Skip to main content

Die Person Sum Technique: Ein neues Instrument zur Erhebung quantitativer heikler Items

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Devianz und Subkulturen

Part of the book series: Kriminalität und Gesellschaft ((KRIMI))

  • 4596 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Person Sum Technique (PST) ist ein neues Befragungsinstrument zur Erhebung quantitativer, sensitiver Fragen. Sie funktioniert analog zu anderen Instrumenten, wie der Person Count Technique (PCT) und der Item Sum Technique (IST). Die Befragten werden zufällig in zwei Gruppen aufgeteilt – die Short und die Long List. In der Short List wird ein quantitavier Wert von zwei Bekannten des Befragten erhoben. Der Befragte gibt als Antwort die addierten Werte. In der Long List werden die Werte von zwei Bekannten und dem Befragten selbst auf die gleiche Art erhoben. Somit kann aus der Antwort nicht auf den wahren Wert des Befragten geschlossen werden. Durch die Differenz des Durchschnitts der Long und Short List erhält man einen Schätzung für den Mittelwert der heiklen Frage.

Um dieses neue Instrument zu testen wurde in einem Online-Survey ein Sample (N = 252) aus Studenten der Uni Mainz und der Uni Leipzig genutzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die PST keine höheren Schätzungen liefert als direktes Fragen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fragetext: Inwieweit trifft folgende Aussage auf Sie zu?

    „Ich habe die Anweisungen verstanden“.

  2. 2.

    Fragetext: Inwieweit treffen folgende Aussage auf Sie zu?

    „Ich hatte das Gefühl, dass die Anonymität meiner Angaben gewährleistet ist.“

    „Mir waren die Fragen allgemein zu persönlich und ich wollte sie nicht beantworten“.

  3. 3.

    Die Fragetexte für DQ, LL und SL befinden sich im Anhang.

Literatur

  • Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., & Beckmann, M. N. (2001). What leads to voting overreports? contrasts of overreporters to validated voters and admitted nonvoters in the american national election studies. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(4), 479–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, L. E. (1941). Studies in secret-ballot technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5(1), 79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G. F., & Fisher, B. S. (1995). “secret ballots” and self-reports in an exit-poll experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(4), 568. https://doi.org/10.1086/269494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, G., & Imai, K. (2012). Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis, 20(1), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colón, H. M., Robles, R. R., & Sahai, H. (2001). The validity of drug use responses in a household survey in puerto rico: Comparison of survey responses of cocaine and heroin use with hair tests. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(5), 1042–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Droitcour, J., Caspar, R. A., Hubbard, M. L., Parsley, T. L., Visscher, W., & Ezzati, T. M. (1991). The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: A review of its development and a case study application. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, LE Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Hrsg.), Measurement errors in surveys (S. 185–210). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M., Sniderman, P. M., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1998). Affirmative action and the politics of realignment. British Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T., Moon, R. & Gleason, S. (2012). Asking many, many sensitive questions: „person-count“ method for social desirability bias. Conference Presentation: http://www.mapor.org/confdocs/absandpaps/2012/2012_slides/2C4_Grant_slides.pdf.

  • Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 37–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in cati, ivr, and web surveys. the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krumpal, I. (2009). Sensitive questions and measurement error: Using the randomized response technique to reduce social desirability bias in cati surveys. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumpal, I., Jann, B., Korndörfer, M., & Schmukle, S. (2018). Item sum doublelist technique: An enhanced design for asking quantitative sensitive questions. Survey Research Methods, 12(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2018.v12i2.7247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the “new south”. Journal of Politics, 59(2), 323–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBrie, J. W., & Earleywine, M. (2000). Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: Higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. Journal of Sex Research, 37(4), 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lensvelt-Mulders, Gerty, J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, Peter, G. M., & Maas, C. J. M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research. thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods and Research, 33(3), 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M. R. (1983). The methodology and performance of election day polls. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.1086/268766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Balanced inventory of desirable responding (bidr). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package, 41, 79586–79587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evaluation of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Hrsg.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (S. 49–69). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of „social desirability“ in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayburn, N. R., Earleywine, M., & Davison, G. C. (2003). An investigation of base rates of anti-gay hate crimes using the unmatched-count technique. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(2), 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, B., Imai, K., & Shapiro, J. N. (2015). An empirical validation study of popular survey methodologies for sensitive questions. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trappmann, M., Krumpal, I., Kirchner, A., & Jann, B. (2014). Item sum – a new technique for asking quantitative sensitive questions. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 2(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, T., & Hirai, Y. (2010). Elaborate item count questioning: Why do people underreport in item count responses? Survey Research Methods, 4(3), 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya, T., Hirai, Y., & Ono, S. (2007). A study of the properties of the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60(309), 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, F. (2018). A new version of the item count technique for asking sensitive questions: Testing the performance of the person count technique. methods, data, analyses, 1–24. (prepublished 10.10.2018) https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2018.0x.

  • Wolter, F. & Herold, L. (2018). Using the item sum technique to avoid nonresponse to the income question and underreporting of self-reported alcohol consumption. Working Paper, University of Mainz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, F., & Laier, B. (2014). The effectiveness of the item count technique in eliciting valid answers to sensitive questions. an evaluation in the context of self-reported delinquency. Survey Research Methods, 8(3), 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, F., & Preisendörfer, P. (2013). Asking sensitive questions: An evaluation of the randomized response technique versus direct questioning using individual validation data. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(3), 321–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justus Junkermann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Anhang

Anhang

Fragetexte für heikle Fragen mit Anweisungen und Erläuterungen:

LL:

Seite 1:

figure a

Seite 2:

figure b

SL:

Seite 1:

figure c

Seite 2:

figure d

DQ:

figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Junkermann, J. (2020). Die Person Sum Technique: Ein neues Instrument zur Erhebung quantitativer heikler Items. In: Krumpal, I., Berger, R. (eds) Devianz und Subkulturen. Kriminalität und Gesellschaft. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27228-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27228-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-27227-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-27228-9

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics