IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the influence of the probability of receiving the sensitive question on prevalence estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Pavel Dietz
  • Anne Quermann
  • Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel
  • Heiko Striegel
  • Hannes Schröter
  • Rolf Ulrich
  • Perikles Simon

Abstract

Study objectives: In order to increase the value of randomized response techniques (RRTs) as tools for studying sensitive issues, the present study investigated whether the prevalence estimate for a sensitive item π^s assessed with the unrelated questionnaire method (UQM) is influenced by changing the probability of receiving the sensitive question p. Material and methods: A short paper-and-pencil questionnaire was distributed to 1.243 university students assessing the 12-month prevalence of physical and cognitive doping using two versions of the UQM with different probabilities for receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3). Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess whether the prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping differed significantly between p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3. The order of questions (physical doping and cognitive doping) as well as the probability of receiving the sensitive question (p ≈ 1/3 or p ≈ 2/3) were counterbalanced across participants. Statistical power analyses were performed to determine sample size. Results: The prevalence estimate for physical doping with p ≈ 1/3 was 22.5% (95% CI: 10.8–34.1), and 12.8% (95% CI: 7.6–18.0) with p ≈ 2/3. For cognitive doping with p ≈ 1/3, the estimated prevalence was 22.5% (95% CI: 11.0–34.1), whereas it was 18.0% (95% CI: 12.5–23.5) with p ≈ 2/3. Likelihood-ratio tests revealed that prevalence estimates for both physical and cognitive doping, respectively, did not differ significantly under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3 (physical doping: χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13; cognitive doping: χ2 = 0.49, df = 1, p = 0.48). Bayes factors computed with the Savage-Dickey method favored the null (“the prevalence estimates are identical under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3”) over the alternative (“the prevalence estimates differ under p ≈ 1/3 and p ≈ 2/3”) hypothesis for both physical doping (BF = 2.3) and cognitive doping (BF = 5.3). Conclusion: The present results suggest that prevalence estimates for physical and cognitive doping assessed by the UQM are largely unaffected by the probability for receiving the sensitive question p.

Suggested Citation

  • Pavel Dietz & Anne Quermann & Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel & Heiko Striegel & Hannes Schröter & Rolf Ulrich & Perikles Simon, 2018. "Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the influence of the probability of receiving the sensitive question on prevalence estimation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197270
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197270
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197270&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197270?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerty Lensvelt-Mulders & Joop Hox & Peter Heijden, 2005. "How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomised Response Designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 253-265, June.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:527-536 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    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. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Kajal Dihidar & Joydeep Chowdhury, 2013. "Enhancing a Randomized Response Model to Estimate Population Means to Sensitive Questions," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 123-136, July.
    4. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    5. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.
    6. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    7. Kazuo Yamaguchi, 2016. "Cross-sectional and Panel Data Analyses of an Incompletely Observed Variable Derived From the Nonrandomized Method for Surveying Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(1), pages 41-68, February.
    8. Horng-Jinh Chang & Mei-Pei Kuo, 2012. "Estimation of population proportion in randomized response sampling using weighted confidence interval construction," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(5), pages 655-672, July.
    9. Mario Bossler & Christopher Osiander & Julia Schmidtke & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Free riding on short‐time work allowances? Results from an experimental survey design," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(4), pages 882-901, November.
    10. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    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. Carlos Barros & Vera Barros & Peter Dieke, 2012. "Tourism and Human Development in Mozambique: an analysis for Inhambane province," CEsA Working Papers 100, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    13. Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Truong-Nhat Le & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Prediction of a Sensitive Feature under Indirect Questioning via Warner’s Randomized Response Technique and Latent Class Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Felix Wolter & Peter Preisendörfer, 2013. "Asking Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 321-353, August.
    16. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    17. Geoff Kaine & Vic Wright, 2024. "Social Desirability Bias and the Prevalence of Self-Reported Conservation Behaviour Among Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    20. Guo-Liang Tian, 2014. "A new non-randomized response model: The parallel model," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(4), pages 293-323, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0197270. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.