Модель «вынужденного ответа»: экспериментальная оценка эффективности
Аннотация
Статья посвящена экспериментальному изучению модели «вынужденного ответа», предназначенной для повышения анонимности респондентов в сенситивных исследованиях. В работе представлены результаты сравнительного анализа качества данных, полученных в опросах с ее использованием и без нее. Эффективность модели оценивается по валидности ответов респондентов, уровню «отвечаемости» и субъективным оценкам опрашиваемых. Обсуждаются также возможности дальнейшего совершенствования модели.
Ключевые слова:
метод рандомизированного ответа, модель «вынужденного ответа», сенситивные вопросы, валидационный эксперимент, качество данных, субъективная анонимность, индивидуальная валидизация
Литература
Hogan R. In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners // Human Performance. 2005. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 331–341.
Dilchert S., Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C., Deller J. Response Analysis in Personality Measurement: Born to Deceive, Yet Capable of Providing Valid Self-assessments? // Psychology Science. 2006. Vol. 48. No. 3. P. 209–225.
Hox J., Lensvelt-Mulders G. Randomized Response Analysis in Mplus // Structural Equation Modeling. 2004. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 615–620.
Carr J.W., Marascuilo L.A., Busk P. Optimal Randomized Response Models and Methods for Hypothesis Testing // Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1982. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 295–310.
Tourangeau R., Rips L., Rasinski K. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.
Methods of Data Collection, Perceptions of Risks and Losses, and Motivation to Give Truthful Answers to Sensitive Survey Questions / K.A. Rasinski, G.B. Willis,
A.K. Baldwin et al. // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1999. Vol. 13. No. 4. Р. 465–484.
Begin G., Boivin M. Comparison of Data Gathered on Sensitive Questions via Direct Questionnaire, Randomized Response Technique, and a Projective Method // Psychological Reports. 1980. Vol. 47. No. 7. P. 751–760.
Мягков А.Ю. Искренность респондентов в сенситивных опросах: Методы диагностики и стимулирования / Иван. гос. энерг. ун-т. Иваново, 2007.
Dalton J.R., Wimbush J.C., Daily C.M. Using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) to Estimate Base Rates for Sensitive Behavior // Personnel Psychology. 1994. Vol. 47. No. 8. P. 817–828.
Jones E.E., Sigall H. The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude // Psychological Bulletin. 1971. Vol. 76. No. 3. Р. 349–364.
Warner S.L. Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias // Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1965. Vol. 60. No. 309. P. 63–69.
Guerriero M., Sandri M.F. A Note on the Comparison of Some Randomized Response Procedures // Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 2007. Vol. 137. No. 7. P. 2184–2190.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Boeije H.R. Evaluating Compliance with a Computer Assisted Randomized Response Technique: A Qualitative Study into the Origins of Lying And Cheating // Computers in Human Behavior. 2007. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 591–608.
Himmelfarb S. The Multi-item Randomized Response Technique // Sociological Methods and Research. 2008. Vol. 36. No. 4. P. 495–514.
Bockenholt U., Barlas S., Heijden P. van der. Do Randomized Response Designs Eliminate Response Biases?: An Empirical Study of Non-compliance Behavior // Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 377–392.
Fox J.A., Tracy P.E. Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills (Calif.): Sage Publications, 1986.
Umesh U.N., Peterson R.A. A Critical Evaluation of the Randomized Response Method: Applications, Validation, and Research Agenda // Sociological Methods and Research. 1991. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 104–138.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Hox J.J., Heijden P. van der, Maas C. Meta-analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-five Years of Validation // Sociological Methods and Research. 2005. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 319–348.
Begin G., Boivin M., Bellerose J. Sensitive Data Collection Through the Random Response Technique: Some Improvements // Journal of Psychology. 1979. Vol. 101. No. 1. P. 53–65.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Hox J.J., Heijden P. van der. How to Improve the Efficiency of Random Response Designs // Quality and Quantity. 2005. Vol. 39. No. 2. Р. 253–265.
Beldt S.F., Daniel W.W., Garsha B.S. The Takahasi-Sakasegawa Random¬ized Response Technique: A Field Test // Sociological Methods and Research. 1982. Vol. 11. No. 1. Р. 101–111.
Williams B.L., Suen H.K., Baffi C.R. A Controlled Random Response Technique // Evaluation and the Health Professions. 1993. Vol. 16. No. 2. Р. 225–245.
Weissman A.N., Steer R.A., Lipton D.S. Estimating Elicit Drug Use Through Telephone Interviews and the Randomized Response Technique // Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 1986. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 225–233.
Сидоренко Е.В. Методы математической обработки в психологии. СПб.: Речь, 2001.
Мягков А.Ю. Техника «рандомизированного ответа»: Опыт полевого тестирования // Социологический журнал. 2002. № 4. С. 60–77.
Donovan J.J., Dwight S.A., Hurtz G.M. An Assessment of the Prevalence, Severity, and Verifiability of Entry-level Applicant Faking Using the Randomized Response Technique // Human Performance. 2003. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 81–106.
Cruyff M.J., Hout A. van den, Heijden P. van der, Böckenholt U. Log-linear Randomized-response Models Taking Self-protective Response Behavior into Account // Sociological Methods and Research. 2007. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 266–282.
Bradburn N.M., Sudman S. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Thornton B., Gupta S. Comparative Validation of a Partial (Versus Full) Randomized Response Technique: Attempting to Control for Social Desirability Response Bias to Sensitive Questions // Individual Differences Research. 2004. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 214–224.
