FR3016_20231024_omb_B

Supporting Statement Part B for the
Ongoing Intermittent Survey of Households
(FR 3016; OMB No. 7100-0150)
Summary
For all information collections that involve surveys or require a statistical methodology,
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is required to provide a complete
justification and explanation of the use of such a methodology. For collections that employ
surveys without such a methodology, the Board should be prepared to justify its decision not to
use statistical methods in any case where such methods might reduce burden or improve
accuracy of results.
Background
The Ongoing Intermittent Survey of Households was initiated in 1981. Over the past 41
years, the survey data have helped the Board understand consumer credit markets and consumer
behavior. The Board has used the data to meet the current analysis needs of the Board to respond
to mandates from the Congress, to prepare academic research papers, and to provide information
to the public.
The Board has a contract with the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center
(SRC) to include survey questions on behalf of the Board in an addendum to the SRC’s regular
monthly Surveys of Consumers. The Board drafts and edits the addendum questions in
consultation with the SRC, whose program involves careful questionnaire development. The
SRC’s survey guidelines produce questionnaires that are clear and reliable, and also mitigate any
duplication between the Board’s addendum questions and the SRC’s regular questions. The SRC
conducts the survey by telephone with a sample of approximately 600 households and asks
questions of special interest to the Board.
Universe and Respondent Selection
The monthly Surveys of Consumers is an ongoing nationally representative survey based
on approximately 600 telephone interviews with adult men and women living in households in
the coterminous United States (48 States plus the District of Columbia). The sample is designed
to maximize the study of change by incorporating a rotating panel sample design in an ongoing
monthly survey program. For each monthly sample, an independent cross-section sample of
households is drawn. The respondents chosen in this drawing are then reinterviewed six months
and 12 months later. The total sample for any one survey is normally made up of 53% new
respondents, and 30% and 17% being interviewed for the second time and the third time,
respectively.
The method used to select monthly nationally representative samples of persons is
generally referred to as random digit dialing (RDD) of cellular telephone numbers. However, any
single monthly sample consists of three parts, an RDD sample of cellular telephone subscribers
selected in that month and a sample of RDD sample cellular telephone subscribers who

completed interviews six and twelve months previously. The former is referred to as the recontact sample, and the latter the re-contact sample.
Procedures for Collecting Information
The Board provides the initial draft of the questionnaire items to be included in the
monthly surveys. After review and discussions, SRC develops a pretest questionnaire. The
refinement of questionnaire items is then guided by rigorous and careful pretesting. A draft
questionnaire is then constructed, and testing is conducted under essentially “final state”
conditions--that is, pretest respondents fit all the eligibility criteria of the study, and experienced
interviewers and supervisory personnel are employed. Pretests are conducted on all new
questionnaire items before each monthly survey.
The SRC designs and builds codes for converting the interview response data to machineusable form, and for error checking. In the actual coding process, as the respondent’s answers to
each question are categorized, the coder also takes into account all marginal comments or
general notes about the interviewing situation which the interviewer may have written, and
answers given to other questions which may aid in interpreting responses that by themselves are
too vague to be coded with precision. In addition, a code frame is developed for the new
questions. The Board and SRC develop the code frame for the new questions together.
Methods to Maximize Response
Although strenuous efforts are made to interview the hard-to-contact, the SRC maintains
that the efforts made to win over the reluctant are low-pressured and reasonable. This is
consistent with the voluntary nature of the telephone interview, which respondents are informed
of when their consent is obtained. Past experience indicates that there may be negative outcomes
to excessive pressures on truly reluctant individuals. All the respondents that provide an email
address and would like to receive more information on the survey are mailed a brief report on the
results of the study electronically.
If it seems appropriate, a different interviewer will be assigned to make the callback.
SRC’s experience is that roughly 3 percent of refusals are converted to interviews following
these procedures. Interviewers who have high refusal rates are identified and supervisors work
with them to improve their techniques. If refusals appear to be due to interviewer qualities which
are not correctable through retraining, the work is reassigned.
Testing of Procedures
Several special procedures are used to guard against the potential falsification of
interviews and the introduction of interviewer bias into the data. SRC records all completed
interviews of which a subset is reviewed by a Quality Control team member for verification and
consistency. In addition, a statistical evaluation of the detailed administrative reports provides a
second effective means of detecting deviation from specified procedures. It is often easier for an
interviewer to make up responses to certain questions than it is to make up a normal distribution
on process measures such as calls required to obtain an interview, number of refusals, interview

2

length, edit length, and so forth. SRC requires detailed reporting of these process measures and
employs computerized analysis of these data to identify outliers whose work is then thoroughly
verified.

3