Asking sensitive questions: A statistical power analysis of randomized response models

Psychological Methods

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 623-641

  Ulrich, Rolf ^a   Schröter, Hannes ^a   Striegel, Heiko ^a   Simon, Perikles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Randomized response technique; Statistical power analysis; Survey technique

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84874428455     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0029314     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Böckenholt, U., Barlas, S., & van der Heijden, P. G. M. (2009). Do randomized-response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non-compliance behavior. Journal of Applied Economics, 24, 377-392. doi:10.1002/jae.1052
2. 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. doi:10.1007/s11336-005-1495-y
3. Boruch, R. F. (1971). Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: A note on strategies. American Sociologist, 6, 308-311.
4. Clark, S. J., & Desharnais, R. A. (1998). Honest answers to embarrassing questions: Detecting cheating in the randomized response model. Psy-chological Methods, 3, 160-168. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.160
5. Coutts, E., & Jann, B. (2011). Sensitive questions in online surveys: Experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociological Methods and Re-search, 40, 169-193. doi:10.1177/0049124110390768
6. Curtin, S. C., & Park, M. M. (1999). Trends in the attendant, place, and timing of births, and in the use of obstetric interventions: United States, 1989-1997. National Vital Statistics Report, 47, 1-12.
7. Dowling, T. A., & Shachtman, R. H. (1975). On the relative efficiency of randomized response models. Journal of the American Statistical Asso-ciation, 70, 84-87.
8. Fox, J. F., & Tracy, P. E. (1986). Randomized response: A method for sensitive surveys. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Greenberg, B. G., Abul-Ela, A.-L. A., Simmons, W. R., & Horvitz, D. G. (1969). The unrelated question randomized response model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64, 520-539.
10. Hogg, R. V., McKean, J. W., & Craig, A. T. (2005). Introduction to mathematical statistics (6th ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson.
11. Horvitz, D. G., Greenberg, B. G., & Abernathy, J. R. (1976). Randomized response: A data-gathering device for sensitive questions. International Statistical Review, 44, 181-196. doi:10.2307/1403276
12. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Maas, C. J. M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 319-348. doi:10.1177/0049124104268664
13. Levy, K. J. (1976). Reducing the occurrence of omitted or untruthful responses when testing hypotheses concerning proportions. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 83, 759-761. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.759
14. Maller, R., & Zhou, X. (1996). Survival analysis with long-term survivors. Chichester, England: Wiley.
15. Mangat, N. S. (1994). An improved randomized-response strategy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 56, 93-95.
16. Moshagen, M., Musch, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2012). A stochastic lie detector. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 222-231. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0144-2
17. Moshagen, M., Musch, J., Martin, O., & Zao, Z. (2010). Reducing socially desirable responses in epidemiologic surveys. Epidemiology, 21, 379-382. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61dbc
18. Petróczi, A., Nespusz, T., Cross, P., Taft, H., Shah, S., Deshmukh, N.,Naughton, D. P. (2011). New non-randomised model to assess the prevalence of discrimination behaviour: A pilot study on mephedrone. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 6, 1-18. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-6-20
19. Pitsch, W., Emrich, E., & Klein, M. (2007). Doping in elite sports in Germany: Results of a www survey. European Journal for Sport and Society, 4, 89-102.
20. Striegel, H., Ulrich, R., & Simon, P. (2010). Randomized response esti-mates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 106, 230-232. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.07.026
21. van den Hout, A., Böckenholt, U., & van der Heijden, P. G. M. (2010). Estimating the prevalence of sensitive behaviour and cheating with a dual design for direct questioning and randomized response. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 59, 723-736.
22. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63-66
23. Yu, J.-W., Tian, G.-L., & Tang, M.-L. (2008). Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: Design and analysis. Metrika, 67, 251-263. doi:10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x