NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:
Field methods. 2013 November 1; 25(4): . doi:10.1177/1525822X12467142.
Measuring Time Use of Older Couples: Lessons from the Panel
Study of Income Dynamics
Vicki A. Freedman, Frank Stafford, Norbert Schwarz, and Frederick Conrad
Abstract
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Time diaries are a well established method for providing population estimates of the amount of
time and types of activities respondents carry out over the course of a full day. This paper focuses
on a computer assisted telephone application developed to collect multiple, same-day 24-hour
diaries from older couples who participated in the 2009 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID).
We present selected findings from developmental and field activities, highlighting methods for
three diary enhancements: 1) implementation of a multiple, same-day diary design; 2) minimizing
erroneous reporting of sequential activities as simultaneous; and 3) tailoring activity descriptors
(or “follow-up” questions) that depend on a pre-coded activity value. A final section discusses
limitations and implications for future time diary efforts.
I. INTRODUCTION
Researchers have long been interested in systematically measuring how people use time,
arguably the most fundamental of human resources. Although time is a resource with
internationally standardized units (i.e., hours, minutes, and seconds), individuals report time
as they experience it subjectively, and thus reported time is prone to measurement error.
Time diaries have been found to be one of the more reliable ways of measuring time use
(Juster, 1986). In time diaries, respondents are asked to recall a sequential chronology of
events or episodes, typically over a recent 24-hour recall period. For each episode, they are
typically asked to report what was done and for how long along with descriptors such as
who was present and where the activities occurred. These questions provide population
estimates of the amount of time and types of activities individuals carry out over the course
of a full day.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The methodology by which 24-hour diaries have been collected has evolved over time.
Early diaries were collected by interviewers using a paper and pencil methodology, an
approach still in use today. The conventional approach is to provide columns to write in the
activity and descriptors that pertain to all activities, with the rows representing time in brief
(e.g. 15- or 30-minute) segments. Some paper and pencil diaries provide an additional
column in which information about what else the respondent was doing at that time can be
recorded (i.e. to capture “multi-tasking”; Robinson, 1985). However, paper and pencil
diaries do not easily accommodate skip patterns and thus do not readily lend themselves to
tailoring follow-up questions to particular types of activities.
Although paper and pencil collection is still widely used, diaries that are collected through
computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) applications are becoming more common.
Address correspondence to Vicki A. Freedman, Professor, University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research
Center, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, vfreedma@umich.edu.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Time Use Research Conference. June 25–26, 2009 University of
Maryland, Adelphi, MD.
Freedman et al.
Page 2
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The American Time Use Study (ATUS), for instance, uses a Blaise application to collected
one 24-hour yesterday diary from a single household member. There are both advantages
and disadvantages to the CATI methodology (Phipps and Vernon, 2009). A distinct
advantage is that the CATI approach introduces a certain level of consistency into the data
collection process. Unlike the paper diary, which may be filled out in different ways and at
different times by different respondents, the CATI asks all respondents about the previous
24-hour day. The computer application is also flexible so that conversational-sounding
probes (“What is the next thing you remember doing?”) and review (“So you were eating
lunch from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm, is that correct?) may be built into the application. Followups that are tailored to particular types of activities may also be incorporated into the design
of the CATI, although to our knowledge, systematic development and evaluation of such a
tailoring scheme has not appeared in the literature.
A potential disadvantage of the CATI approach is that it is not especially conducive to
collecting multiple timelines (e.g. simultaneous or secondary activities). Time durations in
ATUS, for example, are programmed to correspond to a single 24-hour timeline, with as few
gaps in time as possible. The ATUS application allows volunteering of simultaneous
activities, which are recorded by interviewers, but such information is not systematically
coded or released. More generally, evaluation of multi-tasking within computer assisted
applications has been limited (see, for instance, Drago, 2011).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The time use literature—with some notable exceptions—also has a long history of focusing
on a single member of a household (National Research Council 2000). Although many
studies (including ATUS) collect only a single diary from one respondent, others have
collected multiple diaries per respondent or one or more diaries from multiple members of a
household. Notably, the European statistical agency recommends the collection of two time
diaries from all household members, one weekday and one weekend day, and that all
household members complete their diaries on the same day. The agency also recommends
random assignment of diary days and only limited postponement of days, preferably no
more than 14 days later. To date, developing flexible procedures to obtain a sample of sameday diaries from couples using a CATI methodology has not been a focus of the time use
literature.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
This paper introduces a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) methodology for
collecting from couples multiple, same-day 24-hour diaries with tailored follow-up items.
