Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data Cover

Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data

Journal of Official Statistics
Volume 31 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)
By: Antje Kirchner  
Open Access
|Mar 2015

References

  1. AAPOR - The American Association for Public Opinion Research 2011. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th Ed. Lanexo: AAPOR.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Angrist, J.D., G.W. Imbens, and D.B. Rubin. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444-455. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Aquilino, W.S. 1994. “Interview Mode Effects in Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use: A Field Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 210-240. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/269419.10.1086/269419
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Bartus, T. 2005. “Estimation of Marginal Effects Using Margeff.” The Stata Journal 5: 309-329.10.1177/1536867X0500500303
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Biemer, P.P. 2010. “Overview of Design Issues: Total Survey Error.” In Handbook of Survey Research, edited by P.P. Biemer, P.V. Marsden, and J.D. Wright, 27-57.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group Limited.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Boeije, H. and G.J.L.M. Lensvelt-Mulders. 2002. “Honest by Chance: A Qualitative Interview Study to Clarify Respondents' (Non-)compliance with Computer-Assisted- Randomized Response.” Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 75: 24-39.10.1177/075910630207500104
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Boruch, R.F. 1971. “Assuring Confidentiality of Responses in Social Research: A Note on Strategies.” The American Sociologist 6: 308-311.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Bradburn, N., S. Sudman, and B. Wansink. 2004. Asking Questions. Revised Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Bullock, H.E. 2006. “Attributions for Poverty: A Comparison of Middle-Class and Welfare Recipient Attitudes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 2059-2082.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x.10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02295.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Böckenholt, U., S. Barlas, and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2009. “Do Randomized-Response Designs Eliminate Response Biases? An Empirical Study of Non-Compliance Behavior.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 24: 377-392. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jae.1052.10.1002/jae.1052
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Böckenholt, U. and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2007. “Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self- Protective Responses.” Psychometrika 72: 245-262. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11336-005-1495-y.10.1007/s11336-005-1495-y
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Cialdini, R.B. 2007. “Descriptive Social Norms as Underappreciated Sources of Social Control.” Psychometrika 72: 263-268. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11336- 006-1560-6.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Clark, S.J. and R.A. Desharnais. 1998. “Honest Answers to Embarrassing Questions: Detecting Cheating in the Randomized Response Model.” Psychological Methods 3: 160-168. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.160.10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.160
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 2. Hillshale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Coutts, E. and B. Jann. 2011. “Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count 54 Journal of Official Statistics Technique (UCT).” Sociological Methods & Research 40: 169-193. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124110390768.10.1177/0049124110390768
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Coutts, E., B. Jann, I. Krumpal, and A.-F. Näher. 2011. “Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions.” Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik) 231: 749-760.10.1515/jbnst-2011-5-612
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. De Jong, M.G., R. Pieters, and S. Stremersch. 2012. “Analysis of Sensitive Questions Across Cultures: An Application of Multigroup Item Randomized Response Theory to Sexual Attitudes and Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19: 153-176. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029394.10.1037/a0029394
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. De Leeuw, E.D. and J. van der Zouwen. 1988. “Data Quality in Telephone and Face to Face Surveys: A Comparative Metaanalysis.” In Telephone Survey Methodology, edited by R.M. Groves, P.P. Biemer, L.E. Lyberg, J.T. Massey, W.L. Nicholls, and J. Waksberg, 283-299. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. De Schrijver, A. 2012. “Sample Survey on Sensitive Topics: Investigating Respondents' Understanding and Trust in Alternative Versions of the Randomized Response Technique.” Journal of Research Practice 8: 1-17.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Fidler, D.S. and R.E. Kleinknecht. 1977. “Randomized Response versus Direct Questioning: Two Data-Collection Methods for Sensitive Information.” Psychological Bulletin 84: 1045-1049. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.1045.10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.1045
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Fox, J.A. and P.E. Tracy. 1986. Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Ganzeboom, H.B.G., P.M. De Graaf, and D.J. Treiman. 1992. “A Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status.” Social Science Research 21: 1-56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B.10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Greenberg, B.G., A.L.A. Abul-Ela, W.R. Simmons, and D.G. Horvitz. 1969. “The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model: Theoretical Framework.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 64: 520-539. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01621459.1969.10500991.10.1080/01621459.1969.10500991
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Greenberg, B.G., R.R. Kuebler Jr., J.R. Abernathy, and D.G.G. Horvitz. 1971. “Application of the Randomized Response Technique in Obtaining Quantitative Data.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 243-250. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01621459.1971.10482248.10.1080/01621459.1971.10482248
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Groves, R.M. 2004 [1989]. Survey Error and Survey Costs. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Groves, R.M., F.J. Fowler, J.M. Lepkowski, E. Singer, and R. Tourangeau. 2009. Survey Methodology. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Hausman, J. 2001. “Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems From the Right and Problems from the Left.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 57-67.10.1257/jep.15.4.57
