Optimal recall length in survey design
Abstract
Self-reported data collected via surveys are a key input into a wide range of research conducted by economists. It is well known that such data are subject to measurement error that arises when respondents are asked to recall past utilisation. Survey designers must determine the length of the recall period and face a trade-off as increasing the recall period provides more information, but increases the likelihood of recall error. A statistical framework is used to explore this trade-off. Finally we illustrate how optimal recall periods can be estimated using hospital use data from Sweden's Survey of Living Conditions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The adolescents recruited from the first group had completed therapy approximately 1 year before the interviews, making them more vulnerable to recall bias.
“Second, the adolescents recruited from the first group had completed therapy approximately 1 year before the interviews, making them more vulnerable to recall bias (Clarke et al., 2008).”
From “And I Can Remind Myself That I Am All Of This”: adolescents’ experiences of group-based acceptance and commitment therapy (2024) · cites this paper as Clarke et al., 2008
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 204
- Authors
- Clarke, P. M., Fiebig, D. G., & Gerdtham, U.-G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Lund University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Clarke, Philip M.
- Venue
- Journal of Health Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1275-1284
- ISSN
- 0167-6296 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093833848
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 13.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Economics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Forskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap
- Institut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique
- National Institutes of Health
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- National Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- survey design, measurement error, self-reported data, recall errors, optimal design, hospital utilization, health care utilization
- MeSH terms
- Health Services, Humans, Mental Recall, Research, Research Design, Self Disclosure, Sweden, Models, Statistical, Bias, Health Care Surveys, Empirical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