We first describe the study’s major developmental phases, including lab-based and pre-test
activities, carried out at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center. We then
present findings related to three features of the CATI time diary application: 1)
implementation and evaluation of the multiple diary, same-day design; 2) attention to
distinctions between sequential and simultaneous activities; and 3) tailoring activity
descriptors (or “follow-up” questions). A final section summarizes lessons learned for future
studies interested in the collection of time use data from multiple family members by
telephone.
II. Background
The Disability and Use of Time (DUST) study was administered as a supplement to a subset
of older couples in the 2009 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the world’s longest
running national panel study. Here we describe the basic PSID design, developmental efforts
to create DUST, and the final DUST design.
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 3
PSID Design
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Begun in 1968, the PSID is a longitudinal study of a national sample of U.S. individuals and
the families in which they reside. The PSID sample was originally drawn from two
independent samples: a nationally representative sample of roughly 3,000 households and an
over sample of roughly 2,000 low income families. From 1968 to 1997, the PSID
interviewed and re-interviewed individuals in these families every year, whether or not they
were living in the same dwelling or with the same people. Since 1997 interviews have been
conducted biennially. Because children who have left their parents’ household, which the
PSID calls “split-offs,” have been followed, and a sample of immigrants was added in 1999,
with weights the design produces a nationally representative sample of families (exclusive
of post-1999 immigrants) each year. Re-interview rates consistently have been
approximately 98% per year (96% over 2 years), and the sample of families now exceeds
8,800. For additional details on the PSID see Institute for Social Research (2011).
The core PSID is collected with a CATI application. For almost all families, all questions
are answered by one respondent, about evenly split between men and women in recent
years. The entire family listing and interview takes on average 75 minutes to complete. The
PSID has collected information on employment, income, housing, transfer income,
demographics, and family composition since 1968. Additionally, the PSID has been
collecting information on health, wealth, expenditures, and philanthropy for many years.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
DUST Development Process
A key motivation for this study was to enhance researchers’ ability to study time use among
couples in which one or both spouses had experienced a decline in functioning. Hence, we
were especially interested in being able to obtain diaries on the same days from both
spouses, to allow investigations of synchronized experiences and to provide as complete a
portrait as possible of flows of assistance between spouses (Michelson, 2005; Kingston and
Nock, 1987; Sullivan, 1996). The latter goal also led us to adopt a design that would capture
both main and secondary activities, and, for household- and care-related activities, tailored
follow-up questions about for whom the activity was carried out.
The DUST developmental process took place over two years (2007–2009) in three phases:
focus groups and cognitive testing; assessment of interviewer inter-rater reliability, and two
pretests. Focus groups with 19 couples ages 50 and older were facilitated by a trained
moderator during the summer of 2007. Participants were asked to fill out portions of simple
paper and pencil diary that described the previous morning. Focus group analyses were
based on notes from the videotapes and a file created from diary entries.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Cognitive testing took place during the fall of 2007, with 14 couples ages 50 and older
following guidelines provided in Alcser & Conrad (2007). Couples were randomly assigned
start times (8:00 am, 12:00 pm, 4:00 pm) and asked about 4 consecutive activities. Breaking
from the conventional practice of using a combination of activity codes and verbatim
captures, all DUST cognitive testing responses were recorded verbatim (on a paper and
pencil instrument) and then interviewers were directed to indicate a category that best
matched each activity. The sequence of follow-up questions (e.g., related to where they
were, who the activity was for, who participated with them, who else was there, and how
they felt) was then determined according to the category selection.
