An alternative item count technique in sensitive surveys;Una técnica alternativa de conteo de ítems en encuestas sensitivas

Revista Colombiana de Estadistica

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 39-54

  Hussain, Zawar ^a,b   Shah, Ejaz Ali ^b   Shabbir, Javid ^b  

^a KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

^b QUAID I AZAM UNIVERSITY   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

Health surveys; Privacy; Proportion estimation; Randomized response; Sensitive question

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862499663     PISSN: 01201751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ahart, A. M. & Sackett, P. R. (2004), 'A new method for examining relationships between individual difference measures and sensitive behavior criteria: Evaluating the unmatched count technique', Organizational Research Methods 7(1), 101-114.
2. Biemer, P. P. & Wright, D. (2004), Estimating cocaine use using the item count methodology, in 'Preliminary results form the national Survey on drug use and Health', Annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion research, Phoenix, Arizona.
3. Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M. & Ware, J. E. (2003), 'Using item response theory to calibrate the headache impact test (hit™) to the metric of traditional headache scales', Quality of Life Research 12, 981-1002.
4. Bonetti, P. O., Waeckerlin, A., Schuepfer, G. & Frutiger, A. (2000), 'Improving time-sensitive processes in the intensive care unit: The example of 'door-toneedle time' in acute myocardial infarction', International Journal for Quality in Health Care 12(4), 311-317.
5. Chaudhuri, A. & Christofides, T. C. (2007), 'Item count technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature', Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137(2), 589-593.
6. Chaudhuri, A. & Mukherjee, R. (1988), Randomized Response: Theory and Methods, Marcel-Decker, New York.
7. Dalton, D. R. & Metzger, M. (1992), 'Integrity testing for personal selection: An unsparing perspective', Journal of Business Ethics 12, 147-156.
8. Dalton, D. R., Wimbush, J. C. & Daily, C. M. (1994), 'Using the unmatched count technique (uct) to estimate the base rates for sensitive behavior', Personnel Psychology 47, 817-828.
9. Droitcour, J. A., Caspar, R. A., Hubbard, M. L., Parsley, T. L., Visscher, W. & Ezzati, T. M. (1991), The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: A review of its development and a case study application, in P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz & S. Sudman, eds, 'Measurement Errors in Serveys', Wiley, New York.
10. Droitcour, J. A. & Larson, E. M. (2002), 'An innovative technique for asking sensitive questions: The three card method', Sociological Methodological Bulletin 75, 5-23.
11. Droitcour, J. A., Larson, E. M. & Scheuren, F. J. (2001), The three card method: Estimating sensitive survey items with permanent anonymity of response, in 'Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section', American Statistical Association, Alexandria, Virginia.
12. Geurts, M. D. (1980), 'Using a randomized response design to eliminate nonresponse and response biases in business research', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 8, 83-91.
13. Hubbard, M. L., Casper, R. A. & Lessler, J. T. (1989), Respondents' reactions to item count lists and randomized response, in 'Proceedings of the Survey Research Section', American Statistical Association, Washington, D. C., pp. 544-448.
14. Larkins, E. R., Hume, E. C. & Garcha, B. S. (1997), 'Validity of randomized response method in tax ethics research', Journal of the Applied Business Research 13, 25-32.
15. Liu, P. T. & Chow, L. P. (1976), 'A new discrete quantitative randomized response model', Journal of the American Statistical Association 71, 72-73.
16. Martin, M., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Ware, J. E. & MacLean, R. (2007), 'Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale', Quality of Life Research 16, 647-660.
17. Miller, J. D. (1985), 'The nominative technique: A new method of estimating heroin prevalence', NIDA Research Monograph 54, 104-124.
18. Reinmuth, J. E. & Geurts, M. D. (1975), 'The collection of sensitive information using a two stage randomized response model', Journal of Marketing Research 12, 402-407.
19. Tracy, D. & Mangat, N. (1996), 'Some development in randomized response sampling during the last decade-a follow up of review by Chaudhuri and Mukerjee', Journal of Applied Statistical Science 4, 533-544.
20. Tsuchiya, T. (2005), 'Domain estimators for the item count technique', Survey Methodology 31, 41-51.
21. Tsuchiya, T., Hirai, Y. & Ono, S. (2007), 'A study of the properties of the item count technique', Public Opinion Quarterly 71, 253-272.
22. Warner, S. L. (1965), 'Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias', Journal of the American Statistical Association 60, 63-69.
23. Wimbush, J. C. & Dalton, D. R. (1997), 'Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods', Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 756-763.