Literature DB >> 26182857

Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model.

Adrian Hoffmann1, Jochen Musch2.   

Abstract

Estimates of the prevalence of sensitive attributes obtained through direct questions are prone to being distorted by untruthful responding. Indirect questioning procedures such as the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) aim to control for the influence of social desirability bias. However, even on RRT surveys, some participants may disobey the instructions in an attempt to conceal their true status. In the present study, we experimentally compared the validity of two competing indirect questioning techniques that presumably offer a solution to the problem of nonadherent respondents: the Stochastic Lie Detector and the Crosswise Model. For two sensitive attributes, both techniques met the "more is better" criterion. Their application resulted in higher, and thus presumably more valid, prevalence estimates than a direct question. Only the Crosswise Model, however, adequately estimated the known prevalence of a nonsensitive control attribute.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Crosswise model; Randomized response technique; Social desirability bias; Stochastic lie detector

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26182857     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0628-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  7 in total

1.  Asking Survey Questions About Criminal Justice Involvement.

Authors:  Ting Yan; David Cantor
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  Detecting nonadherence without loss in efficiency: A simple extension of the crosswise model.

Authors:  Daniel W Heck; Adrian Hoffmann; Morten Moshagen
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2018-10

3.  Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?

Authors:  Julia Meisters; Adrian Hoffmann; Jochen Musch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  More than random responding: Empirical evidence for the validity of the (Extended) Crosswise Model.

Authors:  Julia Meisters; Adrian Hoffmann; Jochen Musch
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-04-21

5.  Functionality of the Crosswise Model for Assessing Sensitive or Transgressive Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Dominic Sagoe; Maarten Cruyff; Owen Spendiff; Razieh Chegeni; Olivier de Hon; Martial Saugy; Peter G M van der Heijden; Andrea Petróczi
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-23

6.  More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model.

Authors:  Marc Höglinger; Ben Jann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Self-protective and self-sacrificing preferences of pedestrians and passengers in moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles.

Authors:  Maike M Mayer; Raoul Bell; Axel Buchner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.