Abstract
To collect sensitive data, survey statisticians have designed many strategies to reduce nonresponse rates and social desirability response bias. In recent years, the item count technique has gained considerable popularity and credibility as an alternative mode of indirect questioning survey, and several variants of this technique have been proposed as new needs and challenges arise. The item sum technique (IST), which was introduced by Chaudhuri and Christofides (Indirect questioning in sample surveys, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2013) and Trappmann et al. (J Surv Stat Methodol 2:58–77, 2014), is one such variant, used to estimate the mean of a sensitive quantitative variable. In this approach, sampled units are asked to respond to a two-list of items containing a sensitive question related to the study variable and various innocuous, nonsensitive, questions. To the best of our knowledge, very few theoretical and applied papers have addressed the IST. In this article, therefore, we present certain methodological advances as a contribution to appraising the use of the IST in real-world surveys. In particular, we employ a generic sampling design to examine the problem of how to improve the estimates of the sensitive mean when auxiliary information on the population under study is available and is used at the design and estimation stages. A Horvitz–Thompson-type estimator and a calibration-type estimator are proposed and their efficiency is evaluated by means of an extensive simulation study. Using simulation experiments, we show that estimates obtained by the IST are nearly equivalent to those obtained using “true data” and that in general they outperform the estimates provided by a competitive randomized response method. Moreover, variance estimation may be considered satisfactory. These results open up new perspectives for academics, researchers and survey practitioners and could justify the use of the IST as a valid alternative to traditional direct questioning survey modes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arcos, A., Rueda, M.M., Singh, S.: Generalized approach to randomized response for quantitative variables. Qual. Quant. 49, 1239–1256 (2015)
Arias, A., Sutton, S.G.: Understanding recreational fishers compliance with no-take zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ecol. Soc. (2013). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05872-180418
Arnab, R., Singh, S.: Randomized response techniques: an application to the Botswana AIDS impact survey. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 140, 941–953 (2010)
Aronow, P.M., Coppock, A., Crawford, F.W., Green, D.P.: Combining list experiment and direct question estimates of sensitive behavior prevalence. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 3, 43–66 (2015)
Bar-Lev, S.K., Bobovitch, E., Boukai, B.: A note on randomized response models for quantitative data. Metrika 60, 255–260 (2004)
Blair, G., Imai, K.: List: statistical methods for the item count technique and list experiment. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=list (2010)
Blair, G., Imai, K.: Statistical analysis of list experiments. Polit. Anal. 20, 47–77 (2012)
Blair, G., Imai, K., Lyall, J.: Comparing and combining list and endorsement experiments: evidence from Afghanistan. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 1043–1063 (2014)
Blank, S.G., Gavin, M.C.: The randomized response technique as a tool for estimating non-compliance rates in fisheries: a case study of illegal red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishing in Northern California. Environ. Conserv. 36, 112–119 (2009)
Chaloupka, M.Y.: Application of the randomized response technique to marine park management: an assessment of permit compliance. Environ. Manag. 9, 393–398 (1985)
Chaudhuri, A.: Randomized Response and Indirect Questioning Techniques in Surveys. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2011)
Chaudhuri, A., Christofides, T.C.: Item count technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 137, 589–593 (2007)
Chaudhuri, A., Christofides, T.C.: Indirect Questioning in Sample Surveys. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2013)
Chaudhuri, A., Mukerjee, R.: Randomized Response: Theory and Techniques. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York (1988)
Conteh, A., Gavin, M.C., Solomon, J.: Quantifying illegal hunting: a novel application of the randomised response technique. Biol. Conserv. 189, 16–23 (2015)
Christofides, T.C.: A new version of the item count technique. Model Assist. Stat. Appl. 10, 289–297 (2015)
Deville, J.C., Särndal, C.E.: Calibration estimators in survey sampling. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 87, 376–382 (1992)
Diana, G., Perri, P.F.: Estimating a sensitive proportion through randomized response procedures based on auxiliary information. Stat. Pap. 50, 661–672 (2009)