Heijden P. van der, Gils G. van, Bouts J., Hox J.J. A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-assisted Self-interview, and Face-to-face Direct Questioning: Eliciting Sensitive Information in the Context of Welfare and Unemployment Benefit // Sociological Methods and Research. 2000. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 505–537.
Dilchert S., Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C., Deller J. Response Analysis in Personality Measurement: Born to Deceive, Yet Capable of Providing Valid Self-assessments? // Psychology Science. 2006. Vol. 48. No. 3. P. 209–225.
Hox J., Lensvelt-Mulders G. Randomized Response Analysis in Mplus // Structural Equation Modeling. 2004. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 615–620.
Carr J.W., Marascuilo L.A., Busk P. Optimal Randomized Response Models and Methods for Hypothesis Testing // Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1982. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 295–310.
Tourangeau R., Rips L., Rasinski K. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.
Methods of Data Collection, Perceptions of Risks and Losses, and Motivation to Give Truthful Answers to Sensitive Survey Questions / K.A. Rasinski, G.B. Willis,
A.K. Baldwin et al. // Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1999. Vol. 13. No. 4. Р. 465–484.
Begin G., Boivin M. Comparison of Data Gathered on Sensitive Questions via Direct Questionnaire, Randomized Response Technique, and a Projective Method // Psychological Reports. 1980. Vol. 47. No. 7. P. 751–760.
Мягков А.Ю. Искренность респондентов в сенситивных опросах: Методы диагностики и стимулирования / Иван. гос. энерг. ун-т. Иваново, 2007.
Dalton J.R., Wimbush J.C., Daily C.M. Using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) to Estimate Base Rates for Sensitive Behavior // Personnel Psychology. 1994. Vol. 47. No. 8. P. 817–828.
Jones E.E., Sigall H. The Bogus Pipeline: A New Paradigm for Measuring Affect and Attitude // Psychological Bulletin. 1971. Vol. 76. No. 3. Р. 349–364.
Warner S.L. Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias // Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1965. Vol. 60. No. 309. P. 63–69.
Guerriero M., Sandri M.F. A Note on the Comparison of Some Randomized Response Procedures // Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference. 2007. Vol. 137. No. 7. P. 2184–2190.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Boeije H.R. Evaluating Compliance with a Computer Assisted Randomized Response Technique: A Qualitative Study into the Origins of Lying And Cheating // Computers in Human Behavior. 2007. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 591–608.
Himmelfarb S. The Multi-item Randomized Response Technique // Sociological Methods and Research. 2008. Vol. 36. No. 4. P. 495–514.
Bockenholt U., Barlas S., Heijden P. van der. Do Randomized Response Designs Eliminate Response Biases?: An Empirical Study of Non-compliance Behavior // Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 377–392.
Fox J.A., Tracy P.E. Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills (Calif.): Sage Publications, 1986.
Umesh U.N., Peterson R.A. A Critical Evaluation of the Randomized Response Method: Applications, Validation, and Research Agenda // Sociological Methods and Research. 1991. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 104–138.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Hox J.J., Heijden P. van der, Maas C. Meta-analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-five Years of Validation // Sociological Methods and Research. 2005. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 319–348.
Begin G., Boivin M., Bellerose J. Sensitive Data Collection Through the Random Response Technique: Some Improvements // Journal of Psychology. 1979. Vol. 101. No. 1. P. 53–65.
Lensvelt-Mulders G.J., Hox J.J., Heijden P. van der. How to Improve the Efficiency of Random Response Designs // Quality and Quantity. 2005. Vol. 39. No. 2. Р. 253–265.
Beldt S.F., Daniel W.W., Garsha B.S. The Takahasi-Sakasegawa Random¬ized Response Technique: A Field Test // Sociological Methods and Research. 1982. Vol. 11. No. 1. Р. 101–111.
Williams B.L., Suen H.K., Baffi C.R. A Controlled Random Response Technique // Evaluation and the Health Professions. 1993. Vol. 16. No. 2. Р. 225–245.
Weissman A.N., Steer R.A., Lipton D.S. Estimating Elicit Drug Use Through Telephone Interviews and the Randomized Response Technique // Drug and Alcohol Dependency. 1986. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 225–233.
Сидоренко Е.В. Методы математической обработки в психологии. СПб.: Речь, 2001.
Мягков А.Ю. Техника «рандомизированного ответа»: Опыт полевого тестирования // Социологический журнал. 2002. № 4. С. 60–77.
Donovan J.J., Dwight S.A., Hurtz G.M. An Assessment of the Prevalence, Severity, and Verifiability of Entry-level Applicant Faking Using the Randomized Response Technique // Human Performance. 2003. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 81–106.
Cruyff M.J., Hout A. van den, Heijden P. van der, Böckenholt U. Log-linear Randomized-response Models Taking Self-protective Response Behavior into Account // Sociological Methods and Research. 2007. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 266–282.
Bradburn N.M., Sudman S. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Thornton B., Gupta S. Comparative Validation of a Partial (Versus Full) Randomized Response Technique: Attempting to Control for Social Desirability Response Bias to Sensitive Questions // Individual Differences Research. 2004. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 214–224.
Heijden P. van der, Gils G. van, Bouts J., Hox J.J. A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-assisted Self-interview, and Face-to-face Direct Questioning: Eliciting Sensitive Information in the Context of Welfare and Unemployment Benefit // Sociological Methods and Research. 2000. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 505–537.
