IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v89y2024i4d10.1007_s11336-024-10000-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Evasive Response Bias in Randomized Response: Cheater Detection Versus Self-protective No-Saying

Author

Listed:
  • Khadiga H. A. Sayed

    (Utrecht University
    Cairo University)

  • Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff

    (Utrecht University)

  • Peter G. M. Heijden

    (Utrecht University
    University of Southampton)

Abstract

Randomized response is an interview technique for sensitive questions designed to eliminate evasive response bias. Since this elimination is only partially successful, two models have been proposed for modeling evasive response bias: the cheater detection model for a design with two sub-samples with different randomization probabilities and the self-protective no sayers model for a design with multiple sensitive questions. This paper shows the correspondence between these models, and introduces models for the new, hybrid “ever/last year” design that account for self-protective no saying and cheating. The model for one set of ever/last year questions has a degree of freedom that can be used for the inclusion of a response bias parameter. Models with multiple degrees of freedom are introduced for extensions of the design with a third randomized response question and a second set of ever/last year questions. The models are illustrated with two surveys on doping use. We conclude with a discussion of the pros and cons of the ever/last year design and its potential for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Khadiga H. A. Sayed & Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff & Peter G. M. Heijden, 2024. "Modeling Evasive Response Bias in Randomized Response: Cheater Detection Versus Self-protective No-Saying," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1261-1279, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:89:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11336-024-10000-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-024-10000-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-024-10000-x
    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/s11336-024-10000-x?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. 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.
    2. Ardo van den Hout & Ulf Böckenholt & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden, 2010. "Estimating the prevalence of sensitive behaviour and cheating with a dual design for direct questioning and randomized response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 723-736, August.
    3. Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff & Ardo Van Den Hout & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden, 2008. "The analysis of randomized response sum score variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(1), pages 21-30, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Samuel Himmelfarb, 2008. "The Multi-Item Randomized Response Technique," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(4), pages 495-514, May.
    4. Tabea Franziska Hirth-Goebel & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2019. "Management accountants and ethical dilemmas: How to promote ethical intention?," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 287-322, October.
    5. Ulf Böckenholt, 2014. "Modeling Motivated Misreports to Sensitive Survey Questions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 515-537, July.
    6. Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Wong, Jason Chun Yu & Blankenship, Brian & Urpelainen, Johannes & Ganesan, Karthik & Bharadwaj, Kapardhi & Balani, Kanika, 2021. "Perceptions and acceptability of electricity theft: Towards better public service provision," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Anders Skrondal, 2007. "Multilevel and Latent Variable Modeling with Composite Links and Exploded Likelihoods," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 123-140, June.

    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:psycho:v:89:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11336-024-10000-x. 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.