Diana, G., Perri, P.F.: New scrambled response models for estimating the mean of a sensitive quantitative character. J. Appl. Stat. 37, 1875–1890 (2010)
Diana, G., Perri, P.F.: A class of estimators for quantitative sensitive data. Stat. Pap. 52, 633–650 (2011)
Diana, G., Perri, P.F.: A calibration-based approach to sensitive data: a simulation study. J. Appl. Stat. 39, 53–65 (2012)
Dietz, P., Striegel, H., Franke, A.G., Lieb, K., Simon, P., Ulrich, R.: Randomized response estimates for the 12-month prevalence of cognitive-enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy 33, 44–50 (2013)
Droitcour, J.A., Caspar, R.A., Hubbard, M.L., Parsley, T.L., Visseher, W., Ezzati, T.M.: The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: a review of its development and a case study application. In: Biemer, P.P., Groves, R.M., Lyburg, L.E., Mathiowetz, N., Sudmar, S. (eds.) Measurement Error in Surveys, pp. 187–209. Wiley, New York (1991)
Droitcour, J.A., Larson, E.M.: An innovative technique for asking sensitive questions: the three-card method. Bull. Soc. Methodol. 75, 5–23 (2002)
Eichhorn, B.H., Hayre, L.S.: Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative data. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 7, 306–316 (1983)
Fox, J.A., Tracy, P.E.: Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Survey. Sage Publication Inc, Newbury Park (1986)
Glynn, A.N.: What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Pub. Opin. Q. 77, 159–172 (2013)
Goodstadt, M.S., Gruson, V.: The randomized response technique: a test on drug use. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 814–818 (1975)
Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A.: Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: evidence calling into question the method’s validity. Pub. Opin. Q. 74, 328–343 (2010a)
Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A.: Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: tests using the item count technique. Pub. Opin. Q. 74, 37–67 (2010b)
Horvitz, D.G., Thompson, D.J.: A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 663–685 (1952)
Houston, J., Tran, A.: A survey of tax evasion using the randomized response technique. Adv. Tax. 13, 69–94 (2001)
Hussain, Z., Shah, E.A., Shabbir, J.: An alternative item count technique in sensitive surveys. Revista Colombiana de Estadistica 35, 39–54 (2012)
Hussain, Z., Shabbir, N., Shabbir J.: An alternative item sum technique for improved estimators of population mean in sensitive surveys. Hacet. J. Math. Stat., First published online 46, 907–934 (2017)
Imai, K.: Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 106, 407–416 (2011)
Imai, K., Park, B., Greene, K.F.: Using the predicted responses from list experiments as explanatory variables in regression models. Polit. Anal. 23, 180–196 (2015)
James, R.A., Nepusz, T., Naughton, D.P., Petróczi, A.: A potential inflating effect in estimation models: cautionary evidence from comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use estimates. Psychol. Sports Exerc. 14, 84–96 (2013)
Jann, B., Jerke, J., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model: an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Pub. Opin. Q. 76, 32–49 (2012)
Kerkvliet, J.: Estimating a logit model with randomized data: the case of cocaine use. Aust. J. Stat. 36, 9–20 (1994)
Korndörfer, M., Krumpal, I., Schmukle, S.C.: Measuring and explain tax evasion: improving self-reports using the crosswise model. J. Econ. Psychol. 45, 18–32 (2014)
Kott, P.S.: Developing calibration weights and standard-error estimates for a survey of drug-related emergency-department visits. J. Off. Stat. 30, 521–532 (2014)
Kott, P.S., Chang, T.: Using calibration weighting to adjust for nonignorable unit nonresponse. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105, 1265–1275 (2010)
Krumpal, I.: Estimating the prevalence of xenophobia and anti-semitism in Germany: a comparison of the randomized response technique and direct questioning. Soc. Sci. Res. 41, 1387–1403 (2012)
Lara, D., Strickler, J., Olavarrieta, C.D., García, S.G., Ellertson, C.: Measuring induced abortion in Mexico: a comparison of four methodologies. Soc. Methods Res. 32, 529–558 (2004)
Lara, D., García, S.G., Ellertson, C., Camlin, C., Suaréz, J.: The measure of induced abortion in Mexico using random response technique. Soc. Methods Res. 35, 279–301 (2006)
Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Hox, J.J., van der Heijden, P.G.M., Mass, C.J.M.: Meta-analysis of randomized response research: thirty-five years of validation. Soc. Methods Res. 33, 319–348 (2005)
Lensvelt-Mulders, G.J.L.M., van der Heijden, P.G.M., Laudy, O., van Gils, G.: A validation of a computer-assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 169, 305–318 (2006)