Following cognitive testing, the categories from which interviewers could select (which we
refer to as “pre-codes”) were simplified to 9 choices. Inter-rater reliability of the 9 pre-codes
was assessed during a set of mock interviews held in Feb/March 2008. Four interviewers
were instructed to complete 4 “full day” diaries (consisting of 22 activities per interview)
with actors playing the part of respondents. The actors read from scripted descriptions of
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 4
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
daily activities so that different interviewers should have produced identical time diaries.
Activities were purposefully selected from actual responses provided during the cognitive
testing phase with an aim of representing all codes. Kappa’s were calculated in STATA for
pairs of interviewers and then averaged. After analyzing discrepant codes and revising
training materials, a second session was held with 4 additional interviewers and Kappa’s
were recalculated.
Finally, two pretests were fielded, the first during fall of 2008 with 28 couples who had
participated in the developmental phases and the second during spring 2009 with 7 couples
who participated in the PSID core pretest. The purpose of pretest I was to conduct one set of
same day interviews with couples using the CATI (Blaise) application and paper
coversheets. The second pretest was carried out to test a Blaise coverscreen application
developed to govern the scheduling process and to gain some experience with the time
needed to schedule and complete two sets of same-day interviews.
DUST Sample and Diary Overview
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
DUST targeted couples in the 2009 PSID in which both spouses were at least age 50 as of
December 31, 2008 and at least one spouse was age 60 or older at that time. Because the
vast majority of married men and women ages 60 and older have spouses that are age 50 and
older, the sample essentially represents married people ages 60 and older and their spouses.
In order to enhance opportunities for studying disability and care, couples in which one or
both spouses have a limitation were oversampled, and strata further divided by the
husband’s age (<70, 70+). Overall, 830 PSID couples interviewed during 2009 were
identified as eligible for DUST. Of the 543 eligible couples who were sampled, at least one
diary was completed with 394 couples (73% response rate).
The DUST CATI diary, which was closely modeled after the ATUS diary, asked about all
the activities occurring on the previous day, beginning at 4 am and continuing until 4 am the
morning of the interview. The diaries took approximately 30–40 minutes to complete on
average. Up to 2 diaries were attempted per spouse (up to 4 per couple), one capturing a
weekday and the other a weekend day. Respondents with a spouse who could not participate
because of a permanent condition (e.g. memory loss, hearing loss) were allowed to take part
in DUST (N=33), but in those cases only two diaries, rather than four were collected. For all
respondents, the first diary was paired with a 15–20 minute supplemental CATI
questionnaire (including items on global well being, functioning, accommodations, selfassessed memory, marital quality, secondary care giving, and stylized time use questions).
The final number of diaries completed was 1,506. Further details are available in Freedman
& Cornman (2012).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
III. Evaluation of CATI Diary Enhancements
Here we review our experience with and provide evaluative evidence for three key features
of the DUST CATI diary application: 1) implementation of multiple diary, same-day design;
2) minimizing erroneous reporting of sequential activities as simultaneous without
discouraging reports of multi-tasking; and 3) tailoring activity descriptors (or “follow-up”
questions) that depend on a pre-coded activity value.
Implementation of same-day design
We began with the goal of obtaining two diaries per person (four per couple), with
husbands’ and wives’ interviews coordinated to be the same day. Our approach was
designed to balance the need to be flexible with respondents in setting appointments with the
scientific needs of having a distribution of diaries across days of the week. To account for
the especially marked differences between weekday and weekend schedules, we opted for
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 5
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
collecting one diary of each type. To implement this design, we created a list of all possible
combinations of weekday and weekend days. To ensure there would be no systematic
differences between the first and second diaries, we also allowed order to vary. To address
concerns about non-response, and offer respondents some flexibility, for each combination,
we added to the two “primary” days an alternative pair of “backup” days. Interviewers were
instructed to use backup days only in cases when the primary day was never a possibility
(e.g. never available on Sunday). 80 different combinations of primary and backup days
were listed altogether. Using systematic selection, each sampled couple was assigned a
number from 1–80, which was preloaded into the scheduling application.
