Nonrandomized Techniques for Sensitive Surveys: Comparative Analyses

 
PIIS013216250023697-9-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250023697-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Prof.
Affiliation: Ivanovo State Power Engineering University
Address: Ivanovo, Russia
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 4
Pages28-38
Abstract

The article is devoted to the description and analysis of the «crosswise» and «triangular» models, pioneered in 2008 by Hong Kong statisticians Yu, Tian and Tang and belonging to the class of non-randomized survey techniques (NRRT), specifically designed to control the effects of social desirability and stimulate self-disclosure of respondents in sensitive surveys. Based on the results of foreign studies, the author made an attempt to evaluate the possibilities of these models for obtaining sincere answers from the respondents. The paper describes the design features, question-answer logic and statistical foundations of both models under study. Methods for calculating a probabilistic estimate of the prevalence of the studied sensitive behavior are presented. The results of empirical tests are presented, which make it possible to judge the validity of the two techniques. The advantages of the crosswise and triangular models compared to the Warner RRT technique and the self-report method are shown, consisting in high validity, good performance by both respondents and intervie-wers, as well as methodological versatility. The most important shortcomings and limitations of survey techniques related to the respondents' non-compliance with the prescribed instructions and the subjective preferences of the interviewees in relation to certain response options are analyzed. The mechanism of the appearance of false-positive assessments that negatively affect the validity of the final data is revealed. Possible solutions to this problem are proposed. As a result of a comparative analysis of the two studied models, the author comes to the conclusion that the advantage in choosing between these two indirect techniques in terms of practical application remains with the crosswise model due to the symmetry of its question-answer design and more effective control of social desirability effects.

Keywordssensitive research, indirect questioning techniques, nonrandomized response models, crosswise model, triangular model, sincerity of answers, social desirability, validity of data
Received02.05.2023
Publication date12.07.2023
Number of characters30181
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 168

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Myagkov A.Yu. Iskrennost' respondentov v sensitivnykh oprosakh: metody diagnostiki i stimulirovaniya. Izd. 2-e ispr. i dop. M.: Variant, 2012. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2012) Sinserity of the Respondents in Sensitive Surveys: Diagnostic and Stimulation Methods. 2nd ed., fix and add. Moscow: Variant. (In Russ.)]

2. Myagkov A.Yu. Stimulirovanie iskrennikh otvetov respondentov v oprosnykh issledovaniyakh: Voprosy metodologii i metodov / FGBOU VO «Ivanovskij gosudarstvennyj ehnergeticheskij universitet. Ivanovo, 2018. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2018) Stimulating the Sincere Answers of Respondents in Survey Research: Methodology and Methods Questions. Ivanovo. (In Russ.)]

3. Myagkov A.Yu. Tekhnika «neparnykh chisel»: opyt ehksperimental'nogo testirovaniya // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2016. № 1. S. 37–48. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2016) Unmatched Count Technique: The Trial of Experimental Testing. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 37–48 (In Russ.)]

4. Myagkov A.Yu. Bogus pipeline: validnaya protsedura ili «prizrachnaya mechta»? (K diskussiyam v zarubezhnykh sotsial'nykh naukakh) // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2020. № 3. S. 121–130. [Myagkov A.Yu. (2020) Bogus pipeline: valid procedure or «ghostly dream»? (To discussions in foreign social sciences). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 121–130 (In Russ.)]

5. Atsusaka Y., Stevenson R.T. (2021) A Bias-Corrected Estimator for the Crosswise Model With Inattentive Respondents. March 31, 2021: 1‒49. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.16129.pdf (accessed 13.12.2022).

6. Cerry J., Davis E.O., Verissimo D. et al. (2021) Specialized Questioning Techniques and their Use in Conservation: A Review of Available Tools, With a Focus on Methodological Advances. Biological Conservation. Vol. 257. No. 109089: 1–39.

7. Dempsey L., Dowling M., Larkin P. et al. (2016) Sensitive Interviewing in Qualitative Research. Research in Nursing & Health. Vol. 39. No. 4: 480‒490.

8. Dickson-Swift V., James E.L., Liamputtong P. (2008) Undertaking Sensitive Research in the Health and Social Sciences: Managing Boundaries, Emotions and Risks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Erdmann A. (2019) Non-Randomised Response Models: An Experimental Application of the Triangular Model as an Indirect Questioning Method for Sensitive Topic. Methods, Data, Analyses. Vol. 13. No. 1: 139–167.

10. Gröenitz H. (a) (2014) A new privacy-protecting survey design for multihotomous sensitive variables. Metrika. Vol. 77. No. 2: 211‒224.

