IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stpapr/v53y2012i4p987-999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency comparison of unrelated question models based on same privacy protection degree

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Giordano
  • Pier Perri

Abstract

In this study, the problem of estimating the proportion π A of people bearing a sensitive attribute A is considered. Three dichotomous unrelated question mechanisms which are alternative to the well-known Simmons’ model are discussed and their performance is evaluated taking into account both efficiency and respondent privacy protection. The variance of the estimators of π A is compared under equal levels of confidentiality measures introduced by Lanke ( 1976 ) and Leysieffer and Warner ( 1976 ). Copyright Springer-Verlag 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Sabrina Giordano & Pier Perri, 2012. "Efficiency comparison of unrelated question models based on same privacy protection degree," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 987-999, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stpapr:v:53:y:2012:i:4:p:987-999
    DOI: 10.1007/s00362-011-0403-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s00362-011-0403-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00362-011-0403-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arijit Chaudhuri & Tasos Christofides & Amitava Saha, 2009. "Protection of privacy in efficient application of randomized response techniques," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(3), pages 389-418, August.
    2. Arijit Chaudhuri & Mausumi Bose & Kajal Dihidar, 2011. "Estimation of a sensitive proportion by Warner’s randomized response data through inverse sampling," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 343-354, May.
    3. Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt‐Mulders & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden & Olav Laudy & Ger Van Gils, 2006. "A validation of a computer‐assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(2), pages 305-318, March.
    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. Mausumi Bose, 2015. "Respondent privacy and estimation efficiency in randomized response surveys for discrete-valued sensitive variables," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1055-1069, November.

    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. Heiko Groenitz, 2015. "Using prior information in privacy-protecting survey designs for categorical sensitive variables," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 167-189, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Kajal Dihidar & Manjima Bhattacharya, 2017. "Estimating Sensitive Population Proportion Using A Combination Of Binomial And Hypergeometric Randomized Responses By Direct And Inverse Mechanism," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(2), pages 193-210, June.
    4. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    5. van den Hout, Ardo & van der Heijden, Peter G.M. & Gilchrist, Robert, 2007. "The logistic regression model with response variables subject to randomized response," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6060-6069, August.
    6. Sanghamitra Pal & Arijit Chaudhuri & Dipika Patra, 2020. "How privacy may be protected in optional randomized response surveys," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 61-87, June.
    7. Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff & Ardo van den Hout & Peter G. M. van der Heijden & Ulf Böckenholt, 2007. "Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(2), pages 266-282, November.
    8. Dihidar Kajal & Bhattacharya Manjima, 2017. "Estimating Sensitive Population Proportion Using a Combination of Binomial and Hypergeometric Randomized Responses by Direct and Inverse Mechanism," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(2), pages 193-210, June.
    9. Truong-Nhat Le & Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Randomized Response Techniques: A Systematic Review from the Pioneering Work of Warner (1965) to the Present," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, April.
    10. 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.
    11. María del Mar García Rueda & Pier Francesco Perri & Beatriz Rodríguez Cobo, 2018. "Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 102(3), pages 455-478, July.
    12. Andreas Quatember, 2019. "A discussion of the two different aspects of privacy protection in indirect questioning designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 269-282, January.
    13. Leif Appelgren, 2019. "Optimal auditing of social benefit fraud: a case study," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 203-231, January.
    14. Pal Sanghamitra & Chaudhuri Arijit & Patra Dipika, 2020. "How privacy may be protected in optional randomized response surveys," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 61-87, June.
    15. Carel F. W. Peeters & Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Karin Lasthuizen, 2010. "A Note on a Simple and Practical Randomized Response Framework for Eliciting Sensitive Dichotomous and Quantitative Information," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(2), pages 283-296, November.
    16. Pier Francesco Perri & Elvira Pelle & Manuela Stranges, 2016. "Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 601-618, November.
    17. Groenitz, Heiko, 2016. "A covariate nonrandomized response model for multicategorical sensitive variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-138.

    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:spr:stpapr:v:53:y:2012:i:4:p:987-999. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.