Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT

Marc Höglinger () and Andreas Diekmann

No 24, University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers from University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences

Abstract: Validly measuring sensitive issues such as norm violations or stigmatizing traits through self-reports in surveys is often problematic. Special techniques for sensitive questions like the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and, among its variants, the recent crosswise model should generate more honest answers by providing full response privacy. Different types of validation studies have examined whether these techniques actually improve data validity, with varying results. Yet, most of these studies did not consider the possibility of false positives, i.e. that respondents are misclassified as having a sensitive trait even though they actually do not. Assuming that respondents only falsely deny but never falsely admit possessing a sensitive trait, higher prevalence estimates have typically been interpreted as more valid estimates. If false positives occur, however, conclusions drawn under this assumption might be misleading. We present a comparative validation design that is able to detect false positives without the need for an individual-level validation criterion – which is often unavailable. Results show that the most widely used crosswise-model implementation produced false positives to a non-ignorable extent. This defect was not revealed by several previous validation studies that did not consider false positives - apparently a blind spot in past sensitive question research.

Keywords: Sensitive Questions; Sensitive Survey Techniques; Randomized Response Technique; Crosswise Model; Item Count Technique; Data Validity; Social Desirability; Measurement Error; Survey Design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C42 C81 C83 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 28 pages
Date: 2016-12-15
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://repec.sowi.unibe.ch/files/wp24/Hoeglinger-Diekmann-2016.pdf First version, 2016 (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT (2017)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bss:wpaper:24

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers from University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Ben Jann ().