Abstract
Numerous randomized response techniques have been developed to handle the case of stigmatizing characteristics. Warner’s (1965) pioneering technique was just the beginning. One of the main disadvantages of randomized response techniques is the fact that participants often are very skeptical about the whole process because, either they do not understand it or because they feel that their privacy is not really protected. In addition, in cases where a randomization device is being used, people think of randomized response as a trick, or as a process which is not really a serious scientific method. Because of these and other drawbacks, for example the fact that randomized response very rarely can be incorporated into survey questionnaires, other alternative methods have been devised. In this chapter, five of those techniques and their variations are presented along with the relevant theory. The most popular one, the Item Count Technique is discussed first, and various versions of it are given. Another technique included in this chapter is the Nominative Technique, which, as explained, can be thought of as an application of network sampling. The Three-Card Method, a simple and easily understood technique is also discussed in brief with theoretical details omitted. A special treatment is given to the recently developed class of Non-Randomized Models. Those are techniques which do not use any device. However, this does not mean that no randomizations are taking place. The last section of the chapter is devoted to the so-called Negative Surveys. Those are surveys where questions are phrased in a negative way so that all but one of the possible answers are true for each and everyone one of the participants.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Biemer, P., & Brown, G. (2005). Model-based estimation of drug prevalence using item count data. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 287–308.
Chaudhuri, A. (2000). Network and adaptive sampling with unequal probabilities. Calcutta Statistical Association Bulletin, 50, 237–253.
Chaudhuri, A. (2012). Unbiased estimation of a sensitive proportion in general sampling by three non-randomized response schemes. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 6, 376–381.
Chaudhuri, A., Bose, M., Dihidar, K. (2005). Sample size restrictive adaptive sampling: an application in estimating localized elements. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 134, 254–267.
Chaudhuri, A., Bose, M., Ghosh, J.K. (2004). An application of adaptive sampling to estimate highly localized population segments. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 121, 175–189.
Chaudhuri, A., & Christofides, T.C. (2007). Item count technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 137, 589–593.
Chaudhuri, A., & Christofides, T.C. (2008). Indirect questioning: how to rival randomized response techniques. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 43, 283–294.
Chaudhuri, A., & Mukerjee, R. (1988). Randomized response: theory and techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Chaudhuri, A., & Pal, S. (2002). On certain alternative mean square error estimators in complex survey sampling. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 104, 363–375.
Christofides, T.C. (2009). Randomized response without a randomization device. Advances and Applications in Statistics, 11, 15–28.
Coutts, E., & Jann, B. (2011). Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociological Methods & Research, 40, 169–193.
Coutts, E., Jann, B., Ivar, K., Anatol-Fiete, N. (2011). Plagiarism in student papers: prevalence estimates using special techniques for sensitive questions. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 231, 749–760.
Droitcour, J.A., Larson, E.M., Scheuren, F.J. (2001). The three card method: estimating sensitive items with permanent anonymity of response. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. Alexandria, VA: ASA.
Eichhorn, B.H., & Hayre, L.S. (1983). Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining quantitative data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 7, 306–316.
Esponda, F. (2006). Negative surveys. arXiv:ST/0608176v1
Esponda, F., & Guerrero, V.M. (2009). Surveys with negative questions for sensitive items. Statistics and Probability Letters, 79, 2456–2461.
Gupta, S., Gupta, B., Singh, S. (2002). Estimation of sensitivity level of personal interview survey question. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 100, 239–247.
Hejri, M.S., Zendehdel, K., Asghari, F., Fotouhi, A., Rashidian, A. (2013). Academic disintegrity among medical students: a randomized response technique study. Medical Education, 47, 144–153.
Horvitz, D.G., & Thompson, D.J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663–685.
Huang, K.-C. (2010). Unbiased estimators of mean, variance and sensitivity level for quantitative characteristics in finite population sampling. Metrika, 71, 341–352.
Hussain, Z., & Shabbir, J. (2011). On item count technique in survey sampling. Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Sciences, 2, 161–169.
Imai, K. (2011). Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106, 407–415.
Jann, B., Jerke, J., Krumpal, I. (2012). Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model: an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 32–49.
John, F.A.V. St., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibbons, J.M., Jones, J.P.G. (2010). Testing novel methods for assessing rule breaking in conservation. Biological Conservation, 143, 1025–1030.
Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., Martin, S.L., Childers, J.M. (2011). Comparing sexual assault prevalence estimates obtained with direct and indirect questioning techniques. Violence Against Women, 17, 219–235.
Kutnik, B., Belser, P., Danailova-Trainor, G. (2007). Methodologies for global and national estimation of human trafficking victims: current and future approaches. In Working paper 29, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Miller, J.D. (1984). A new survey technique for studying deviant behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, The George Washington University.
Miller, J.D. (1985). The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence. NIDA Research Monograph, No. 57, 104–124.
Miller, J.D., Cisin, I.H., Harrel, A.V. (1986). A new technique for surveying deviant behavior: item count estimates of marijuana, cocaine and heroin. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Pal, S. (2007). Estimating the proportion of people bearing a sensitive issue with an option to item count lists and randomized response. Statistics in Transition, 8, 301–310.
Raghavarao, D., & Federer, W.F. (1979). Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 41, 40–45.
Tan, M.T., Tian, G.L., Tang, M.L. (2009). Sample surveys with sensitive questions: a non-randomized response approach. American Statistician, 63, 9–16.
Tian, G.-L., Yu, J.-W., Tang, M.-L., Geng, Z. (2007). A new nonrandomized model for analyzing sensitive questions with binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4238–4252.
Thompson, S.K. (1992). Sampling. New York: Wiley.
Thompson, S.K., & Seber, G.A.F. (1996). Adaptive sampling. New York: Wiley.
Tsuchiya, T., & Hirai, Y. (2010). Elaborate item count questioning: why do people underreport in item count responses? Survey Research Methods, 4, 139–149.
Yates, F., & Grundy, P.M. (1953). Selection without replacement from within strata with probability proportional to size. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 15, 253–261.
Yu, J.-W., Tian, G.-L., Tang, M.-L. (2008). Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis. Metrika, 67, 251–263.
Warner, S.L. (1965). Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.
Xie, H., Kulik, L., Tanin, E. (2011). Privacy-aware collection of aggregate spatial data. Journal of Data and Knowledge Engineering, 70, 576–595.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chaudhuri, A., Christofides, T.C. (2013). Indirect Techniques as Alternatives to Randomized Response. In: Indirect Questioning in Sample Surveys. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36276-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36276-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36275-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36276-7
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)