2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of recall in agricultural data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
86
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
86
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bardasi et al, 2011 and Beegle et al, 2012). WISE includes a number of internal validations to ensure data quality.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Bardasi et al, 2011 and Beegle et al, 2012). WISE includes a number of internal validations to ensure data quality.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This is converted to person days in order to be comparable with hired-in labor assuming a 9.5 hour work day. 8 Accurately measuring labor supply in informal markets is a substantial challenge in any survey setting (e.g., Bardasi, Beegle, Dillon, and Serneels (2011), Beegle, Carletto, and Himelein (2012)). WISE includes a number of internal validations to ensure data quality.…”
Section: Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differences in recall period (through questionnaire design or timing of interview) or differences in recall ability for different activities (e.g., rare, “salient” events vs. common ones) can lead to differences in household responses (Beegle et al, 2012, Bound et al, 2001). The possibility of measurement error in the constructed labor supply aggregates is addressed in Section 4 of this paper.…”
Section: Data and Variable Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beegle et al (2012a) tested for recall bias in agricultural data, submitting questionnaires with different time spans between harvest and interviews in three African countries. An assessment of whether and how modalities of data collection in agricultural production may affect results is also provided by Deininger et al (2012).…”
Section: Testing Alternative Survey Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%