The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A multivariate mixed linear model for meta-analysis.
Kalaian, H. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.3.227 · Cited by 229
Cited by
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review
Krumpal, I. (2013) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 · Cited by 2,860
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239
de Ridder, D. T. D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868311418749 · Cited by 1,693
Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis
Gnambs, T., & Kaspar, K. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4 · Cited by 422
Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information
John, L. K., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/656423 · Cited by 414
Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 · Cited by 296
Green, C. A., Duan, N., Gibbons, R. D., Hoagwood, K. E., Palinkas, L. A., & Wisdom, J. P. (2015) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-014-0552-6 · Cited by 205
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9 · Cited by 205
Relations among peritraumatic dissociation and posttraumatic stress: A meta-analysis
Lensvelt-Mulders, G., van der Hart, O., van Ochten, J. M., van Son, M. J. M., Steele, K., & Breeman, L. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.006 · Cited by 175
Self-citationDiagnosis and Management of Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Use
Anawalt, B. D. (2019) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2018-01882 · Cited by 118
Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods
Chuang, E., Dupas, P., Huillery, E., & Seban, J. (2021) · Journal of Development Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2020.102582 · Cited by 46
Mayer, M. M., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261673 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Maas, C. J. M.
- Venue
- Sociological Methods & Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-348
- ISSN
- 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8294
- OpenAlex
- W1966800785
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
