False Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Technique

dc.contributor.authorWolter, Felix
dc.contributor.authorDiekmann, Andreas
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-23T09:51:21Z
dc.date.available2021-12-23T09:51:21Z
dc.date.issued2021eng
dc.description.abstractSeveral special questioning techniques have been developed in order to counteract misreporting to sensitive survey questions, for example, on criminal behavior. However, doubts have been raised concerning their validity and practical value as well as the strategy of testing their validity using the “more-is-better” assumption in comparative survey experiments. This is because such techniques can be prone to generating false positive estimates, that is, counting “innocent” respondents as “guilty” ones. This article investigates the occurrence of false positive estimates by comparing direct questioning, the crosswise model (CM), and the item count technique (ICT). We analyze data from two online surveys (N = 2,607 and 3,203) carried out in Germany and Switzerland. Respondents answered three questions regarding traits for which it is known that their prevalence in reality is zero. The results show that CM suffers more from false positive estimates than ICT. CM estimates amount to up to 15 percent for a given true value of zero. The mean of the ICT estimates is not significantly different from zero. We further examine factors causing the biased estimates of CM and show that speeding through the questionnaire (random answering) and problems with the measurement procedure—namely regarding the unrelated questions—are responsible. Our findings suggest that CM is problematic and should not be used or evaluated without the possibility of accounting for false positives. For ICT, the issue is less severe.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedeng
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/poq/nfab043eng
dc.identifier.ppn1793833273
dc.identifier.urihttps://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/56031
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.rightsterms-of-use
dc.rights.urihttps://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectSensitive questions, response bias, more-is-better assumption, crosswise model, item count technique, false positiveseng
dc.subject.ddc300eng
dc.titleFalse Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Techniqueeng
dc.typeJOURNAL_ARTICLEeng
dspace.entity.typePublication
kops.citation.bibtex
@article{Wolter2021False-56031,
  year={2021},
  doi={10.1093/poq/nfab043},
  title={False Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Technique},
  number={3},
  volume={85},
  issn={0033-362X},
  journal={Public Opinion Quarterly},
  pages={836--863},
  author={Wolter, Felix and Diekmann, Andreas}
}
kops.citation.iso690WOLTER, Felix, Andreas DIEKMANN, 2021. False Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Technique. In: Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, 85(3), pp. 836-863. ISSN 0033-362X. eISSN 1537-5331. Available under: doi: 10.1093/poq/nfab043deu
kops.citation.iso690WOLTER, Felix, Andreas DIEKMANN, 2021. False Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Technique. In: Public Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, 85(3), pp. 836-863. ISSN 0033-362X. eISSN 1537-5331. Available under: doi: 10.1093/poq/nfab043eng
kops.citation.rdf
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/56031">
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Several special questioning techniques have been developed in order to counteract misreporting to sensitive survey questions, for example, on criminal behavior. However, doubts have been raised concerning their validity and practical value as well as the strategy of testing their validity using the “more-is-better” assumption in comparative survey experiments. This is because such techniques can be prone to generating false positive estimates, that is, counting “innocent” respondents as “guilty” ones. This article investigates the occurrence of false positive estimates by comparing direct questioning, the crosswise model (CM), and the item count technique (ICT). We analyze data from two online surveys (N = 2,607 and 3,203) carried out in Germany and Switzerland. Respondents answered three questions regarding traits for which it is known that their prevalence in reality is zero. The results show that CM suffers more from false positive estimates than ICT. CM estimates amount to up to 15 percent for a given true value of zero. The mean of the ICT estimates is not significantly different from zero. We further examine factors causing the biased estimates of CM and show that speeding through the questionnaire (random answering) and problems with the measurement procedure—namely regarding the unrelated questions—are responsible. Our findings suggest that CM is problematic and should not be used or evaluated without the possibility of accounting for false positives. For ICT, the issue is less severe.</dcterms:abstract>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/56031"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56031/3/Wolter_2-11u87tp6cjqs44.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Diekmann, Andreas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-12-23T09:51:21Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/56031/3/Wolter_2-11u87tp6cjqs44.pdf"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:issued>2021</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-12-23T09:51:21Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43613"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43613"/>
    <dc:creator>Wolter, Felix</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/>
    <dc:contributor>Diekmann, Andreas</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:title>False Positives and the "More-Is-Better" Assumption in Sensitive Question Research : New Evidence on the Crosswise Model and the Item Count Technique</dcterms:title>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Wolter, Felix</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
kops.description.openAccessopenaccessgreen
kops.flag.isPeerReviewedtrueeng
kops.flag.knbibliographytrue
kops.identifier.nbnurn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-11u87tp6cjqs44
kops.sourcefieldPublic Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, <b>85</b>(3), pp. 836-863. ISSN 0033-362X. eISSN 1537-5331. Available under: doi: 10.1093/poq/nfab043deu
kops.sourcefield.plainPublic Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, 85(3), pp. 836-863. ISSN 0033-362X. eISSN 1537-5331. Available under: doi: 10.1093/poq/nfab043deu
kops.sourcefield.plainPublic Opinion Quarterly. Oxford University Press (OUP). 2021, 85(3), pp. 836-863. ISSN 0033-362X. eISSN 1537-5331. Available under: doi: 10.1093/poq/nfab043eng
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationf6957079-4586-4f6e-a899-498bd3ae2022
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf6957079-4586-4f6e-a899-498bd3ae2022
source.bibliographicInfo.fromPage836eng
source.bibliographicInfo.issue3eng
source.bibliographicInfo.toPage863eng
source.bibliographicInfo.volume85eng
source.identifier.eissn1537-5331eng
source.identifier.issn0033-362Xeng
source.periodicalTitlePublic Opinion Quarterlyeng
source.publisherOxford University Press (OUP)eng

Dateien

Originalbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
Name:
Wolter_2-11u87tp6cjqs44.pdf
Größe:
642.67 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Beschreibung:
Wolter_2-11u87tp6cjqs44.pdf
Wolter_2-11u87tp6cjqs44.pdfGröße: 642.67 KBDownloads: 314

Lizenzbündel

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 1 von 1
Vorschaubild nicht verfügbar
Name:
license.txt
Größe:
3.96 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Beschreibung:
license.txt
license.txtGröße: 3.96 KBDownloads: 0