The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring the Extent of Abortion Underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth
Abstract
CONTEXT: Induced abortions are often severely underreported in national surveys, hampering the estimation and analysis of unintended pregnancies. To improve the level of abortion reporting, the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) incorporated new interview and self-report procedures, as well as a monetary incentive to respondents. METHODS: The weighted numbers of abortions reported in the main interview of the 1995 NSFG (Cycle 5), in the self-report and in the two procedures combined are compared with abortion estimates from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. The Cycle 5 estimates are also compared with estimates from previous cycles of the NSFG. RESULTS: The self-report produces better reporting than the main interview, but combining data from the two procedures yields the highest count of abortions. For the period 1991-1994, the level of reporting is 45% in the main interview, 52% in the self-report and 59% when the two methods are combined. The level of abortion reporting in the combined data ranges from 40% for women with an income less than the federal poverty level to more than 75% among women who were older than 35, those who were married at the time of their abortion and those with an income above 200% of the poverty level. The completeness of abortion reporting in the main interview of Cycle 5, though indicating a remarkable improvement over reporting in Cycle 4, is comparable to the levels in Cycles 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The usefulness of the NSFG remains extremely limited for analyses involving unintended pregnancy and abortion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011
Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1506575 · Cited by 1,989
Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy In the United States, 1994 and 2001
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/3809006 · Cited by 1,557
Self-citationUnsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic
Grimes, D. A., Benson, J., Singh, S., Romero, M., Ganatra, B., Okonofua, F. E., & Shah, I. H. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69481-6 · Cited by 887
Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006) · PubMed · doi:10.1363/psrh.38.090.06 · Cited by 585
Self-citation
Metadata
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the Extent of Abortion Underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2991627
- The paper
- Fu, H., Darroch, J. E., Henshaw, S. K., & Kolb, E. (1998). Measuring the Extent of Abortion Underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991627
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.