Quality and Quantity

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 253–265 | Cite as

How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomised Response Designs

  • Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders
  • Joop J. Hox
  • Peter G. M. van der Heijden
Article

Abstract

This paper describes ways to maximise the efficiency of randomised response designs. When randomised response designs become more efficient their value as a tool to study sensitive topics will increase. An overview of the literature shows that when sensitive or incriminating topics are studied, the overall results of randomised response studies are more valid than the results of direct question designs. This positive effect is small, however, and randomised response designs are known to be less efficient than direct question designs, making it necessary to recruit larger samples. In this paper the efficiency of six randomised response methods (Warner’s design, both forms of the unrelated question technique, the forced response technique, Moors’s design and Mangat’s improved model) will be compared relative to direct question designs. Using the right design parameters we can make randomised response studies up to twice as efficient. The forced response method and a special form of the unrelated question design are the most efficient designs until now.

Keywords

Randomised response Power Sensitive questions Validity Reliability Sample-size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antonak, R.F., Livneh, H. 1995Randomised response technique: A review and proposed extension to disability attitude researchGenetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs12197145Google Scholar
  2. Boeije, H., Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M. 2002Honest by chance: A qualitative interview study to clarify respondents’ (non-)compliance with computer assisted randomised responseBulletin Methodologie Sociologique75(July)2439Google Scholar
  3. Boruch, R.F. 1971Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: A note on strategiesThe American Sociologist6(November)308311Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhuri, A., Mukerjee, R. 1988Randomized response: Theory and techniquesMarcel DekkerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, S.J., Desharnais, R.A. 1998Honest answers to embarrassing questions: Detecting cheating in the randomised response modelPsychological Methods3160168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finkelhor, D., Lewis, I.A. 1988An epidemiological approach to the study of child molestationAnnals of the New York Academy of Science.141940Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, M., Kupferman, L.B., Lesser, M. 1992Substance use in a school-based clinic population: Use of the randomised response technique to estimate prevalenceJournal of Adolescent Health13281285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fox, J.A., Tracy, P.E. 1986Randomised Response: A Method for Sensitive SurveysSage PublicationsBeverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, B.V., Abdul-Ela, A.A., Simmons, W.R., Horvitz, D.G. 1969The unrelated question randomised response model: Theoretical frameworkJournal of the American Statistical Association66243250Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, B.G., Kuebler, R.R., Abernathy, J.R., Horvitz, D.G. 1971Application of the randomised response technique in obtaining quantitative dataJournal of the American Statistical Association66243248Google Scholar
  11. Heijden, P.G.M.v.d., Gils, G.v. 1996

    Some logistic regression models for randomised response data

    Forcina, AMarcheti, G.M.Hatzinger, r.Galmatti, G eds. Statistical modeling. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Statistical Modeling.OrvietoItaly341348
    Google Scholar
  12. Heijden, P.G.M.v.d., Gils, G.v., Bouts, J., Hox, J. 1998A comparison of randomised response, CASAQ, and direct questioning; eliciting sensitive information in the context of fraudKwantitatieve Methoden191534Google Scholar
  13. Horvitz, D.G., Shah, B.V., Simmons, W.R. 1967The unrelated question randomised response modelProceedings of the Social Statistics SectionASA.6572Google Scholar
  14. Jarman, B. J. (1997). The Prevalence and Precedence of Socially Condoned Sexual agression Within a Dating Context as Measured by Direct Questioning and the Randomised response Technique.Google Scholar
  15. Kendall, M.K., Stuart, A. 1979The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2MacmillanNew York.Google Scholar
  16. Kuk, A.Y.C. 1990Asking sensitive questions indirectlyBiometrika77436438MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Hox, J.J., Heijden, P.G.M., Maas, C.J.M. 2005Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of ValidationSociological Methods & Research33319348Google Scholar
  18. Maddala, G.S. 1983Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in EconometricsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Mangat, N.S., Singh, R. 1990An alternative randomised response procedureBiometrica77439442Google Scholar
  20. Mangat, N.S. 1994An improved randomised response strategyJournal of the Royal Statistic society of Britain569395Google Scholar
  21. Moors, J.J.A. 1971Optimization of the unrelated question randomised response modelJournal of the American Statistical Association66627629Google Scholar
  22. Rasinski, K. A., Willis, G. B., Baldwin, A. K., Yeh, W., Lee, L. (1999). Methods of datacollection, perception of risks and losses, and motivation to give truthful answers to sensitive survey questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 465–484.Google Scholar
  23. Soeken, K.L., Macready, G.B. 1982Respondents’ perceived protection when using randomised response.psychological Bulletin92487498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sudman, S., Bradburn, N.M. 1982Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire DesignJossey BasesSan FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  25. Umesh, U.N., Peterson, R.A. 1991A critical evaluation of the randomised response methodSociological Methods and Research20104138Google Scholar
  26. VanderHeijden, P.G.M., Van Gils, G., Bouts, J., Hox, J.J. 2000A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioningSociological Methods and Research28505537Google Scholar
  27. Volicer, B.J., Volicer, L. 1982Randomised response technique for estimating alcohol use and non compliance in hypertensivesJournal of Studies in Alcohol43739750Google Scholar
  28. Warner, S.L. 1965Randomised response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer biasJournal of the American Statistical Association606369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Warner, S.L. 1971The linear randomised response modelJournal of the American Statistical Association66884888Google Scholar
  30. Weissman, A.N., Steer, R.A., Lipton, D.S. 1986Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomised response techniqueDrug and Alcohol Dependence18225233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, B.L., Suen, H. 1994A methodological comparison of survey techniques in obtaining self-reports of condom-related behaviorsPsychological Reports715311537Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders
    • 1
  • Joop J. Hox
    • 1
  • Peter G. M. van der Heijden
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Methodology and StatisticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations