IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v32y2004i4p529-558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Lara
  • Jennifer Strickler
  • Claudia Díaz Olavarrieta
  • Charlotte Ellertson

Abstract

The authors compare four methods of collecting information on abortion through survey research to measure the levels of induced abortion in Mexico: face-to-face interview (FTF), audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI), self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), and a random-response technique (RRT). They tested all methods in three samples: (1) hospital patients in Mexico City, (2) rural women in Chiapas, and (3) women randomly chosen as part of a house-to-house survey in Mexico City. In each sample, RRT found the highest rate of attempted induced abortion in the hospital, rural, and household samples (21.7, 36.1, and 17.9 percent, respectively), followed by the SAQ (19.3, 10.1, and 10.8 percent, respectively). The ACASI and FTF interviews yielded fewer reported abortion attempts. The RRT seems the most promising methodology to measure the levels of induced abortion. With SAQ, detailed information was obtained, and the reported frequency rates were slightly lower than the RRT rates in urban areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Lara & Jennifer Strickler & Claudia Díaz Olavarrieta & Charlotte Ellertson, 2004. "Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 32(4), pages 529-558, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:32:y:2004:i:4:p:529-558
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124103262685
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124103262685
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124103262685?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Foreit & Dorothy Nortman, 1992. "A method for calculating rates of induced abortion," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 29(1), pages 127-137, February.
    2. Barbara Anderson & Kalev Katus & Allan Puur & Brian Silver, 1994. "The validity of survey responses on abortion: Evidence from Estonia," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 31(1), pages 115-132, February.
    3. Johannes Landsheer & Peter Van Der Heijden & Ger Van Gils, 1999. "Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coutts Elisabethen & Jann Ben & Krumpal Ivar & Näher Anatol-Fiete, 2011. "Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 749-760, October.
    2. Michelle L. O’Brien, 2021. "The Consequences of the Tajikistani Civil War for Abortion and Miscarriage," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(5), pages 1061-1084, October.
    3. Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Joop J. Hox & Peter G. M. van der Heijden & Cora J. M. Maas, 2005. "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(3), pages 319-348, February.
    4. Kuo-Chung Huang & Chun-Hsiung Lan & Mei-Pei Kuo, 2005. "Detecting Untruthful Answering in Randomized Response Sampling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 659-669, October.
    5. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Felix Wolter & Peter Preisendörfer, 2013. "Asking Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 321-353, August.
    7. Ulf Böckenholt & Peter van der Heijden, 2007. "Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 245-262, June.
    8. D. Philipov & E. Andreev & T Kharkova & V. Shkolnikov, 2004. "Induced Abortion in Russia: Recent Trends and Underreporting in Surveys," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 20(2), pages 95-117, June.
    9. PETER G. M. van der HEIJDEN & GER van GILS & JAN BOUTS & JOOP J. HOX, 2000. "A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 505-537, May.
    10. Diana Lara & Sandra G. García & Charlotte Ellertson & Carol Camlin & Javier Suárez, 2006. "The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(2), pages 279-301, November.
    11. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    12. Kirchner Antje, 2015. "Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(1), pages 31-59, March.
    13. Nataliia Levchuk & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2009. "Declining fertility in Ukraine: what is the role of abortion and contraception?," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2009-045, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    14. Suh, Siri, 2014. "Rewriting abortion: Deploying medical records in jurisdictional negotiation over a forbidden practice in Senegal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 20-33.
    15. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:32:y:2004:i:4:p:529-558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.