IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/csb/stintr/v12y2011i2p331-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finite mixtures model approach to sensitive questions in surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Artem Shcherbina
  • Rostyslav Maiboroda

Abstract

Observations from mixtures of different subpopulations are common in biological and sociological studies. We consider the case, when the observations are taken from a set of groups containing subjects, which belong to different subpopulations. Proportion of each subpopulation in a group is known and can vary from group to group. Our aim is to estimate the means of an observed variable for subjects, which belong to each subpopulation. In this paper we consider the case, when subpopulations are defined by answers on so called “sensitive questions”. We consider some parametric and nonparametric estimates of the subpopulation means, such as weighted means, maximum likelihood and weighted least squares estimates. Finite sample properties of these estimates are analyzed. Mean square errors of the estimates are compared on simulated data. Some asymptotic results are also given.

Suggested Citation

  • Artem Shcherbina & Rostyslav Maiboroda, 2011. "Finite mixtures model approach to sensitive questions in surveys," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 12(2), pages 331-344, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:csb:stintr:v:12:y:2011:i:2:p:331-344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://index.stat.gov.pl/repec/files/csb/stintr/csb_stintr_v12_2011_i2_n9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gueorguiev, Dimitar & Malesky, Edmund, 2012. "Foreign investment and bribery: A firm-level analysis of corruption in Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 111-129.
    2. Coutts Elisabethen & Jann Ben & Krumpal Ivar & Näher Anatol-Fiete, 2011. "Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 749-760, October.
    3. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann & Andreas Diekmann, 2014. "Online Survey on "Exams and Written Papers". Documentation," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 8, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 06 Oct 2014.
    4. Wu, Tao & Delios, Andrew & Chen, Zhaowei & Wang, Xin, 2023. "Rethinking corruption in international business: An empirical review," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 58(2).
    5. Monika Frenger & Eike Emrich & Werner Pitsch, 2019. "Corruption in Olympic Sports: Prevalence Estimations of Match Fixing Among German Squad Athletes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    6. James E. Prieger, 2023. "Tax noncompliance: The role of tax morale in smokers' behavior," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 653-673, October.
    7. Klaus Friesenbichler & George Clarke & Michael Wong, 2014. "Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 5-21, February.
    8. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    9. Friesenbichler, Klaus S. & Selenko, Eva & Clarke, George R.G., 2015. "How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control," MPRA Paper 67331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Jouni Kuha & Jonathan Jackson, 2014. "The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behaviour," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 321-341, February.
    11. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    12. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2019. "Consumers as VAT “Evaders”: Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 21-67, April.
    13. Andrew Delios & Edmund J. Malesky & Shu Yu & Griffin Riddler, 2024. "Methodological errors in corruption research: Recommendations for future research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(2), pages 235-251, March.
    14. Vincenzo Galasso & Vincent Pons & Paola Profeta & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault, 2020. "Gender Differences in COVID-19 Related Attitudes and Behavior: Evidence from a Panel Survey in Eight OECD Countries," NBER Working Papers 27359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Katherine B. Coffman & Lucas C. Coffman & Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2017. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3168-3186, October.
    16. John, Leslie K. & Loewenstein, George & Acquisti, Alessandro & Vosgerau, Joachim, 2018. "When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 101-123.
    17. Katherine I. Tierney, 2019. "Abortion Underreporting in Add Health: Findings and Implications," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(3), pages 417-428, June.
    18. Liu, Yin & Tian, Guo-Liang, 2013. "A variant of the parallel model for sample surveys with sensitive characteristics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 115-135.
    19. Andreas Quatember, 2023. "Efficient item count techniques with one or two lists," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(1), pages 5-19, April.
    20. Andreas Quatember, 2019. "A discussion of the two different aspects of privacy protection in indirect questioning designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 269-282, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:csb:stintr:v:12:y:2011:i:2:p:331-344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Beata Witek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gusgvpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.