate amounts for joint ownership
Enter dollar amount

(NOTE: DIVIDENDS QUESTIONS)
CPS Q64A
At anytime in the past 12 months did own any shares of stock in corporations
(PAUSE) or any mutual fund shares?
1
2

Yes
No (SKIP TO CPS Q65A1)

CPS Q64c
How much did (name/you) receive in dividends from stocks (or mutual funds) in the past 12
months, including dividends that were reinvested?
- Separate amounts for joint ownership
- If already included in previous response, press Enter
- Enter "0" for None
- Enter dollar amount

E-1

(NOTE: PROPERTY INCOME QUESTIONS)
CPS Q65A1
In the past 12 months did own any land, business property, apartments, or houses
which were rented to others?
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q65A2
[At anytime in the past 12 months did ] receive income from royalties or from
roomers or boarders? (exclude amounts paid by relatives)
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q65A3
[At anytime in the past 12 months did ] receive income from estates or trusts?
(exclude estates or trusts already reported)
1 Yes
2 No
CPS Q65c
…ASK ONLY IF AT LEAST ONE Q65A1-3 IS A “YES”…
How much did (name/you) receive in income from rent (blank /, roomers or boarders, estates,
trusts, or royalties/, roomers or boarders, or royalties/, estates or trusts) AFTER EXPENSES in
the past 12 months?
- Separate amounts for joint ownership if response is "Broke Even" then enter 1.
- Enter dollar amount
- If amount already included in previous response,
or if response is "None",
or if response is "Lost Money"
press key

E-2