Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses

Randomized response (RR) is a well-known method for measuring sensitive behavior. Yet this method is not often applied because: (i) of its lower efficiency and the resulting need for larger sample sizes which make applications of RR costly; (ii) despite its privacy-protection mechanism the RR design may not be followed by every respondent; and (iii) the incorrect belief that RR yields estimates only of aggregate-level behavior but that these estimates cannot be linked to individual-level covariates. This paper addresses the efficiency problem by applying item randomized-response (IRR) models for the analysis of multivariate RR data. In these models, a person parameter is estimated based on multiple measures of a sensitive behavior under study which allow for more powerful analyses of individual differences than available from univariate RR data. Response behavior that does not follow the RR design is approached by introducing mixture components in the IRR models with one component consisting of respondents who answer truthfully and another component consisting of respondents who do not provide truthful responses. An analysis of data from two large-scale Dutch surveys conducted among recipients of invalidity insurance benefits shows that the willingness of a respondent to answer truthfully is related to the educational level of the respondents and the perceived clarity of the instructions. A person is more willing to comply when the expected benefits of noncompliance are minor and social control is strong.

[1]  A. Hout,et al.  Randomized Response, Statistical Disclosure Control and Misclassificatio: a Review , 2002 .

[2]  Henk Elffers,et al.  Explaining Regulatory Non-compliance: A Survey Study of Rule Transgression for Two Dutch Instrumental Laws, Applying the Randomized Response Method , 2003 .

[3]  Melvin R. Novick,et al.  Some latent train models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , 1966 .

[4]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[5]  Paul E. Tracy,et al.  Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys , 1986 .

[6]  U. Böckenholt,et al.  Measuring noncompliance in insurance benefit regulations with randomized response methods for multiple items , 2004 .

[7]  S. Edgell,et al.  Validity of Forced Responses in a Randomized Response Model , 1982 .

[8]  Georg Rasch,et al.  Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests , 1981, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  J. Hox,et al.  A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning , 2000 .

[10]  G. Maddala.  Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics: Introduction , 1983 .

[11]  A. Chaudhuri,et al.  Randomized Response: Theory and Techniques , 1987 .

[12]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce , 1997 .

[13]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  A validation of a computer‐assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security , 2006 .

[14]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[15]  C. Renzetti.  Doing Research on Sensitive Topics , 1992 .

[16]  Sik-Yum Lee,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Analysis of a Two-Level Nonlinear Structural Equation Model With Fixed Covariates , 2005 .

[17]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  The Utility of Measuring and Modeling Perceived Risk , 2019, Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce.

[18]  Johannes A. Landsheer,et al.  Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response , 1999 .

[19]  S L Warner,et al.  Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. , 1965, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[20]  Sun-Joo Cho,et al.  Explanatory Item Response Models , 2004 .

[21]  B. Lindsay,et al.  A New Index of Fit Based on Mixture Methods for the Analysis of Contingency Tables , 1994 .

[22]  Klaas Sijtsma,et al.  Global, local, and graphical person-fit analysis using person-response functions. , 2005, Psychological methods.

[23]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[24]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research , 2005 .

[25]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  The Analysis of Multivariate Misclassified Data With Special Attention to Randomized Response Data , 2004 .

[26]  J. Fox,et al.  Randomized Item Response Theory Models , 2005 .

[27]  R. D. Bock,et al.  Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm , 1981 .

[28]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[29]  Philip E. Gill,et al.  Practical optimization , 1981 .

[30]  R. J. Mokken,et al.  Handbook of modern item response theory , 1997 .

[31]  Anthony Y. C. Kuk,et al.  Asking sensitive questions indirectly , 1990 .

[32]  J. Rost,et al.  Applications of Latent Trait and Latent Class Models in the Social Sciences , 1998 .

[33]  C. Mitchell Dayton,et al.  Covariate Randomized Response Models , 1988 .

[34]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory , 1997 .

[35]  B. Lindsay,et al.  Semiparametric Estimation in the Rasch Model and Related Exponential Response Models, Including a Simple Latent Class Model for Item Analysis , 1991 .