IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/alstar/v102y2018i3d10.1007_s10182-017-0315-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys

Author

Listed:
  • María del Mar García Rueda

    (University of Granada)

  • Pier Francesco Perri

    (University of Calabria)

  • Beatriz Rodríguez Cobo

    (University of Granada)

Abstract

To collect sensitive data, survey statisticians have designed many strategies to reduce nonresponse rates and social desirability response bias. In recent years, the item count technique has gained considerable popularity and credibility as an alternative mode of indirect questioning survey, and several variants of this technique have been proposed as new needs and challenges arise. The item sum technique (IST), which was introduced by Chaudhuri and Christofides (Indirect questioning in sample surveys, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2013) and Trappmann et al. (J Surv Stat Methodol 2:58–77, 2014), is one such variant, used to estimate the mean of a sensitive quantitative variable. In this approach, sampled units are asked to respond to a two-list of items containing a sensitive question related to the study variable and various innocuous, nonsensitive, questions. To the best of our knowledge, very few theoretical and applied papers have addressed the IST. In this article, therefore, we present certain methodological advances as a contribution to appraising the use of the IST in real-world surveys. In particular, we employ a generic sampling design to examine the problem of how to improve the estimates of the sensitive mean when auxiliary information on the population under study is available and is used at the design and estimation stages. A Horvitz–Thompson-type estimator and a calibration-type estimator are proposed and their efficiency is evaluated by means of an extensive simulation study. Using simulation experiments, we show that estimates obtained by the IST are nearly equivalent to those obtained using “true data” and that in general they outperform the estimates provided by a competitive randomized response method. Moreover, variance estimation may be considered satisfactory. These results open up new perspectives for academics, researchers and survey practitioners and could justify the use of the IST as a valid alternative to traditional direct questioning survey modes.

Suggested Citation

  • María del Mar García Rueda & Pier Francesco Perri & Beatriz Rodríguez Cobo, 2018. "Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 102(3), pages 455-478, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:alstar:v:102:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10182-017-0315-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10182-017-0315-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10182-017-0315-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10182-017-0315-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kott, Phillip S. & Chang, Ted, 2010. "Using Calibration Weighting to Adjust for Nonignorable Unit Nonresponse," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 105(491), pages 1265-1275.
    2. Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2011. "A class of estimators for quantitative sensitive data," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 633-650, August.
    3. Pier Francesco Perri & Elvira Pelle & Manuela Stranges, 2016. "Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 601-618, November.
    4. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    5. Giancarlo Diana & Pier Francesco Perri, 2012. "A calibration-based approach to sensitive data: a simulation study," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 53-65, March.
    6. Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2009. "Estimating a sensitive proportion through randomized response procedures based on auxiliary information," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 661-672, June.
    7. Diana Lara & Sandra G. García & Charlotte Ellertson & Carol Camlin & Javier Suárez, 2006. "The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(2), pages 279-301, November.
    8. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    9. Antonio Arcos & María del Rueda & Sarjinder Singh, 2015. "A generalized approach to randomised response for quantitative variables," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1239-1256, May.
    10. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.
    11. Imai, Kosuke & Park, Bethany & Greene, Kenneth F., 2015. "Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 180-196, April.
    12. Shaul K. Bar-Lev & Elizabeta Bobovitch & Benzion Boukai, 2004. "A note on randomized response models for quantitative data," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 255-260, November.
    13. Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt‐Mulders & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden & Olav Laudy & Ger Van Gils, 2006. "A validation of a computer‐assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(2), pages 305-318, March.
    14. Graeme Blair & Kosuke Imai & Jason Lyall, 2014. "Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1043-1063, October.
    15. Giancarlo Diana & Pier Francesco Perri, 2010. "New scrambled response models for estimating the mean of a sensitive quantitative character," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(11), pages 1875-1890.
    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. Lucio Barabesi & Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2015. "Gini index estimation in randomized response surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 99(1), pages 45-62, January.
    2. Priyanka Kumari & Trisandhya Pidugu, 2019. "Modelling Sensitive Issues On Successive Waves," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 41-65, March.
    3. María del Mar Rueda & Beatriz Cobo & Antonio Arcos, 2021. "Regression Models in Complex Survey Sampling for Sensitive Quantitative Variables," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Kumari Priyanka & Pidugu Trisandhya, 2019. "Modelling Sensitive Issues On Successive Waves," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 41-65, March.
    5. Carole Treibich & Aurélia Lépine, 2019. "Estimating misreporting in condom use and its determinants among sex workers: Evidence from the list randomisation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 144-160, January.
    6. Antonio Arcos & María del Rueda & Sarjinder Singh, 2015. "A generalized approach to randomised response for quantitative variables," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1239-1256, May.
    7. David Boto‐García & Federico Perali, 2024. "The association between marital locus of control and break‐up intentions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(1), pages 35-57, January.
    8. Pier Francesco Perri & Elvira Pelle & Manuela Stranges, 2016. "Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 601-618, November.
    9. Elisabetta de Cao & Clemens Lutz, 2015. "Measuring attitudes regarding female genital mutilation through a list experiment," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    10. Doerr, Annabelle & Hartmann, Carina & Sajons, Christoph, 2022. "Unregistered work among refugees: Evidence from a list experiment in Germany," Working papers 2022/01, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    11. Richard Traunmüller & Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, 2019. "The Silent Victims of Sexual Violence during War: Evidence from a List Experiment in Sri Lanka," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2015-2042, October.
    12. Groenitz, Heiko, 2016. "A covariate nonrandomized response model for multicategorical sensitive variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-138.
    13. Ronconi, Lucas & Zarazaga S.J., Rodrigo, 2015. "Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 453-461.
    14. Lucio Barabesi & Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2013. "Design-based distribution function estimation for stigmatized populations," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 76(7), pages 919-935, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    17. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. 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.

    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:spr:alstar:v:102:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s10182-017-0315-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.