Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data
Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1515/jos-2015-0002
复制
发表时间：
2015-03-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Kirchner, Antje
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kirchner, Antje
本文探讨了随机回答技术（RRT）-具体来说，一个对称的强制选择的实施-作为一种手段，以提高收集的基本收入支持的调查数据的质量。由于本研究的抽样对象是从行政记录中选取的，因此可以得知接受过基本收入补助转移支付的被调查者的比例，以及应该申报的被调查者的比例。本文提出了两个研究问题：第一，通过运用RRT，是否可以提高社会不良反应（接受转移支付的迹象）的比例。将RRT条件下获得的估计值与直接询问的估计值以及已知的真实患病率进行比较。这样的行政记录数据是罕见的文献中的敏感问题，并提供了一个独特的机会，以评估'越多越好'的假设。其次，使用多变量分析，有助于响应精度的机制进行了分析的一个子sample.主要结果可以概括如下：报告的准确性，福利收益的报告不能提高使用这种特殊的变体RRT。此外，只有微弱的证据表明，在特定亚群中，与直接询问相比，RRT提供了更准确的信息。
This article explores the randomized response technique (RRT) - to be specific, a symmetric forced-choice implementation - as a means of improving the quality of survey data collected on receipt of basic income support. Because the sampled persons in this study were selected from administrative records, the proportion of respondents who have received transfer payments for basic income support, and thus the proportion of respondents who should have reported receipt is known.The article addresses two research questions: First, it assesses whether the proportion of socially undesirable responses (indication of receipt of transfer payments) can be increased by applying the RRT. Estimates obtained in the RRT condition are compared to those from direct questioning, as well as to the known true prevalence. Such administrative record data are rare in the literature on sensitive questions and provide a unique opportunity to evaluate the 'more-is-better' assumption. Second, using multivariate analyses, mechanisms contributing to response accuracy are analyzed for one of the subsamples.The main results can be summarized as follows: reporting accuracy of welfare benefit receipt cannot be increased using this particular variant of the RRT. Further, there is only weak evidence that the RRT elicits more accurate information compared to direct questioning in specific subpopulations.