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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science 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 ISI Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M. Articles by Maas, C. J. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research

Thirty-Five Years of Validation

Joop J. Hox

Peter G. M. van der Heijden

Cora J. M. Maas

Utrecht University, the Netherlands

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.

Key Words: randomized response • meta-analysis • multilevel • sensitive topics

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]