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Hendrickx, J. 2002. “ISKO: Stata Module to Recode 4 Digit ISCO-88 Occupational Codes, Statistical Software Components s425802.” Boston College Department of Economics. revised 20 Oct 2004. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/ s425802.html (accessed February 14, 2015).
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Holbrook, A.L., M.C. Green, and J.A. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires. Comparisons Kirchner: Validating Sensitive Questions 55 of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79-125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/346010.10.1086/346010
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Holbrook, A.L. and J.A. Krosnick. 2010. “Measuring Voter Turnout by Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence Calling into Question the Method's Validity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 328-343. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/ nfq012.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Holtgraves, T. 2004. “Social Desirability and Self-Reports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable Responding.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 161-172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259930.10.1177/014616720325993015030631
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Horvitz, D.G., B.V. Shah, and W.R. Simmons. 1967. “The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model.” In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association, 65-72.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Höglinger, M., B. Jann, and A. Diekmann. 2014. Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model. University of Bern Social Science Working Paper No. 9, 1-51. Available at: ftp://repec.sowi.unibe.ch/files/wp9/hoeglinger-jann-diekmann-2014.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014).
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Jacobebbinghaus, P. and S. Seth. 2007. “The German Integrated Employment Biographies Sample IEBS.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 127: 335-342.10.3790/schm.127.2.335
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Jann, B. 2011. “Rrlogit: Stata module to estimate logistic regression for randomized response data.” Statistical SoftwareComponents, Boston College Department of Economics. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456203.html (accessed February 14, 2015).
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Jann, B., J. Jerke and I. Krumpal. 2012. “Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Crosswise Model. An Experimental Survey Measuring Plagiarism.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71: 32-49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr036.10.1093/poq/nfr036
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Kirchner, A. 2014. Techniques for Asking Sensitive Question in Labor Market Surveys. IAB-Bibliothek Dissertationen, 348. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Available at: http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17192/1/Kirchner_Antje.pdf (accessed February 14, 2015).
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Kirchner, A., I. Krumpal, M. Trappmann, and H. von Hermanni. 2013. “Messung und Erklärung von Schwarzarbeit in Deutschland - Eine empirische Befragungsstudie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Problems der sozialen Erwünschtheit.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42: 291-314.10.1515/zfsoz-2013-0403
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Korndörfer, M., I. Krumpal, and S.C. Schmukle. 2014. “Measuring and Explaining Tax Evasion: Improving Self-Reports Using the Crosswise Model.” Journal of Economic Psychology 45: 18-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.08.001.10.1016/j.joep.2014.08.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Kreuter, F., G. Müller, and M. Trappmann. 2010. “Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment Research: Making Use of Administrative Data.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 880-906. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq060.10.1093/poq/nfq060
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Kreuter, F., G. Müller, and M. Trappmann. 2014. “A Note on Mechanisms Leading to Lower Data Quality of Late or Reluctant Respondents.” Sociological Methods and Research 43: 452-464. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113508094.10.1177/0049124113508094
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Krosnick, J.A. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5: 213-236. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305. 56 Journal of Official Statistics Krumpal, I. 2012. “Estimating the Prevalence of Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism in Germany: A Comparison of Randomized Response and Direct Questioning.” Social Science Research 41: 1387-1403. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.015.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.05.01523017963
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Kuk, A.Y.C. 1990. “Asking Sensitive Questions Indirectly.” Biometrika 77: 436-438. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/77.2.436.10.1093/biomet/77.2.436
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Lamb, C.W. and D.E. Stem. 1978. “An Empirical Validation of the Randomized Response Technique.” Journal of Marketing Research 15: 616-621.10.1177/002224377801500411
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Landsheer, J.A., P.G.M. van der Heijden, and G. van Gils. 1999. “Trust and Understanding. Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response. A Study of a Method for Improving the Estimate of Social Security Fraud.” Quality & Quantity 33: 1-12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004361819974.10.1023/A:1004361819974
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Lara, D., S.G. Garcýa, C. Ellertson, C. Camlin, and J. Suárez. 2006. “The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique.” Sociological Methods & Research 35: 279-301. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124106 290442.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Lara, D., J. Strickler, C.D. Olavarrieta, and C. Ellertson. 2004. “Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico.” Sociological Methods & Research 32: 529-558. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124103262685.10.1177/0049124103262685
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Lee, R.M. 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., J.J. Hox, P.G.M. van der Heijden, and C.J.M. Maas. 2005. “Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation.” Sociological Methods & Research 33: 319-348. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0049124104268664.10.1177/0049124104268664
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., J.J. Hox, and P.G.M. Van der Hejden. 2005b. “How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomized Response Designs.” Quality & Quantity 39: 253-265. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-0432-3.10.1007/s11135-004-0432-3
