This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by van der HEIJDEN, P. G. M. Articles by HOX, J. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning

Eliciting Sensitive Information in the Context of Welfare and Unemployment Benefit

Utrecht University

GER van GILS

BeleidsOnderzoek en Advies

JAN BOUTS

Nederlands Instituut voor de Publieke Opinie en het Marktonderzoek

JOOP J. HOX

Utrecht University

This article assesses the validity of responses to sensitive questions using four different methods. In an experimental setting, the authors compared a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), face-to-face direct questioning, and two different varieties of randomized response. All respondents interviewed had been identified as having committed welfare and unemployment benefit fraud. The interviewers did not know that respondents had been caught for fraud, and the respondents did not know that the researchers had this information. The results are evaluated by comparing the percentage of false negatives. The authors also looked for variables that might explain why some respondents admit fraud and others do not. The proportions of respondents admitting fraud are relatively low, between 19 percent and 49 percent. The two randomized response conditions were superior in eliciting admissions of fraud. A number of background variables, notably gender, age, still receiving benefit, and duration and perception of fraud, are related to admitting fraud. Although the randomized response conditions performed much better than face-to-face direct questioning and CASI, the percentage of respondents admitting fraud is only around 50 percent. Some possible reasons for this are discussed.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.-P. Fox and R. R. Meijer Using Item Response Theory to Obtain Individual Information From Randomized Response Data: An Application Using Cheating Data Applied Psychological Measurement, November 1, 2008; 32(8): 595 - 610. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Himmelfarb The Multi-Item Randomized Response Technique Sociological Methods Research, May 1, 2008; 36(4): 495 - 514. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J. L. F. Cruyff, A. van den Hout, P. G. M. van der Heijden, and U. Bockenholt Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account Sociological Methods Research, November 1, 2007; 36(2): 266 - 282. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Lara, S. G. Garcia, C. Ellertson, C. Camlin, and J. Suarez The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique Sociological Methods Research, November 1, 2006; 35(2): 279 - 301. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders, J. J. Hox, P. G. M. van der Heijden, and C. J. M. Maas Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 2005; 33(3): 319 - 348. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J.-P. Fox Randomized Item Response Theory Models Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 2005; 30(2): 189 - 212. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Lara, J. Strickler, C. D. Olavarrieta, and C. Ellertson Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico: A Comparison of Four Methodologies Sociological Methods Research, May 1, 2004; 32(4): 529 - 558. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. van den Hout and P. G. M. van der Heijden The Analysis of Multivariate Misclassified Data With Special Attention to Randomized Response Data Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 2004; 32(3): 384 - 410. [Abstract] [PDF]