Disparities in Fertility Data Reporting: A Regional Perspective from NFHS

Background: The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) is a vital source of demographic and health statistics in India, yet concerns remain about the accuracy of self-reported fertility data, particularly the number of living children. Discrepancies in reporting can arise from recall bias, social desirability, and proxy reporting, potentially distorting fertility and health indicators.
Methods: Using NFHS-IV (2015–16) and NFHS-V (2019–21), this study analyzed women who were both household heads and eligible for the women’s questionnaire. Data from household and women’s files were merged to compare the number of living children reported by household heads and individual women. Matched and unmatched cases were categorized, and discrepancies were examined across age, residence, education, religion, caste, and wealth index. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of mismatches, while spatial autocorrelation (Moran’s I and LISA cluster analysis) was applied to detect geographic patterns of reporting inconsistencies.
Results: In NFHS-IV, 65.3% of reports matched, compared to 63.2% in NFHS-V, with mismatches increasing with women’s age. Women aged 40 and above had over 20 times higher odds of mismatch compared to those under 29. Rural women consistently showed higher odds of discrepancies than urban women (OR = 1.27 in NFHS-IV; OR = 1.32 in NFHS-V). Education was a strong protective factor: women with higher education had 63–64% lower odds of mismatch compared to those with no education. Wealthier women reported more accurately, while religion and caste showed only modest differences. Spatial analysis revealed clusters of high mismatches in central and southern states, while districts in the Northeast and Jammu & Kashmir displayed strong consistency.
Conclusion: Reporting discrepancies in NFHS fertility data are strongly associated with age, education, residence, and wealth. Older, less educated, rural, and poorer women are particularly vulnerable to misreporting. These findings underscore the need for targeted survey improvements, enhanced enumerator training, simplified tools, and validation mechanisms to strengthen the reliability of fertility data and ensure more equitable representation across demographic groups.

NFHS, fertility data, reporting discrepancies, logistic regression, spatial analysis, data quality, India

1. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1995.tb00338.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anselin, L., Syabri, I., & Kho, Y. (2006). GeoDa: An introduction to spatial data analysis. Geographical Analysis, 38(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7363.2005.00671.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bairagi, R., & Amin, S. (1995). Contraceptive failure, acceptor’s characteristics, and continuation of use: Results from a longitudinal study. International Family Planning Perspectives, 21(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2133529 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Becker, S., Feyisetan, K., & Makinwa-Adebusoye, P. (1998). The effect of the sex of interviewers on the quality of data in a Nigerian family planning questionnaire. Studies in Family Planning, 29(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/172157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bhat, P. N. M. (2002). On the quality of fertility estimates from the 1991 Census of India. Demography India, 31(1), 1–26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Borooah, V. K. (2005). Caste, inequality, and poverty in India. Review of Development Economics, 9(3), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00284.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Casterline, J. B., & el-Zeini, L. O. (2014). Unmet need and fertility decline: A comparative perspective on prospects in sub-Saharan Africa. Studies in Family Planning, 45(2), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00385.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2005). GIS and crime mapping. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chandrasekhar, S., Ladusingh, L., & Gupta, R. (2017). Fertility transition and data quality in India: An assessment based on the National Family Health Survey. Asian Population Studies, 13(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2016.1245605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Curtis, S. L., & Blanc, A. K. (1997). Determinants of contraceptive failure, switching, and discontinuation: An analysis of DHS contraceptive histories. DHS Analytical Reports No. 6. Macro International Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Desai, S., & Dubey, A. (2011). Caste in 21st century India: Competing narratives. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(11), 40–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Dutta, S. (2020). Literacy and women’s empowerment in Northeast India: A district-level analysis. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies, 6(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394481120982942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Getis, A. (2008). A history of the concept of spatial autocorrelation: A geographer’s perspective. Geographical Analysis, 40(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.2008.00738.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Guilmoto, C. Z. (2012). Skewed sex ratios at birth and future marriage squeeze in China and India, 2005–2100. Demography, 49(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-011-0083-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), & ICF. (2017). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015–16: India. Mumbai: IIPS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), & ICF. (2021). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21: India. Mumbai: IIPS. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Jejeebhoy, S. J., Sathar, Z. A., & Zavier, A. J. F. (2010). Fertility, contraceptive use, and reproductive health in India: Findings from the 2005–06 National Family Health Survey. Studies in Family Planning, 41(3), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mensch, B. S., Hewett, P. C., & Erulkar, A. S. (2014). The reporting of sensitive behavior among adolescents: A methodological experiment in Kenya. Demography, 40(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2003.0017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Potter, J. E. (1977). Problems in using birth-history analysis to estimate trends in fertility. Population Studies, 31(2), 335–364. https://doi.org/10.2307/2173918 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pullum, T. W. (2006). An assessment of age and date reporting in the DHS surveys, 1985–2003. DHS Methodological Reports No. 5. Macro International Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pullum, T. W. (2018). An assessment of age and date reporting in DHS surveys, 2000–2015 (DHS Methodological Report No. 19). ICF. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Retherford, R. D., & Choe, M. K. (2011). Statistical models for causal analysis. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ryan, T. P. (2008). Modern regression methods. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Schoumaker, B. (2014). Quality and consistency of DHS fertility estimates, 1990 to 2012. DHS Methodological Reports No. 12. ICF International. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Singh, A. (2021). Quality of fertility data in large-scale surveys: Evidence from NFHS. Journal of Population and Social Studies, 29, 512–529. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Singh, S. K., & Sahu, D. (2021). Data quality issues in large-scale surveys: Evidence from parity distribution in India. Demography India, 50(1), 23–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. United Nations Population Fund. (2019). State of world population 2019: Unfinished business—the pursuit of rights and choices for all. UNFPA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. United Nations. (2017). Principles and recommendations for population and housing censuses (Rev. 3). United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Zulu, E. M., & Dodoo, F. N.-A. (1998). Sexual size dimorphism and reproductive strategies in human populations. Journal of Biosocial Science, 30(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932098004198 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar