Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39212867›Full record

ArticlePsychometrika2024

Modeling Evasive Response Bias in Randomized Response: Cheater Detection Versus Self-protective No-Saying.

Khadiga H A Sayed, Maarten J L F Cruyff, Peter G M van der Heijden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychometrika, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khadiga H A SayedDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands. k.h.a.sayed@uu.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4286-6350
Maarten J L F CruyffDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter G M van der HeijdenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized response is an interview technique for sensitive questions designed to eliminate evasive response bias. Since this elimination is only partially successful, two models have been proposed for modeling evasive response bias: the cheater detection model for a design with two sub-samples with different randomization probabilities and the self-protective no sayers model for a design with multiple sensitive questions. This paper shows the correspondence between these models, and introduces models for the new, hybrid "ever/last year" design that account for self-protective no saying and cheating. The model for one set of ever/last year questions has a degree of freedom that can be used for the inclusion of a response bias parameter. Models with multiple degrees of freedom are introduced for extensions of the design with a third randomized response question and a second set of ever/last year questions. The models are illustrated with two surveys on doping use. We conclude with a discussion of the pros and cons of the ever/last year design and its potential for future research.

Indexed as

BiasDeceptionHumansLie DetectionModels, StatisticalPsychometricsanabolicsdopingever/last yearsensitive questions

Identifiers

PMID39212867
PMCPMC11582306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.