IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v33y2005i3p319-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research

Author

Listed:
  • Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders
  • Joop J. Hox
  • Peter G. M. van der Heijden
  • Cora J. M. Maas

    (Utrecht University, the Netherlands)

Abstract

This article discusses two meta-analyses on randomized response technique (RRT) studies, the first on 6 individual validation studies and the second on 32 comparative studies. The meta-analyses focus on the performance of RRTs compared to conventional question-and-answer methods. The authors use the percentage of incorrect answers as effect size for the individual validation studies and the standardized difference score (d-probit) as effect size for the comparative studies. Results indicate that compared to other methods, randomized response designs result in more valid data. For the individual validation studies, the mean percentage of incorrect answers for the RRT condition is .38; for the other conditions, it is .49. The more sensitive the topic under investigation, the higher the validity of RRT results. However, both meta-analyses have unexplained residual variances across studies, which indicates that RRTs are not completely under the control of the researcher.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Joop J. Hox & Peter G. M. van der Heijden & Cora J. M. Maas, 2005. "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(3), pages 319-348, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:33:y:2005:i:3:p:319-348
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124104268664
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124104268664
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124104268664?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. Buchman, Ta & Tracy, Ja, 1982. "Obtaining Responses To Sensitive Questions - Conventional Questionnaire Versus Randomized-Response Technique," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 263-271.
    2. Johannes Landsheer & Peter Van Der Heijden & Ger Van Gils, 1999. "Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhisheng Duan & Jinzhi Wang & Lin Huang, 2006. "Some Special Decentralized Control Problems In Continuous-Time Interconnected Systems," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 277-286.
    2. Clarke, George, 2011. "Lying about firm performance: Evidence from a survey in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 35382, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Bernard GAUTHIER & Frédéric LESNÉ, 2017. "Measuring corruption in presence of reticent respondents: Theory and Application," Working Papers P207, FERDI.
    4. Isabel Thielmann & Daniel W. Heck & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2016. "Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 527-536, September.
    5. Blume, Andreas & Lai, Ernest K. & Lim, Wooyoung, 2019. "Eliciting private information with noise: The case of randomized response," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 356-380.
    6. Shu-Hui Hsieh & Shen-Ming Lee & Chin-Shang Li & Su-Hao Tu, 2016. "An alternative to unrelated randomized response techniques with logistic regression analysis," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 25(4), pages 601-621, November.
    7. Rupa Chanda, 2008. "India And Services Outsourcing In Asia," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 53(03), pages 419-447.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:527-536 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Sheabo Dessalegn, S., 2017. "Social capital and maternal health care use in rural Ethiopia," Other publications TiSEM bb0ec225-4ec3-4028-90d6-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Clarke, George, 2012. "Do reticent managers lie during firm surveys?," MPRA Paper 37634, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Qiu, Shi-Fang & Zou, G.Y. & Tang, Man-Lai, 2014. "Sample size determination for estimating prevalence and a difference between two prevalences of sensitive attributes using the non-randomized triangular design," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-169.
    12. Jensen, Nathan M & Rahman, Aminur, 2011. "The silence of corruption : identifying underreporting of business corruption through randomized response techniques," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5696, The World Bank.
    13. Shu-Hui Hsieh & Shen-Ming Lee & Su-Hao Tu, 2018. "Randomized response techniques for a multi-level attribute using a single sensitive question," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 291-306, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Littrell, Jill & Lyons, Peter, 2010. "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder: Part I -- Is it related to classical Bipolar," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 945-964, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    3. U. N. Umesh & Robert A. Peterson, 1991. "A Critical Evaluation of the Randomized Response Method," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 104-138, August.
    4. Diana Lara & Jennifer Strickler & Claudia Díaz Olavarrieta & Charlotte Ellertson, 2004. "Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 32(4), pages 529-558, May.
    5. Blume, Andreas & Lai, Ernest K. & Lim, Wooyoung, 2019. "Eliciting private information with noise: The case of randomized response," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 356-380.
    6. Mohannad Obeid Al Shbail, 2018. "The Effect of Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict on Dysfunctional Audit Behaviour: Evidence from Jordan," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 8(3), pages 17-25, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Lawrence A. Ponemon, 1992. "Auditor underreporting of time and moral reasoning: An experimental lab study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 171-189, September.
    9. Kuo-Chung Huang & Chun-Hsiung Lan & Mei-Pei Kuo, 2005. "Detecting Untruthful Answering in Randomized Response Sampling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 659-669, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Felix Wolter & Peter Preisendörfer, 2013. "Asking Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 321-353, August.
    12. Ulf Böckenholt & Peter van der Heijden, 2007. "Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 245-262, June.
    13. PETER G. M. van der HEIJDEN & GER van GILS & JAN BOUTS & JOOP J. HOX, 2000. "A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 505-537, May.
    14. Hwee Ping Koh & Glennda Scully & David R. Woodliff, 2018. "Can Anticipating Time Pressure Reduce the Likelihood of Unethical Behaviour Occurring?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 197-213, November.
    15. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    16. Kirchner Antje, 2015. "Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(1), pages 31-59, March.
    17. Lawrence A. Ponemon, 1992. "La sous†évaluation du temps de travail et le raisonnement moral chez les vérificateurs: laboratoire expérimental," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 190-211, September.

    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:sae:somere:v:33:y:2005:i:3:p:319-348. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.