ArticlePublic opinion quarterly2024
Panel Conditioning Biases in the Current Population Survey's Food Security Supplement.
Article in Public opinion quarterly, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We estimate the extent to which the methodological problem called panel conditioning biases the federal government's estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity in the United States. To do so, we use 2002 through 2020 data from the Current Population Survey's Food Security Supplement-the same data used to produce the federal government's annual statistics about food insecurity. We take advantage of the CPS's rotating panel design feature to estimate the effects of panel conditioning. By comparing CPS respondents who participated in the Food Security Supplement in each of two consecutive years but who-strictly by chance-were selected to begin the CPS one year apart, we both approximate an experimental design and derive estimates of panel conditioning that are purged of biases from panel attrition. For the 200,000+ unique households in our sample, the treatment is having previously participated in the Food Security Supplement; the outcome is participants' subsequent responses to survey questions about food security. We find that in nearly every year people in the treatment group-that is, the group of people who have previously responded to the Food Security Supplement-are less likely to be food insecure than people responding for the first time. These differences are statistically significant and large in magnitude. We conclude that the federal government's estimates of the prevalence of food insecurity in America are substantially biased; depending on the mechanism underlying panel conditioning, the true prevalence of food insecurity may be substantially higher or lower than officially reported.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.