ACCOUNTING FOR NON‐COMPLIANCE IN THE ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED RESPONSE DATA

Summary The randomized response model is a misclassification design that is used to protect the privacy of respondents with respect to sensitive questions. Conditional misclassification probabilities are specified by the researcher and are therefore considered to be known. It is to be expected that some of the respondents do not comply with respect to the misclassification design. These respondents induce extra perturbation, which is not accounted for in the standard randomized response model. An extension of the randomized response model is presented that takes into account assumptions with respect to non-compliance under simple random sampling. The extended model is investigated using Bayesian inference. The research is motivated by randomized response data concerning violations of regulations for social benefit.

[1]  Carol Ann Davis,et al.  Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools: Current Research Findings and Future Directions , 2005 .

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

[3]  L. Franklin,et al.  A comparison of estimators for randomized response sampling with continuous distributions from a dichotomous population , 1989 .

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

[5]  M. Newton.  Approximate Bayesian-inference With the Weighted Likelihood Bootstrap , 1994 .

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

[7]  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 .

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

[9]  Theory and Methods: Likelihood‐based Estimation of the Regression Model with Scrambled Responses , 1998 .

[10]  Helio S. Migon,et al.  Bayesian approximations in randomized response model , 1997 .

[11]  M A Viana,et al.  Bayesian small-sample estimation of misclassified multinomial data. , 1994, Biometrics.

[12]  Naurang Singh Mangat,et al.  An alternative randomized response procedure , 1990 .

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

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

[15]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Warner's Randomized Response Model: A Bayesian Approach , 1979 .

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

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

[18]  V. R. Padmawar,et al.  Randomized response revisited , 2000 .

[19]  T T Chen.  A review of methods for misclassified categorical data in epidemiology. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

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

[21]  J. Fox.  Randomized Item Response Theory Models , 2005 .

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

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

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

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