The pre-loaded number represented the days of the week on which the interviews were to be
scheduled and the diary day was always the day preceding the interview, ensuring a one-day
recall period for all. That is, the couple was called and after being consented the interviewer
attempted to schedule both husband and wife for interviews on the first day in the set (e.g.,
Wed), but was flexible in terms of meeting the couple’s needs for a specific date (e.g., June
24, July 1, July 8) and time of day. The second interview was then scheduled also using the
flexible scheduling protocol. Before interview dates and times were finalized interviewers
confirmed availability of both spouses. Confirmation was accomplished by speaking directly
with the other spouse, or by calling back to confirm after the respondent handling the
scheduling checked with his or her spouse.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
We examined the distribution of time between first contact and diary completion and found
83% of first diaries and 74% of second diaries were completed within four weeks of first
contact.1 Had we used the two week standard, only 67% of first diaries and 42% of second
diaries would have been completed.
As shown in Table 1, this approach results in a balanced assignment of days of the week.
Sunday and Monday, which yield weekend day diaries, represent half the sample, whereas
each day that yields a weekday diary is assigned 10% of the time as primary and as backup.
That is, refusals to participate in DUST do not appear to disrupt the distribution of assigned
interview days. Focusing on the distribution of actual interview days, we see a slight
imbalance between Sundays (22%) and Mondays (28%), although together they still
represent exactly half the sample as designed, and the remaining interview days are between
9% and 11%. (Note that diary weights have been constructed that take into account the
differential probabilities of selection of weekend days and weekdays; when weighted each
day of the week accounts for 14.3% of diaries.)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Interviewers were instructed to always schedule husbands and wives interviews on the same
date. Only in rare circumstances—e.g. if one spouse cancelled after the other had already
been interviewed or at the end of the field work period—were spouses interviewed on
different dates, and in these cases interviewers were instructed to reschedule for the same
day of the week. This approach also resulted in the vast majority of diaries—93%—being
administered on the same date to both spouses (see Table 2).2
Sequential activities vs. multi-tasking
Many time use researchers have called for more attention to be paid to so-called
“secondary” activities, those that occur at the same time as another main or “primary”
activity. Secondary activities may be truly simultaneous, such as talking on the phone while
1Using confirmation date instead of first contact, the comparable figures are 90% of first diaries and 80% of second diaries were
completed within four weeks.
2For details on agreement between spouses’ reports of activities see Freedman et al. 2010.
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 6
making dinner (“multi-tasking), or may involve very short sequential activities such as
making dinner, taking a break to talk on the phone, and then resuming making dinner.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Moreover, early in cognitive testing of the DUST diary application, we encountered a
respondent behavior involving reporting of a string of sequential activities as if they were
simultaneous. When asked “Yesterday, at [start time] what did you do next?” several
respondents launched into a list of activities multiple times during the diary. The interviewer
in two cases dutifully wrote them down and another went off script because she knew the
activities were sequential and not actually all taking place at the appointed time.
Because multi-tasking is a legitimate behavior of interest when studying time use, we did
not want to discourage reporting of it. Yet we also clearly wanted to discourage reporting of
sequential activities as if they in fact occurred simultaneously. A related and known problem
we hoped to discourage was unintentional omission of travel, that is, one “leg” of a set of
sequential activities.
The team devised a strategy to minimize both issues in the DUST CATI diary. Respondents
were first read an introduction, using the ATUS introduction as a starting point, but further
developed based on our experience with cognitive testing:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Next, we'd like to find out how you spent your day yesterday, REFERENCE DAY.
I'm going to ask you what you were doing starting at 4:00 am. Then I’ll ask a few
more questions about the activity, like:
•
how long it took,
•
where you were,
•
who was doing the activity with you, and
•
who else was there.
We’ll repeat this series of questions until we reach the end of the day. If you were
traveling, we’ll treat that as a separate activity. So, for instance, driving to the
doctor would be separate from being at a doctor’s appointment, and then driving
home would also be a separate activity. If you were doing more than one activity
for the time I ask you about, that’s fine. You can tell me more than one activity for
a given time.
