Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours.
Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113326
复制
发表时间：
2020-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D'Exelle B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lépine A;Treibich C;D'Exelle B
社会可取性偏见，即少报不受欢迎的社会健康行为的倾向，严重歪曲了从自我报告中获得的关于敏感行为的信息，并妨碍对这些行为的普遍程度进行准确估计。我们为越来越多的文献做出了贡献，这些文献试图评估清单实验方法的性能，以改进对这些敏感健康行为的估计。我们采用双名单实验设计，其中受访者作为一份名单的治疗组，作为另一份名单的对照组，以估计两种敏感健康行为在不同环境中的流行程度：塞内加尔城市500名女性性工作者使用避孕套，布基纳法索农村1700名有伴侣的妇女使用身体亲密伴侣暴力。首先，为了评估列表实验是否提高了敏感行为患病率估计的准确性，我们将自我报告估计的患病率与通过列表实验得出的患病率进行了比较。其次，我们测试了使用双表设计获得的敏感行为的患病率是否相似，并估计了使用该设计获得的标准误差的减少。最后，我们比较了另一种间接启发方法——投票法所得到的结果。我们表明，清单实验方法将避孕套使用的误报率降低了17个百分点，将亲密伴侣暴力的误报率降低了16-20个百分点。利用双表实验设计，我们还证明了通过使用两个表获得的患病率估计在全样本和跨子组中是相同的，并且双表设计比简单表设计的标准误差减少了大约40%。最后，我们证明了列表实验方法比投票投票方法对敏感行为的流行率有更高的估计。该研究表明，列表实验是提高对敏感健康行为流行程度的估计的有效方法。亲密伴侣暴力和无保护的性行为被严重低估。列表实验内部是一致的。双表实验可以显著降低标准误差。列表实验法导致避孕套的使用率低于投票投票法。
Social desirability bias, which is the tendency to under-report socially, undesirable health behaviours, significantly distorts information on sensitive behaviours, gained from self-reports and prevents accurate estimation of the prevalence of those, behaviours. We contribute to a growing body of literature that seeks to assess the performance of the list experiment method to improve estimation of these sensitive health behaviours. We use a double-list experiment design in which respondents serve as the treatment group for one list and as the control group for the other list to estimate the prevalence of two sensitive health behaviours in different settings: condom use among 500 female sex workers in urban Senegal and physical intimate partner violence among 1700 partnered women in rural Burkina Faso. First, to assess whether the list experiment improves the accuracy of estimations of the prevalence of sensitive behaviours, we compare the prevalence rates estimated from self-reports with those elicited through the list experiment. Second, we test whether the prevalence rates of the sensitive behaviours obtained using the double-list design are similar, and we estimate the reduction in the standard errors obtained with this design. Finally, we compare the results obtained through another indirect elicitation method, the polling vote method. We show that the list experiment method reduces misreporting by 17 percentage points for condom use and 16–20 percentage points for intimate partner violence. Exploiting the double-list experiment design, we also demonstrate that the prevalence estimates obtained through the use of the two lists are identical in the full sample and across sub-groups and that the double-list design reduces the standard errors by approximately 40% compared to the standard errors in the simple list design. Finally, we show that the list experiment method leads to a higher estimation of the prevalence of sensitive behaviours than the polling vote method. The study suggests that list experiments are an effective method to improve estimation of the prevalence of sensitive health behaviours. Intimate partner violence and unprotected sex are highly under-reported. The list experiment is internally consistent. The double-list experiment allows to significantly reduce standard error. The list experiment method leads to lower condom use than the polling vote method.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Glynn, Adam N.
通讯作者：
Glynn, Adam N.
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Bulte, Erwin;Lensink, Robert
通讯作者：
Lensink, Robert
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Krebs, Christopher P.;Lindquist, Christine H.;Childers, James M.
通讯作者：
Childers, James M.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Blair, Graeme;Imai, Kosuke
通讯作者：
Imai, Kosuke
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Hidrobo, Melissa;Fernald, Lia
通讯作者：
Fernald, Lia