Since the 1900 census asked both age and month/year of birth it would seem reasonable to guess that it was more accurate than other censuses.  Does anyone know (1) why month and year were included for this single time and (2) was the result more accurate,  particularly on month?  Specifically did he Census Bureau ever commission a study on the accuracy of the birth data or provide a rationale for the inclusion and then abandonment of the month and year question?

I have no proof of this-- but I have found on family memebers I have researched that the MONTH is usually correct, but not always the year for 1900 (this is about equally true for men and women).? If you have a male of draft age for 1917-1918 WWI registrations I have found those birthdates to be the most accurate (doesn't help with a female, though!) Leila Menzies -----Original Message----- From: Doug Urbanus <firstboy@pacbell.net> To: CASANFRA-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 5:25 pm Subject: [CASANFRA] Accuracy of 1900 census on age Since the 1900 census asked both age and month/year of birth it would seem reasonable to guess that it was more accurate than other censuses.? Does anyone know (1) why month and year were included for this single time and (2) was the result more accurate,? particularly on month?? Specifically did he Census Bureau ever commission a study on the accuracy of the birth data or provide a rationale for the inclusion and then abandonment of the month and year question? ************************** Visit SFGenealogy.com! http://www.sfgenealogy.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CASANFRA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message