IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v129y2016i2d10.1007_s11205-015-1136-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model

Author

Listed:
  • Pier Francesco Perri

    (University of Calabria)

  • Elvira Pelle

    (University of Calabria)

  • Manuela Stranges

    (University of Calabria)

Abstract

We present the theoretical framework and the results of a pilot survey conducted in Calabria, a region in the south of Italy, to investigate the prevalence of two sensitive characteristics, namely induced abortion among foreign women residing in this region, and irregular immigrant status. Collecting data on these two attributes by means of traditional survey modes typically produces underestimates of the diffusion of the phenomena due to the stigmatizing nature of the investigated topics. In order to overcome this problem, we employ an alternative data collection method known as the Randomized Response Technique. In particular, we focus on the implementation of the crossed model recently proposed by Lee et al. (Stat Probab Lett 83:399–409, 2013) to estimate two sensitive characteristics and some related measures of association.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:129:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-015-1136-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1136-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-015-1136-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/s11205-015-1136-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. 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.
    2. Lee, Cheon-Sig & Sedory, Stephen A. & Singh, Sarjinder, 2013. "Estimating at least seven measures of qualitative variables from a single sample using randomized response technique," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 399-409.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Truong-Nhat Le & Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Randomized Response Techniques: A Systematic Review from the Pioneering Work of Warner (1965) to the Present," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, April.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Sabrina Giordano & Pier Perri, 2012. "Efficiency comparison of unrelated question models based on same privacy protection degree," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 987-999, November.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Controlling social desirability bias: An experimental investigation of the extended crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Shu-Ching Su & Stephen A. Sedory & Sarjinder Singh, 2015. "Kuk’s Model Adjusted for Protection and Efficiency," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 44(3), pages 534-551, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Carel F. W. Peeters & Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Karin Lasthuizen, 2010. "A Note on a Simple and Practical Randomized Response Framework for Eliciting Sensitive Dichotomous and Quantitative Information," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(2), pages 283-296, November.
    17. Daryan Naatjes & Stephen A. Sedory & Sarjinder Singh, 2023. "New Randomised Response Models for Two Sensitive Characteristics: Theory and Application," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(3), pages 511-534, December.
    18. Yamen, Ahmed & Allam, Amir & Bani-Mustafa, Ahmed & Uyar, Ali, 2018. "Impact of institutional environment quality on tax evasion: A comparative investigation of old versus new EU members," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 17-29.
    19. van den Hout, Ardo & van der Heijden, Peter G.M. & Gilchrist, Robert, 2007. "The logistic regression model with response variables subject to randomized response," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6060-6069, August.
    20. Ning Ding & Xinnan Zhang & Yiming Zhai & Chenglong Li, 2021. "Risk assessment of VAT invoice crime levels of companies based on DFPSVM: a case study in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 75-96, 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:soinre:v:129:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-015-1136-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.