Item sum: A new technique for asking quantitative sensitive questions

Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 58-77

  Trappmann, Mark ^a   Krumpal, Ivar ^b   Kirchner, Antje ^c   Jann, Ben ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAMBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013793249     PISSN: 23250984     EISSN: 23250992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jssam/smt019     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ahart, A. M., and P. R. Sackett (2004), "A New Method of Examining Relationships between Individual Difference Measures and Sensitive Behavior Criteria: Evaluating the Unmatched Count Technique," Organizational Research Methods, 7, 101-114.
2. American Association for Public Opinion Research (2011), Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys (7th ed.), Deerfield, IL: AAPOR.
3. 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.
4. Biemer, P. P., B. K. Jordan, M. L. Hubbard, and D. Wright (2005), "A Test of the Item Count Methodology for Estimating Cocaine Use Prevalence," in Evaluating and Improving Methods Used in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, eds. Kennet, J., and J. Gfroerer, 8. A necessary assumption for the ITT estimate to be consistent is that the respondents opting out of the short-list sample (who are completely discarded in our ITT estimation procedure) are not systematically different from the respondents opting out of the long-list group. This assumption appears plausible in our case because respondents did not know which of the two IST groups they were assigned to when deciding to opt for DQ (we also tested the assumption by comparing the outcomes for the two subgroups; no significant differences were found). pp. 149-174, Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
5. Blair, G., and K. Imai (2012), "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, 20, 47-77.
6. Corstange, D. (2009), "Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT," Political Analysis, 17, 45-63.
7. Coutts, E., and B. Jann (2011), "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys. Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods and Research, 40, 169-193.
8. Dalton, D. R., J. C. Wimbush, and C. M. Daily (1994), "Using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) to Estimate Base Rates for Sensitive Behavior," Personnel Psychology, 47, 817-828.
9. Davison, A. C., and D. V. Hinkley (1997), Bootstrap Methods and Their Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. De Leeuw, E. D., J. Hox, and M. Huisman (2003), "Prevention and Treatment of Item Nonresponse," Journal of Official Statistics, 19, 153-176.
11. Diekmann, A. (2012), "Making Use of 'Benford's Law' for the Randomized Response Technique," Sociological Methods and Research, 41, 325-334.
12. Droitcour, J., R. A. Caspar, M. L. Hubbard, T. L. Parsely, W. Visscher, and T. M. Ezzati (1991), "The Item Count Technique as a Method of Indirect Questioning: A Review of its Development and a Case Study Application," in Measurement Errors in Surveys, eds. Biemer, P., R. M. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, pp. 185-210, New York: Wiley.
13. Eichhorn, B. H., and L. S. Hayre (1983), "Scrambled Randomized Response Methods for Obtaining Sensitive Quantitative Data," Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 7, 307-316.
14. Fox, J. A., and P. E. Tracy (1986), Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Gjestvang, C. R., and S. Singh (2007), "Forced Quantitative Randomized Response Model: A New Device," Metrika, 66, 243-257.
16. Glynn, A. N. (2013), "What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum? Design and Analysis of the List Experiment," Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 159-172.
17. Himmelfarb, S., and S. E. Edgell (1980), "Additive Constants Model: A Randomized Response Technique for Eliminating Evasiveness to Quantitative Response Questions," Psychological Bulletin, 87, 525-530.
18. Holbrook, A. L., and J. A. Krosnick (2010a), "Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using the Item Count Technique," Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 37-67.
19. Holbrook, A. L.,(2010b), "Measuring Voter Turnout by Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence Calling into Question the Method' s Validity," Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 328-343.
20. Hollis, S., and F. Campbell (1999), "What Is Meant by Intention to Treat Analysis? Survey of Published Randomised Controlled Trials," British Medical Journal, 319, 670-674.
21. Knäuper, B. (1998), "Filter Questions and Question Interpretation: Presuppositions at Work," Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 70-78.
22. Kreuter, F., G. Müller, and M. Trappmann (2011), "Nonresponse and Measurement Error in Employment Research: Making Use of Administrative Data," Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 880-906.
23. Krumpal, I. (2013), "Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review," Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025-2047.
24. Kuklinski, J. H., P. M. Sniderman, K. Knight, T. Piazza, P. E. Tetlock, G. E. Lawrence, and M. Mellers (1996), "Racial Prejudice and Attitudes toward Affirmative Action," American Journal of Political Science, 41, 402-419.
25. La Brie, J. W., and M. Earleywine (2000), "Sexual Risk Behaviors and Alcohol: Higher Base Rates Revealed Using the Unmatched-count Technique," Journal of Sex Research, 37, 321-326.
26. Lee, R. M. (1993), Doing Research on Sensitive Topics, London: Sage.
27. Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J., J. J. Hox, P. G. Van der Heijden, and C. J. Maas (2005), "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation," Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 319-348.
28. Newell, D. J. (1992), "Intention-to-Treat Analysis: Implications for Quantitative and Qualitative Research," International Journal of Epidemiology, 21, 837-841.
29. Pedersen, S. (2003), The Shadow Economy in Germany, Great Britain and Scandinavia: A Measurement Based on Questionnaire Surveys, Copenhagen: Rockwool Foundation Research Unit.
30. Raghavarao, D., and W. T. Federer (1979), "Block Total Response as an Alternative to the Randomized Response Method in Surveys," Journal ofthe Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology), 41, 40-45.
31. Rayburn, N. R., M. Earleywine, and G. C. Davison (2003), "Base Rates of Hate Crime Victimization among College Students," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1209-1221.
32. Sakshaug, J. W., and F. Kreuter (2012), "Assessing the Magnitude of Non-Consent Biases in Linked Survey and Administrative Data," Survey Research Methods, 6, 113-122.
33. Schneider, F., and D. H. Enste (2007), The Shadow Economy. An International Survey, New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Schwarz, N., H. J. Hippler, B. Deutsch, and F. Strack (1985), "Response Categories: Effects on Behavioral Reports and Comparative Judgments," Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 388-395.
35. Schwarz, N., and S. Sudman (1992), Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, New York: Springer.
36. Smith, L. L., W. T. Federer, and D. Raghavarao (1975), "A Comparison of Three Techniques for Eliciting Truthful Answers to Sensitive Questions," in Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section 1974, pp. 447-452, Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
37. Tourangeau, R., L. J. Rips, and K. Rasinski (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response, New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. Tourangeau, R., and T. Yan (2007), "Sensitive Questions in Surveys," Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859-883.
39. Tsuchiya, T., and Y. Hirai (2010), "Elaborate Item Count Questioning: Why Do People Underreport in Item Count Responses?" Survey Research Methods, 4, 139-149.
40. Tsuchiya, T., Y. Hirai, and S. Ono (2007), "A Study of the Properties of the Item Count Technique," Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 253-272.
41. Warner, S. L. (1965), "Randomized-Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63-69.
42. Williams, C. C. (2009), "Formal and Informal Employment in Europe: Beyond Dualistic Representations," European Urban and Regional Studies, 16, 147-159.
43. Wimbush, J. C., and D. R. Dalton (1997), "Base Rate for Employee Theft: Convergence of Multiple Methods," Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 756-763.