Since multi-tasking is also related to the degree of activity detail, respondents were also
given guidance on the granularity of their responses as follows:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Sometimes people want to know how much detail we are looking for. If you tell me
you worked from 9 to 5, I may ask you to break that down for me, for example, into
having meetings from 9 to 11, answering e-mails for an hour until 12, having lunch
until 1, and so on. Or, if you tell me you cleaned the house all morning, I may ask
for more detail, for example, you straightened up from 9 to 9:30, folded laundry for
half an hour, made the beds at 10:00, and so on. On the other hand, you don't need
to tell me about changing the tv channel or walking from room to room in your
house. So, somewhere in between. And if an activity is too personal, there's no
need to mention it. Ok? Let's begin.
Respondents were then asked, “Yesterday at [4:00 AM], what were you doing?” If multiple
activities were reported for a given time, interviewers were instructed to enter activities on
(up to 5) separate lines and were then brought to a screen that said, “Just to be clear, were
you doing [both / all] of these activities at [START TIME]]?” If the respondent said yes, he
or she was asked: If you had to choose, which of these would you say was the main activity?
The interviewer was also given the option of reading the definition: “By main activity, we
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 7
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
mean the one that you were focused on most.” If the respondent said no, that he/she was not
doing both activities at [START TIME], the interviewer reasked, “Yesterday, at [START
TIME], what were you doing?” and corrected lines as necessary. One disadvantage of this
approach is that it takes additional time to take the respondent through this series of
questions and correct it. We therefore also trained interviewers to use the probe “let’s break
that down” if the respondent was clearly reporting sequential activities, as evidenced by use
of words like “then” (e.g., I made breakfast and then I sat down and ate it.).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Evaluation of this issue with the pilot study data took two forms: counts of corrections to
secondary and/or sequential activities that were carried out during the editing stages
(according to a set of rules) and analysis of the extent of multitasking and main activities in
the final data. As shown in Table 3, a relatively small percentage of activities (<5%) needed
to be corrected during the editing stage for reasons related to secondary and/or sequential
activities. For instance, secondary activities were eliminated in approximately 0.5% of cases
because the main and secondary activities were redundant and not really separate activities –
for instance putting one’s coat and hat. In another 0.5% of cases, the secondary activity
should have been listed as sequential activities (e.g. bathing and dressing). And in 0.5% of
cases, two activities were listed as main on one line, when one should have been listed as
secondary. (e.g., watching tv and eating). With respect to sequential activities,
approximately 3% of main activities were “split off” from an existing activity, either
because two activities were recorded on a line, because a secondary activity should have
been sequential, or because a travel episode was missing.
Importantly, this approach still yields a fair amount of multi-tasking. Out of the 36,898 main
activities reported, 5.4% involved reports of multi-tasking (5% involved exactly one
secondary activity; 0.4% had two or more at the same time as the primary). Weighting this
estimate by main activity duration and to take into account differential probabilities of
selection, we estimate that in older couples 7.7% of waking time (73 minutes) involves main
activities that have at least one simultaneous secondary activity. By comparison, a recent
ATUS working paper (Drago 2011) suggests that the ATUS’ methodology of allowing
respondents to volunteer secondary activities captures 36 minutes a day of this behavior
(across all ages) and that adults ages 70 and older report more secondary activities than
younger adults.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As noted earlier, too high a level of multi-tasking may signal a reporting problem, notably
inappropriate doubling up of main, sequential activities rather than true multi-tasking. If
DUST was experiencing this problem, we might expect to see the mean number of main
activities per diary to be lower in DUST than in other studies. However, we find the
opposite: for married individuals 60 and older the mean number of main activities per diary
was 20 in ATUS and 26 in DUST.
Tailored follow-ups
After recording main and secondary activities in open text fields, and recording/confirming
the duration of the main activity, interviewers were instructed to select one of 9 categories
that best matched the main activity (see Table 4 for definitions). Such pre-codes were not
designed to replace detailed activity codes, since DUST post-codes all main and secondary
activities with detailed (3-digit) activity codes from open text fields. Instead, the DUST precodes were used to route the respondent to appropriate follow-up questions.
