---
title: "CES 2024: Survey Fit Across Multiple Question Forms | Minds"
canonical_url: "https://getminds.ai/research/ces-2024-synthetic-survey-validation"
last_updated: "2026-09-08T13:42:06.582Z"
meta:
  description: "A CES comparison evaluates 300 matched respondents on 27 binary, ordinal and multiselect questions, separating aggregate fit from individual prediction."
  "og:description": "A CES comparison evaluates 300 matched respondents on 27 binary, ordinal and multiselect questions, separating aggregate fit from individual prediction."
  "og:title": "CES 2024: Survey Fit Across Multiple Question Forms | Minds"
  "twitter:description": "A CES comparison evaluates 300 matched respondents on 27 binary, ordinal and multiselect questions, separating aggregate fit from individual prediction."
  "twitter:title": "CES 2024: Survey Fit Across Multiple Question Forms | Minds"
---

Minds

September 5, 2026·Validation·Minds Team # **CES 2024: Survey Fit Across Multiple Question Forms** A CES comparison evaluates 300 matched respondents on 27 binary, ordinal and multiselect questions, separating aggregate fit from individual prediction. The CES 2024 test reached 95.28% aggregate approximation with profile-probability answers, equivalent to 4.72 percentage points of mean distribution error. Across the response-format comparison, probability elicitation reduced error by a registered bootstrap estimate of 19.72 points relative to forced answers. The study extends the survey evidence beyond a single question form. It also shows why a final approximation score must be accompanied by matched baselines. ## The evaluated questionnaire The comparison used 300 matched CES respondents and 27 held-out questions: 15 ordinal, 10 binary and two multiselect batteries. Earlier respondent information provided context; the evaluation answers remained held out from generation. The four conditions were generic forced choice, generic probabilities or marginals, demographic probability, and full-profile probability. Multiselect options require marginal probabilities because a respondent may choose more than one option. Their interpretation differs from a single-choice probability vector. ## The measured distributions_### **Mean item absolute error** Reported results for this study. The table and discussion retain the study scope, baselines and uncertainty._- Generic forced choice**26.927**