scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Reference BookDOI

Randomized Response : Theory and Techniques

01 Dec 1988-Journal of the American Statistical Association (Routledge)-Vol. 83, Iss: 404, pp 1223
TL;DR: Randomized Response as discussed by the authors is mandatory reading for statisticians and biostatisticians, market researchers, operations researchers, pollsters, sociologists, political scientists, economists and advanced undergraduate and graduate students in these areas.
Abstract: Offering a concise account of the most appropriate and efficient procedures for analyzing data from queries dealing with sensitive and confidential issues- including the first book-length treatment of infinite and finite population set-ups - this volume begins with the simplest problems, complete with their properties and solutions, and proceeds to incrementally more difficult topics. Randomized Response is mandatory reading for statisticians and biostatisticians, market researchers, operations researchers, pollsters, sociologists, political scientists, economists and advanced undergraduate and graduate students in these areas.
Citations
More filters
Book
01 Dec 2005
TL;DR: The "Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology" as mentioned in this paper provides a comprehensive overview of multimethod measurement in psychology, including the most important measurement tools, including self-assessment, informant assessment, observational methods, and nonreactive methods.
Abstract: Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology is the first integrative guide to theoretical, methodological, and applied aspects of multimethod measurement in psychological research. Although the multitrait-multimethod analysis and multimethod research strategies have become increasingly important in all areas of psychological research, comprehensible handbooks of multimethod measurement that integrate all phases of the data-gathering and assessment process have been missing. "Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology" fills this long-standing gap. Researchers and students of research who want to run a multimethod study or who want to understand a published study no longer must page through methodological journals trying to piece together an understanding of multimethod approaches. This volume provides a single, understandable resource for learning the meaning, advantages, and limitations of different methods. The volume brings together outstanding researchers from all areas of psychology. Contributors give detailed explanations about exactly what has to be considered when conducting a multimethod study, what the strength of the convergent validity and method-specificity in different areas of research is, and what methods should be selected for proving validity in specific research contexts. The volume discusses theoretical concepts, then lays out the most important measurement tools - including, among many others, global self-assessment, informant assessment, observational methods, and nonreactive methods - followed by statistical models for analyzing multitrait-multimethod data. Contributors also explore applications of multimethod research in different areas of psychology as well as broader perspectives on the meaning and purpose of multimethod approaches. Destined to be a classic, "Handbook of Multimethod Measurement in Psychology" provides an indispensable resource for researchers and students in psychology seeking to enrich their work by using multimethod approaches.

420 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Two meta-analyses on randomized response technique (RRT) studies are discussed, the first on 6 individual validation studies and the second on 32 comparative studies, which indicate that compared to other methods, randomized response designs result in more valid data.
Abstract: This article discusses two meta-analyses on randomized response technique (RRT) studies, the first on 6 individual validation studies and the second on 32 comparative studies. The meta-analyses focus on the performance of RRTs compared to conventional question-and-answer methods. The authors use the percentage of incorrect answers as effect size for the individual validation studies and the standardized difference score (d-probit) as effect size for the comparative studies. Results indicate that compared to other methods, randomized response designs result in more valid data. For the individual validation studies, the mean percentage of incorrect answers for the RRT condition is .38; for the other conditions, it is .49. The more sensitive the topic under investigation, the higher the validity of RRT results. However, both meta-analyses have unexplained residual variances across studies, which indicates that RRTs are not completely under the control of the researcher.

362 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research Thirty-Five Years of Validation...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 2008-Metrika
TL;DR: In this article, the authors proposed two new models (namely, the triangular and crosswise models) for survey sampling with the sensitive characteristics, and derived the maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) and large-sample confidence intervals for the proportion of persons with sensitive characteristic.
Abstract: Sensitive topics or highly personal questions are often being asked in medical, psychological and sociological surveys. This paper proposes two new models (namely, the triangular and crosswise models) for survey sampling with the sensitive characteristics. We derive the maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) and large-sample confidence intervals for the proportion of persons with sensitive characteristic. The modified MLEs and their asymptotic properties are developed. Under certain optimality criteria, the designs for the cooperative parameter are provided and the sample size formulas are given. We compare the efficiency of the two models based on the variance criterion. The proposed models have four advantages: neither model requires randomizing device, the models are easy to be implemented for both interviewer and interviewee, the interviewee does not face any sensitive questions, and both models can be applied to both face-to-face personal interviews and mail questionnaires.

208 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Can we control cheating in the classroom? as mentioned in this paper discusses the problem of cheating in education and proposes a solution to prevent cheating in classes. But, the solution is limited and time-consuming.
Abstract: (1999). Can We Control Cheating in the Classroom? The Journal of Economic Education: Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 331-343.

188 citations


Cites result from "Randomized Response : Theory and Te..."

  • ...Anonymity is expected to encourage truthful responses (Chaudhuri and Mukerjee 1988). Three studies of academic misconduct compare DQS and RRS results. Scheers and Dayton (1987) and Kerkvliet (1994) found that DQS methods underestimate cheating....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
27 May 2018
TL;DR: This tutorial aims to introduce the key technical underpinnings of these deployed LDP systems, to survey current research that addresses related problems within the LDP model, and to identify relevant open problems and research directions for the community.
Abstract: Local differential privacy (LDP), where users randomly perturb their inputs to provide plausible deniability of their data without the need for a trusted party, has been adopted recently by several major technology organizations, including Google, Apple and Microsoft. This tutorial aims to introduce the key technical underpinnings of these deployed systems, to survey current research that addresses related problems within the LDP model, and to identify relevant open problems and research directions for the community.

187 citations


Cites methods from "Randomized Response : Theory and Te..."

  • ...We introduce the most basic LDP mechanism, randomized response [6, 27], which came from the survey design community, and masks a single...

    [...]