For most activities (pre-code 9), follow-up questions include: Where were you while you
were doing that? Who did that with you? [If not in a public place] (Besides [person already
mentioned],w/W)ho else was [location] with you? and How did you feel while you (were)
___? In order to capture flows of support, for household chores/helping and caring activities
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 8
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
(pre-codes 7 and 8), we added an additional question modeled after one used in the New
Zealand Time Use Study: “Who did you do that for?” For “who” questions (who active, who
passive, and who for) a tailored list of responses was allowed, reflecting the respondent’s
household composition (which can be linked through an ID in the Household File to person
level core PSID information) as well as generic relationship categories for people outside the
household.
Note this series of follow-up questions distinguishes three types of interactions with other
people: doing an activity for another person (who for), with another person (who active), and
having another person there but not engaged in the activity (who passive). Table 5, which
includes the subset of activities with pre-codes 7 (household care) and 8 (care for another
person) suggests these concepts are indeed distinct. For example, over 75% of these
activities are performed alone, but only 18% of activities are carried out alone and when no
one else is there with the respondent. Most of such activities are reported as being done for
only the respondent (41%), for all household members (35%), or for the spouse (27%).
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
For other pre-code categories such as work (5) and grooming (2) there were fewer followups and for travel (3 and 4) and talking to others (6) follow-ups were tailored to the activity
(how did you get there? who did you pick up/drop off? Or who were you talking with? Was
that on the phone or in person?). A report of sleeping (1) as the first or last activity of the
day received follow-up questions related to the quality of that night’s sleep.
Reliable pre-coding of the main activities is critical to the success of this approach. In round
1 of the Mock interviews, there was perfect agreement across all 4 interviewers in 71 out of
88 cases coded (81%). Average kappas were .905, which suggest a high level of reliability
(with about 40 minutes of training). We analyzed patterns of discrepant cases, revised the
training, and in round two of mock interviews found perfect agreement across all 4
interviewers in 74 out of 88 cases (84%). Kappa values were again quite high approaching
or exceeding .90. For pretests I and 2 the lead author coded all activities and compared
responses to the interviewers’ codes. 91% agreement was achieved in pretest I. Training was
further enhanced based on an analysis of discrepant code patterns; and a 97% agreement was
achieved in pretest II.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
As a final step, in the post-production editing process we evaluated the pre-codes by
comparing them to the more detailed post-codes that are assigned based on open text fields.
For example, activities that are given the detailed code for watching tv should always be
pre-coded 9. We found that following the pilot study, 9.8% of the 36,898 activities reported
in the study needed to have their pre-coded value changed to be consistent with more
detailed 3-digit post-codes (Table 4). However, the majority of pre-code changes did not
result in missing data. Overall only 2.4% of activities had missing data as the result of an
incorrect pre-code being initially assigned. So, for example, even though the code for work
had to be assigned during post-production in 22% of cases, this correction resulted in
missing follow-up information for only 4% of work activities.
IV. Discussion
This paper has reviewed the development and implementation of a new multiple, same-day
diary CATI interview. Although CATI time diaries are not new, the DUST design offers
several features that upon evaluation appear ripe for adoption by other studies: procedures to
obtain multiple, same-day diaries from multiple family members; an approach to minimizing
erroneous reporting of sequential activities as simultaneous without discouraging reports of
multi-tasking; and use of tailored activity descriptors that depend on a pre-coded activity
value determined by the interviewer.
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 9
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Our experience developing and fielding the PSID supplement on Disability and Use of Time
suggests that same-day diaries can be successfully collected from couples in a way that
yields a random distribution of diary days if strategies are put into place that permit
flexibility in scheduling. We also demonstrated that it is possible to minimize erroneous
reporting of sequential activities as simultaneous without discouraging the reporting of true
multi-tasking. Finally, our method of pre-coding each activity in order to tailor follow-up
descriptors succeeded in that it yielded very low levels of missing data.
