IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v51y2022i2p760-799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta-analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of the Item Count Technique Compared to Direct Questioning

Author

Listed:
  • Jiayuan Li
  • Wim Van den Noortgate

Abstract

This article presents an updated meta-analysis of survey experiments comparing the performance of the item count technique (ICT) and the direct questioning method. After synthesizing 246 effect sizes from 54 studies, we find that the probability that a sensitive item will be selected is .089 higher when using ICT compared to direct questioning. In recognition of the heterogeneity across studies, we seek to explain this variation by means of moderator analyses. We find that the relative effectiveness of ICT is moderated by cultural orientation in the context in which ICT is conducted (collectivism vs. individualism), the valence of topics involved in the applications (socially desirable vs. socially undesirable), and the number of nonkey items. In the Discussion section, we elaborate on the methodological implications of the main findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiayuan Li & Wim Van den Noortgate, 2022. "A Meta-analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of the Item Count Technique Compared to Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 760-799, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:2:p:760-799
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119882468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119882468
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119882468?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. Karlan, Dean S. & Zinman, Jonathan, 2012. "List randomization for sensitive behavior: An application for measuring use of loan proceeds," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 71-75.
    2. McKenzie D. & Siegel M., 2013. "Eliciting illegal migration rates through list randomization," MERIT Working Papers 2013-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    5. James N. Druckman & Mauro Gilli & Samara Klar & Joshua Robison, 2015. "Measuring Drug and Alcohol Use Among College Student-Athletes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 369-380, June.
    6. Edmund J. Malesky & Dimitar D. Gueorguiev & Nathan M. Jensen, 2015. "Monopoly Money: Foreign Investment and Bribery in Vietnam, a Survey Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 419-439, February.
    7. Jouni Kuha & Jonathan Jackson, 2014. "The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behaviour," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 321-341, February.
    8. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    9. Jennifer A. Heerwig & Brian J. McCabe, 2009. "Education and Social Desirability Bias: The Case of a Black Presidential Candidate," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(3), pages 674-686, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carroll, Eamonn & Timmons, Shane & McGinnity, Frances, 2023. "Experimental tests of public support for disability policy," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS159, June.
    2. Ahmad, Syedah & Lensink, Robert & Mueller, Annika, 2023. "Religion, social desirability bias and financial inclusion: Evidence from a list experiment on Islamic (micro-)finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).

    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. Jorge M. Agüero & Veronica Frisancho, 2022. "Measuring Violence against Women with Experimental Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1565-1590.
    2. Lucia Corno & Áureo de Paula, 2019. "Risky Sexual Behaviours: Biological Markers and Self‐reported Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 86(342), pages 229-261, April.
    3. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    5. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole & D’Exelle, Ben, 2020. "Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. Carole Treibich & Aurélia Lépine, 2019. "Estimating misreporting in condom use and its determinants among sex workers: Evidence from the list randomisation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 144-160, January.
    7. TENIKUE Michel & TEQUAME Miron, 2018. "Economic and Health Impacts of the 2011 Post-Electoral Crisis in Côte d’Ivoire: Evidence from Microdata," LISER Working Paper Series 2018-03, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    8. Brownback, Andy & Novotny, Aaron, 2018. "Social desirability bias and polling errors in the 2016 presidential election," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 38-56.
    9. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Gutiérrez Fernández, Emilio & Rubli, Adrian, 2023. "Challenges for Measuring the LGBT+ Population and Homophobia in Mexico," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12707, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Henry Cust & Aurélia Lépine & Carole Treibich & Timothy Powell‐Jackson & Rosalba Radice & Cheikh Tidiane Ndour, 2024. "Trading HIV for sheep: Risky sexual behavior and the response of female sex workers to Tabaski in Senegal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 153-193, January.
    12. Cullen,Claire Alexis, 2020. "Method Matters : Underreporting of Intimate Partner Violence in Nigeria and Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9274, The World Bank.
    13. Olivia Bertelli & Thomas Calvo & Emmanuelle Lavallée & Marion Mercier & Sandrine Mesplé-Somps, 2023. "Measuring insecurity-related experiences and preferences in a fragile State. A list experiment in Mali," Working Papers DT/2023/01, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    14. Elisabetta de Cao & Clemens Lutz, 2015. "Measuring attitudes regarding female genital mutilation through a list experiment," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    15. Yonghong An & Pengfei Liu, 2020. "Eliciting Information from Sensitive Survey Questions," Papers 2009.01430, arXiv.org.
    16. Margaret Miller & Julia Reichelstein & Christian Salas & Bilal Zia, 2015. "Can You Help Someone Become Financially Capable? A Meta-Analysis of the Literature," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 30(2), pages 220-246.
    17. Römer, Ulf & Weber, Ron & Mußhoff, Oliver & Turvey, Calcum G., 2017. "Truth and consequences: Bogus pipeline experiment in informal small business lending," DARE Discussion Papers 1702, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. Julian Donaubauer & Peter Kannen & Frauke Steglich, 2022. "Foreign Direct Investment & Petty Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Empirical Analysis at the Local Level," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(1), pages 76-95, January.
    19. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.
    20. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2019. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 2019-22, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    21. Esther Atukunda & Anne Fitzpatrick, 2015. "An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Drug Quality: Evidence from the Antimalarial Market in Uganda," Working Papers 2015_03, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.

    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:51:y:2022:i:2:p:760-799. 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.