11. Gröenitz H. (b) (2014) Applying the nonrandomized diagonal model to estimate a sensitive distribution in complex sample surveys. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice. Vol. 8. No. 2: 319‒342.

12. Heck D.W., Hoffmann A., Moshagen M. (2018) Detecting Nonadherence Without Loss in Efficiency: A Simple Extension of the Crosswise Model. Behavioral Research Methods. Vol. 50: 1895–1905.

13. Hoffman A., Meisters J., Musch J. (2020) On the Validity of Nonrandomized Response techniques: An Experimental Comparison of the Crosswise Model and the Triangular Model. Behavior Research Methods. Vol. 52. No. 4: 1768–1782.

14. Hoffman A., Meisters J., Musch J. (2021) Nothing But the Truth? Effects of Faking on the Validity of the Crosswise Model. PLoS ONE. Vol. 16. No. 10. e0258603: 1–20. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258603 (accessed 15.11.2022).

15. Hoffmann A., Diedenhofen B., Verschuere B. et al. (2015) A Strong Validation of the Crosswise Model Using Experimentally-Induced Cheating Behavior. Experimental Psychology. Vol. 62. No. 6: 403–414.

16. Höglinger M., Diekmann A. (2017) Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT. Political Analyses. Vol. 25. No. 1: 131–137.

17. Jensen U.T. (2020) Is Self-Reported Social Distancing Susceptible to Social Desirability Bias? Using the Crosswise Model to Elicit Sensitive Behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration. Vol. 3. No. 2: 1–11.

18. Jerke J., Johann D., Rauhut H., Thomas K. (2019) Too Sophisticated Even for Highly Educated Survey Respondents? A Qualitative Assessment of Indirect Question Formats for Sensitive Questions. Survey Research Methods. Vol. 13. No. 3: 319‒351.

19. Jerke J., Krumpal I. (2013) Plagiarism in Student Papers: An Empirical Study Using Triangular Model. Methods, Data, Analyses. Vol. 7. No. 3: 347–368.

20. Johann D., Thomas K. (2017) Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model: A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. URL: https://survey-insights.org/?p=8887 (accessed 6.11.2022).

21. Jones E.E., Sigall H. (1971) The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 76. No. 2: 349–364.

22. Korndörfer M., Krumpal I., S.C. Schmukle S.C. (2014) Measuring and Explaining Tax Evasion: Improving Self-Reports Using the Crosswise Model. Journal of Economic Psychology. Vol. 45. No. 1: 18–32.

23. Krumpal I. (2013) Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review. Quality & Quantity. Vol. 47. No. 4: 2025–2047.

24. Maxfield M.G., Weiler B.L., Widom C.S. (2000) Comparing Self-Reports and Official Records of Arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Vol. 16. No. 1: 87–110.

25. Meisters J., Hoffmann A., Musch J. (2020) Controlling Social Desirability Bias: An Experimental Investigation of the Extended Crosswise Model. PLoS ONE. Vol. 15. No. 12: e0243384. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.-0243384 (accessed 6.11.2022).

26. Miller J.D. (1984) A New Survey Technique for Studying Deviant Behavior. Ph.D. thesis. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.

27. Sagoe D., Cruyff M., Spendiff M. et al. (2021) Functionality of the Crosswise Model for Assessing Sensitive or Transgressive Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 12. No. 655592: 1–19.

28. Schnell R., Thomas K. (2021) A Meta-Analyses of Studies on the Performance of the Crosswise Model. Sociological Methods and Research. 1–26. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351438964_A_Metaanalsis_of-_Studies_on_the_Performance_of_the_CrosswiseModel/link/-60a2f719458515952dd23c26/download (accessed 06.11.2022).

29. Tian G.-L., Tang M.-L. (2019) Incomplete Categorical Data Design. Nonrandomized Response Techniques for Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Boca Raton, Fl.: CRC Press, Tailor & Francis Group.

30. Walzenbach S., Hinz T. (2019) Pouring Water into Wine: Revisiting the Advantages of the Crosswise Model for Asking Sensitive Questions. Survey Methods: Insights from the Field. URL: https://survey-insights.org/?p=10323 (accessed 09.11.2022).

31. Warner S.L. (1965) Randomized response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association. Vol. 60. No. 309: 63–69.

32. Wu Q., Tang M.-L. (2016) Non-Randomized Response Model for Sensitive Survey with Nonsompliance. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Vol. 25. No. 6: 2827–2839.

33. Yu J.-W., Tian G.-L., Tang M.-L. (2008) Two New Models for Survey Sampling with Sensitive Characteristic: Design and Analyses. Metrika. Vol. 67: 251–263.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up