There are several limitations to this analysis worth noting. It is possible that our experience
with older adults might not be replicated in a general population survey. Whether diaries are
easier or more difficult to collect from this population is not clear. It may be that older adults
have fewer time constraints on average than other age groups and are thus easier to
interview; alternatively, it might be harder to collect such information if reconstructing the
day is a more challenging cognitive task for older adults. We were not able to investigate
age differences with the data at hand. Nor could we investigate whether allowing flexibility
in scheduling (to the same day in future weeks) biased diaries to more or less busy weeks.
However, it does not appear to result in fewer activities when compared to a comparable
sample from ATUS, and most diaries were completed within four weeks of initial contact.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Despite these limitations, the particular features described in this article make it possible to
study in rich detail both time use and flows of assistance within older couples. Because
DUST is linked to a much longer, ongoing panel study, researchers will also be able to
explore how time use varies, as a function of longer-run health, disability, and economic
status of the family. In addition, linkages to future PSID waves will allow analysis of the
implications of time use for a variety of later-life health outcomes.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
The initial evaluations conducted here also suggest that such features may hold promise for
many other substantive topics whose analyses rely on CATI-based time diary collections.
Ensuring that CATI diaries are administered to family members on the same day is of
interest, for instance, for studying intra-family allocation of time, including synchronization
and substitution of market and non-market time and the sequencing of family events over
the day. Introducing careful distinctions between simultaneous and sequential activities is
especially relevant for studying child care, social interactions, eating, use of media, and
other activities commonly carried out as secondary activities. Finally, by allowing more indepth follow-up questions, minor adaptations to the tailored pre-code approach developed
here could be used to explore numerous other time-use-related topics, such as sleep quality,
children’s interactions with media, the nature of physical activity, or flows of assistance to
and from family members, to name a few. Should other CATI-based diary studies choose to
adapt the strategies presented here to fit their specific research goals, the findings in this
paper may serve as a useful point of comparison for future evaluative efforts.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, P01 AG029409-04. The views expressed are those of
the authors alone and do not represent their employers or funding agency.
REFERENCES
Alcser, K.; Conrad, F. Cognitive Testing: Best Practices. Institute for Social Research, Survey
Research Center; 2007.
Freedman, VA.; Cornman, JC. The Panel Study of Income Dynamics Disability and Time Use
Supplement: User Guide. The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 2012.
Drago, R. [Accessed April 7, 2011] Secondary Activities in the 2006 ATUS. BLS Working Paper 446.
2011. at http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec110040.pdf.
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 10
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Freedman VA, Stafford F, Conrad F, Schwarz N. Time Together: An Assessment of Diary Quality For
Older Couples. Annals of Statistics and Economics. In press.
Juster FT, Stafford FP. The Allocation of Time: Empirical Findings, Behavioral Models, and Problems
of Measurement. Journal of Economic Literature. 1991; 29:471–522.
Juster, FT. The effect of recall period on the quality of time diary data. In: Aas, D.; Harvey, AS.;
Wnuk-Lipinski, E.; Niemi, E., editors. Time use Studies: Dimensions and Applications. Helsinki:
Central Statistical Office of Finland; 1986. p. 149-176.
Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan; 2011 Jul. Panel Study of Income Dynamics
Main Interview User Manual, Release 2011.1. 2011.
National Reseach Council. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press; 2000. Time-Use Measurement and Research: Report of a Workshop.
Kingston PW, Nock SL. Time Together Among Dual-Earner Couples. American Sociological Review.
1987; 52(3):391–400.
Michelson, W. Time Use: Expanding the explanatory power of the social sciences. Boulder: Paradigm
Publishers; 2005.
Phipps, PA.; Vernon, MK. Twenty-Four Hours: An Overview of the Recall Diary Method and Data
Quality in The American Time Use Survey. In: Belli, RF.; Stafford, FP.; Alwin, DF., editors.
Calendar and Time Diary: Methods in Life Course Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications; 2009.
Robinson, JP. The validity and reliability of diaries versus alternative time use measures. In: Juster,
FT.; Stafford, FP., editors. Time, goods, and wellbeing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Institute for Social Research; 1985. p. 33-62.