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., P.G.M. Van der Heijden, O. Laudy, and G. van Gils. 2006. “A Validation of Computer-Assisted Randomized Response Survey to Estimate the Prevalence of Undeclared Work in Social Security.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A) 169: 305-318.10.1111/j.1467-985X.2006.00404.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Locander, W., S. Sudman, and N. Bradburn. 1976. “An Investigation of Interview Method. Threat and Response Distortion.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 71: 269-275. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480332.10.1080/01621459.1976.10480332
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810176
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Mangat, N.S. 1994. “An Improved Randomized Response Strategy.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 56: 93-95.10.1111/j.2517-6161.1994.tb01962.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Mangat, N.S. and R. Singh. 1990. “An Alternative Randomized Response Procedure.” Biometrika 77: 439-442. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/77.2.439.10.1093/biomet/77.2.439
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Manzoni, A., J.K. Vermunt, R. Luijkx, and R. Muffels. 2010. “Memory Bias in Retrospectively Collected Employment Careers: A Model-Based Approach to Correct for Measurement Error.” Sociological Methodology 40: 39-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01230.x. Kirchner: Validating Sensitive Questions 57 Mood, C. 2010. “Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About it.” European Sociological Review 26: 67-82. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp006.10.1093/esr/jcp006
    Search in Google Scholar
  59. Moors, J.J.A. 1971. “Optimization of the Unrelated Randomized Response Model.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 627-629. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01621459.1971.10482320.10.1080/01621459.1971.10482320
    Search in Google Scholar
  60. Moshagen, M., E.B. Hilbig, E. Erdfelder, and A. Moritz. 2014. “An Experimental Validation Method for Questioning Techniques That Assess Sensitive Issues.” Experimental Psychology 61: 48-54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/ a000226.
    Search in Google Scholar
  61. Ostapczuk, M., M. Moshagen, Z. Zhao, and J. Musch. 2009. “Assessing Sensitive Attributes Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence for the Importance of Response Symmetry.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 43: 267-287. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/1076998609332747.10.3102/1076998609332747
    Search in Google Scholar
  62. Ostapczuk, M., J. Musch, and M. Moshagen. 2011. “Improving Self-Report Measures of Medication Non-Adherence Using a Cheating Detection Extension of the Randomized-Response Technique.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research 20: 489-503. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280210372843.10.1177/096228021037284320639269
    Search in Google Scholar
  63. Tourangeau, R. and K.A. Rasinski. 1988. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin 103: 299-314. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299.10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.299
    Search in Google Scholar
  64. Tourangeau, R., L.J. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response.10.1017/CBO9780511819322
    Search in Google Scholar
  65. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  66. Tourangeau, R. and T. Yan. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin 133: 859-883. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
    Search in Google Scholar
  67. Tracy, P.E. and J.A. Fox. 1981. “The Validity of Randomized Response for Sensitive Measurements.” American Sociological Review 46: 187-200.10.2307/2094978
    Search in Google Scholar
  68. Trappmann, M., S. Gundert, C. Wenzig, and D. Gebhardt. 2010. “PASS: A Household Panel Survey for Research on Unemployment and Poverty.” Schmollers Jahrbuch.10.3790/schm.130.4.609
    Search in Google Scholar
  69. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften 130: 609-622.
    Search in Google Scholar
  70. Umesh, U.N. and R.A. Peterson. 1991. “A Critical Evaluation of the Randomized Response Method: Applications, Validation, and Research Agenda.” Sociological Methods & Research 20: 104-138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004912419 1020001004.
    Search in Google Scholar
  71. Van den Hout, A., U. Böckenholt, and P.G.M. van der Heijden. 2010. “Estimating the Prevalence of Sensitive Behavior and Cheating with Dual Design for Direct Questioning and Randomized Response.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 59: 723-736. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.
    Search in Google Scholar
  72. 2010.00720.x.
    Search in Google Scholar
  73. Van der Heijden, P.G.M., G. van Gils, J. Bouts, and J.J. Hox. 2000. “A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning: Eliciting Sensitive Information in the Context of Welfare and Unemployment Benefit.” Sociological Methods & Research 28: 505-537. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124100028004005.10.1177/0049124100028004005
    Search in Google Scholar
  74. 58 Journal of Official Statistics Warner, S.L. 1965. “Randomized-Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63-69. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775.10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775
    Search in Google Scholar
  75. Weissman, A.N., R.A. Steer, and D.S. Lipton. 1986. “Estimating Illicit Drug Use Through Telephone Interviews and the Randomized Response Technique.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 18: 225-233. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-8716(86)90054-2.10.1016/0376-8716(86)90054-2
    Search in Google Scholar
  76. Wolter, F. 2012. Heikle Fragen in Interviews. Eine Validierung der Randomized Response-Technik. Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-531-19371-7
    Search in Google Scholar
  77. Wolter, F. and P. Preisendö rfer. 2013. “Asking Sensitive Questions: An Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique versus Direct Questioning Using Individual Validation Data.” Sociological Methods & Research 42: 321-353. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500474.10.1177/0049124113500474
    Search in Google Scholar
  78. Yu, J.-W., G.L. Tian, and M.L. Tang. 2008. “Two New Models for Survey Sampling With Sensitive Characteristic: Design and Analysis.” Metrika 67: 251-263. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x.10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2015-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2001-7367
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 31 - 59
Submitted on: Aug 1, 2013
|
Accepted on: Oct 1, 2014
|
Published on: Mar 1, 2015
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Randomized response technique,
social desirability,
validation data,
welfare receipt,
unemployment benefit II
Related subjects:
Mathematics,
Probability and statistics

© 2015 Antje Kirchner, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 31 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)Next article