Elaborate item count questioning: Why do people underreport in item count responses?

Survey Research Methods

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 139-149

  Tsuchiya, Takahiro ^a   Hirai, Yoko ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS   (Japan)

^b TOKYO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Check all that apply; Indirect questioning technique; Item count technique; Order effect; Underreporting effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883621640     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18643361     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Biemer, P., & Brown, G. (2005). Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 287-308.
2. Biemer, P. P., & Wright, D. (2004). Estimating cocaine use using the item count methodology: Preliminary results from the national survey on drug use and health. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Phoenix, AZ.
3. Cruyff, M. J. L. F., van den Hout, A., van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Böckenholt, U. (2007). Log-linear randomized-response models taking self-protective response behavior into account. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 266-282.
4. Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Wimbush, J. C. (1997). Collecting "sensitive" data in business ethics research: A case for the unmatched count technique (UCT). Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1049-1057.
5. Dalton, D. R., Wimbush, J. C., & Daily, C. M. (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 47, 817-828.
6. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. J. (2003). Multiple answer questions in self-administered surveys: The use of check-all-that-apply and forced-choice question formats. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association. San Francisco, CA.
8. Droitcour, J., 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. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement Errors in Surveys (p. 185-210). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Mitofsky, W. J., & Edelman, M. (1995). A review of the 1992 VRS exit polls. In P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Traugott, & P. V. Miller (Eds.), Presidential Polls and the News Media (p. 81-100). Colorado: Westview Press.
10. Morrison, R. L., Dillman, D. A., & Christian, L. M. (2010). Questionnaire design guidelines for establishment surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 26, 43-85.
11. Rasinski, K., Mingay, D., & Bradburn, N. (1994). Do respondents really "mark all that apply" on self-administered questions? Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 400-408.
12. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
13. Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). Does "Yes or No" on the telephone mean the same as "Check-All-That-Apply" on the web? Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 103-113.
14. Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. J. (2006). Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 66-77.
15. Sniderman, P. M., & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377-399.
16. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking Questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Thomas, R. K., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Merely incidental?: Effects of response format on self-reported behavior. Journal of Official Statistics, 22, 221-244.
18. Tsuchiya, T., Hirai, Y., & Ono, S. (2007a). An empirical study of item count technique based on face-to-face interviews: Some suggestions for its application. Proceedings of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 55(1), 159-175. (in Japanese)
19. Tsuchiya, T., Hirai, Y., & Ono, S. (2007b). A study on the properties of the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 253-272.
20. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63-69.
21. Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (1997). Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 756-763.