Meta-analysis of randomized response research thirty-five years of validation
Meta-analysis of randomized response research thirty-five years of validation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0049124104268664
复制
发表时间：
2005-02-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Maas, CJM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lensvelt-Mulders, GJLM;Hox, JJ;Maas, CJM
本文讨论了两项关于随机应答技术（RRT）研究的荟萃分析，第一项是6项个体验证研究，第二项是32项比较研究。荟萃分析的重点是RRT与传统问答方法相比的性能。作者使用不正确答案的百分比作为个体验证研究的效应量，并使用标准化差异评分（d-probit）作为比较研究的效应量。结果表明，与其他方法相比，随机反应设计产生更有效的数据。对于单个验证研究，RRT条件的平均错误答案百分比为0.38;对于其他条件，为0.49。研究的主题越敏感，RRT结果的有效性就越高。然而，这两项荟萃分析在研究之间存在无法解释的残差方差，这表明RRT并不完全在研究者的控制之下。
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.