Accounting for self-protective responses in randomized response data from a social security survey using the zero-inflated Poisson model

In 2004 the Dutch Department of Social Affairs conducted a survey to assess the extent of noncompliance with social security regulations. The survey was conducted among 870 recipients of social security benefits and included a series of sensitive questions about regulatory noncompliance. Due to the sensitive nature of the questions the randomized response design was used. Although randomized response protects the privacy of the respondent, it is unlikely that all respondents followed the design. In this paper we introduce a model that allows for respondents displaying self-protective response behavior by consistently giving the nonincriminating response, irrespective of the outcome of the randomizing device. The dependent variable denoting the total number of incriminating responses is assumed to be generated by the application of randomized response to a latent Poisson variable denoting the true number of rule violations. Since self-protective responses result in an excess of observed zeros in relation to the Poisson randomized response distribution, these are modeled as observed zero-inflation. The model includes predictors of the Poisson parameters, as well as predictors of the probability of self-protective response behavior.

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

[2]  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 .

[3]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Regression Analysis of Count Data: Preface , 1998 .

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

[5]  W. Warde,et al.  Some New Results on the Multinomial Randomized Response Model , 2005 .

[6]  Robert A. Desharnais,et al.  Honest Answers to Embarrassing Questions: Detecting Cheating in the Randomized Response Model , 1998 .

[7]  Diane Lambert,et al.  Zero-inflacted Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing , 1992 .

[8]  P. V. D. van der Heijden,et al.  The analysis of randomized response sum score variables , 2007 .

[9]  R. Serfling.  Some Elementary Results on Poisson Approximation in a Sequence of Bernoulli Trials , 1978 .

[10]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account , 2007 .

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

[12]  Hennie Boeije,et al.  Honest by Chance: a Qualitative Interview Study to Clarify Respondents' (Non-)Compliance With Computer-Assisted Randomized Response , 2002 .

[13]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses , 2007 .

[14]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Do randomized-response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non-compliance behavior , 2009 .

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

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

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

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