The analysis of randomized response sum score variables

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 21-30

  Cruyff, Maarten J L F ^a   Van Den Hout, Ardo ^b   Van Der Heijden, Peter G M ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MRC BIOSTATISTICS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Proportional odds model; Randomized response; Regulatory non compliance; Sum score variable

Indexed keywords

EID: 37849002873     PISSN: 13697412     EISSN: 14679868     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00624.x     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Böckenholt, U. van der Heijden, P. G. M. (2007) Item randomized-response models for measuring noncompliance: risk-return perceptions, social influences, and self-protective responses. Psychometrika, 72, 245 262.
2. Boruch, R. F. (1971) Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a note on strategies. Am. Sociol., 6, 308 311.
3. Elffers, H., van der Heijden, P. G. M. Hezemans, M. (2003) Explaining regulatory noncompliance: a survey study of rule transgression for two Dutch instrumental laws, applying the randomized-response method. J. Quant. Crimin., 4, 409 439.
4. Fox, J. P. (2005) Randomized item response theory models. J. Educ. Behav. Statist., 30, 1 24.
5. van Gils, G., van der Heijden, P. G. M., Laudy, O. Ross, R. (2003) Regelovertreding in de Sociale Zekerheid. The Hague : Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment.
6. Horvitz, D. G., Shah, B. V. Simmons, W. R. (1967) The unrelated question randomized response model. Proc. Socl Statist. Sec. Am. Statist. Ass., 65 72.
7. van den Hout, A. van der Heijden, P. G. M. (2002) Randomized response, statistical disclosure control and misclassification: a review. Int. Statist. Rev., 70, 269 288.
8. van den Hout, A., van der Heijden, P. G. M Gilchrist, R 2007) The logistic regression model with response variables subject to randomized response. Computnl Statist. Data Anal., 51, 6060 6069.
9. Kuha, J. Skinner, C. (1997) Categorical data analysis and misclassification error. In Survey Measurement and Process Quality (eds L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz D. Trewin). New York : Wiley.
10. Kuk, A. Y. C. (1990) Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika, 77, 436 438.
11. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., van der Heijden, P. G. M., Laudy, O. van Gils, G. (2006) A validation of a computer-assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security. J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 169, 305 318.
12. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M. Maas, C. (2005) Meta-analysis of randomized response research, thirty-five years of validation. Sociol. Meth. Res., 33, 319 348.
13. Maddala, G. (1983) Limited Dependent and Quantitative Variables in Econometrics. New York : Cambridge University Press.
14. McCullagh, P. (1980) Regression models for ordinal data (with discussion). J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 42, 109 142.
15. Peterson, B. Harrell, Jr., F. E. (1990) Partial proportional odds models for ordinal response variables. Appl. Statist., 39, 205 217.
16. Scheers, N. J. Dayton, C. M. (1988) Covariate randomized response models. J. Am. Statist. Ass., 83, 969 974.
17. Warner, S. L. (1965) Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating answer bias. J. Am. Statist. Ass., 60, 63 69.