Miller, J.D.: A New Survey Technique for Studying Deviant Behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, The George Washington University (1984)
Miller, J.D.: The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence. NIDA Res. Monogr. 57, 104–124 (1985)
Oliveras, E., Letamo, G.: Examples of methods to address underreporting of induced abortion: preceding birth technique and randomized response technique. In: Singh, S., Remez, L., Tartaglione, A. (eds.) Methodologies for Estimating Abortion Incidence and Abortion-Related Morbidity: A Review, pp. 63–69. Guttmacher Institute, International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, New York, Paris (2010)
Ostapczuk, M., Musch, J., Mashagen, M.: A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 920–931 (2009)
Perri, P.F., Diana, G.: Scrambled response models based on auxiliary variables. In: Torelli, N., Pesarin, F., Bar-Hen, A. (eds.) Advances in Theoretical and Applied Statistics, pp. 281–291. Spriger-Verlag, Berlin (2013)
Perri, P.F., Pelle, E., Stranges, M.: Estimating induced abortion and foreign irregular presence using the randomized response crossed model. Soc. Indic. Res. 129, 601–618 (2016)
Raghavarao, D., Federer, W.F.: Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in survey. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 41, 40–45 (1979)
Rueda, M., Cobo, B., Arcos, A.: An improved class of estimators in RR surveys. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.4256
Särndal, C.E.: The calibration approach in survey theory and practice. Surv Methodol. 33, 99–119 (2007)
Särndal, C.E., Lundström, S.: Estimation in Survey with Nonresponse. Wiley, New York (2005)
Schill, D.J., Kline, P.A.: Use of random response to estimate angler noncompliance with fishing regulations. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 15, 721–731 (1995)
Shamsipour, M., Yunesian, M., Fotouhi, A., Jann, B., Rahimi-Movaghar, A., Asghari, F., Akhlaghi, A.A.: Estimating the prevalence of illicit drug use among students using the crosswise model. Subst. Use Misuse 49, 1303–1310 (2014)
Shaw, P.: Estimating a finite population mean of a sensitive quantitative variable from a single probability sample by the Item Count Technique. Model Assist. Stat. Appl. 10, 411–419 (2015)
Shaw, P.: Estimating a finite population proportion bearing a sensitive attribute from a single probability sample by Item Count Technique. In: Chaudhuri, A., Christofides, T.C., Rao, C.R. (eds.) Handbook of Statistics Vol. 34: Data Gathering, Analysis and Protection of Privacy Through Randomized Response Techniques: Qualitative and Quantitative Human Traits, pp. 387–404. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2016)
Simon, P., Striegel, H., Aust, F., Dietz, K., Ulrich, R.: Doping in fitness sports: estimated number of unreported cases and individual probability of doping. Addiction 101, 1640–1644 (2006)
Solomon, J., Jacobson, S.K., Wald, K.D., Gavin, M.: Estimating illegal resources use at the Ugandan park with the randomized response technique. Hum. Dimens. Wildlife 12, 75–88 (2007)
Striegel, H., Ulrich, R., Simon, P.: Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 106, 230–232 (2010)
Stubbe, J.H., Chorus, A.M.J., Frank, L.E., de Hon, O., van der Heijden, P.G.M.: Prevalence of use of performance enhancing drugs by fitness center members. Drug Test. Anal. 6, 434–438 (2013)
Sukhatme, P.V., Sukhatme, B.V., Sukhatme, S., Asok, C.: Sampling Theory of Surveys with Applications. Iowa State University Press, Ames (1984)
Tian, G.-L., Tang, M.-L.: Incomplete Categorical Data Design: Non-Randomized Response Techniques for Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton (2014)
Trappmann, M., Krumpal, I., Kirchner, A., Jann, B.: Item sum: a new technique for asking quantitative sensitive questions. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 2, 58–77 (2014)
van der Heijden, P.G.M., van Gils, G., Bouts, J., Hox, J.J.: A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioning. Soc. Methods Res. 28, 505–537 (2000)
Warner, S.L.: Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 63–69 (1965)
Acknowledgements
This work is partially supported by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad of Spain (Grant MTM2015-63609-R), Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (Grant FPU, Spain) and by the project PRIN-SURWEY (Grant 2012F42NS8, Italy).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rueda, M.d.M.G., Perri, P.F. & Cobo, B.R. Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys. AStA Adv Stat Anal 102, 455–478 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-017-0315-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-017-0315-2
Keywords
- Auxiliary information
- Calibration estimator
- Domain estimator
- Item count technique
- Horvitz–Thompson estimator
- Randomized response
- Sensitive characteristic