Sullivan O. The enjoyment of activities: do couples affect each others’ well-being? Measuring WellBeing: The Enjoyment of Activities within Couples. Social Indicators Research. 1996; 38:81–102.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 1
% Assigned
Interview
day
Primary
Backup
Actual
N
% With Interview Day
%
Primary
day
Backup
day
Neither
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Sunday
25
25
337
22
95.5
4.5
0.0
Monday
25
25
418
28
90.7
9.3
0.0
Tuesday
10
10
152
10
96.1
3.9
0.0
Wednesday
10
10
147
10
90.5
9.5
0.0
Thursday
10
10
167
11
91.0
7.8
1.2
Friday
10
10
149
10
91.9
8.1
0.0
Saturday
10
10
136
9
93.4
6.6
0.0
All days
1506
1506
1506
100%
92.7
7.2
0.1
Freedman et al.
Distribution of Assigned and Actual Interview Days and Whether Primary or Backup Random Day Assigned by Day of the Week
Page 11
Freedman et al.
Page 12
Table 2
Percentage of Diaries Administered on the Same Date
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Diaries
Same date as Spouse
Different date but same day of week
Different date & different day of week
Spouse not able to participate (diary missing)
Total
N
%
1402
93.1
32
2.1
7
0.5
65
4.3
1506
100
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Freedman et al.
Page 13
Table 3
Number and Percentage of Activities Requiring Selected Edits, by Edit Type and Correction
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Problem
Correction
Percent of Main
Activities
(N=36,898)
1+ Secondary activity incorrect
Eliminate 1+ secondary
0.5
1+ Secondary activity incorrect
Change secondary to sequential
0.5
2+ activities on one line
1+ activity moved to secondary
0.5
2+ activities on one line
1+ activity moved to sequential
1.6
Travel episode incomplete
Sequential leg of trip added
1.0
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 4
Original
Pre-Code
Freedman et al.
Distribution of Original and Final Pre-Code Values and Resulting Missing Information
Final Pre-Code
% Corrected
and Missing
Follow-up
Information
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.
Final
PreCode
Definition
0
no pre-code assigned
213
0.6
--
--
--
--
1
Sleeping, napping or trying to sleep
3,690
10.0
3,834
10.4
5.1
0.3
2
Washing, dressing / undressing, grooming (includes “getting ready”)
3,798
10.3
3,813
10.3
4.4
0.4
3 or 4
Travel
5,757
15.6
5,646
15.3
3.3
1.7
5
Working for pay, work-related activities, volunteering
1,514
4.1
1,791
4.9
22.1
4.0
6
Talking on phone, socializing / talking in person, sending text messages by phone
2,036
5.5
1,826
4.9
2.9
2.9
7 or 8
Household chores / helping / providing care
9
All other activities
98
Don’t know
1
99
Refused/missing
0
Total
--
N
%
N
% of All
Activities
%
Corrected
7,363
20.0
6,169
16.7
7.7
6.3
12,526
34.0
13,580
36.8
14.1
1.2
--
188
0.5
--
--
--
51
0.1
--
--
9.8
2.4
36,898
36,898
Page 14
Freedman et al.
Page 15
Table 5
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Distribution of Responses to Tailored Follow-up Questions for Household Activities and Care for Others:
Comparison of Who Active, Who Passive and Who For
Who was
Actively
Engaged?
(%)
Who Else was There?
All
Activities
(%)
Activities With
Noone Actively
Engaged (%)
For
Whom
Was that
Done?
(%)
No one / by myself / myself
76.7
30.5
24.0
41.1
Spouse
16.3
50.5
60.8
27.2
Other household member
1.8
8.4
2.3
3.4
All household members
0.6
1.4
1.5
35.5
Child not in household
2.1
3.4
0.9
3.3
Parent not in household
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.9
Other family member, not in household
2.4
5.0
1.5
4.7
Other non-relative
1.6
4.5
1.4
3.0
Missing/dk
0.9
1.1
1.2
6.3
--
8.5
5.9
--
6,169
6,169
4,717
6,169
Skipped (in a public place)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
(N)
Note: 18.4% (76.7*24.0) of activities involved no one actively engaged and no one else there.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Field methods. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 01.