IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/csb/stintr/v12y2011i2p331-344.html

Finite mixtures model approach to sensitive questions in surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Artem Shcherbina

  • Rostyslav Maiboroda

Abstract

Observations from mixtures of different subpopulations are common in biological and sociological studies. We consider the case, when the observations are taken from a set of groups containing subjects, which belong to different subpopulations. Proportion of each subpopulation in a group is known and can vary from group to group. Our aim is to estimate the means of an observed variable for subjects, which belong to each subpopulation. In this paper we consider the case, when subpopulations are defined by answers on so called “sensitive questions”. We consider some parametric and nonparametric estimates of the subpopulation means, such as weighted means, maximum likelihood and weighted least squares estimates. Finite sample properties of these estimates are analyzed. Mean square errors of the estimates are compared on simulated data. Some asymptotic results are also given.

Suggested Citation

  • Artem Shcherbina & Rostyslav Maiboroda, 2011. "Finite mixtures model approach to sensitive questions in surveys," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 12(2), pages 331-344, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:csb:stintr:v:12:y:2011:i:2:p:331-344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://index.stat.gov.pl/repec/files/csb/stintr/csb_stintr_v12_2011_i2_n9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Gueorguiev, Dimitar & Malesky, Edmund, 2012. "Foreign investment and bribery: A firm-level analysis of corruption in Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 111-129.
    3. 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.
    4. Wu, Tao & Delios, Andrew & Chen, Zhaowei & Wang, Xin, 2023. "Rethinking corruption in international business: An empirical review," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 58(2).
    5. Monika Frenger & Eike Emrich & Werner Pitsch, 2019. "Corruption in Olympic Sports: Prevalence Estimations of Match Fixing Among German Squad Athletes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    6. James E. Prieger, 2023. "Tax noncompliance: The role of tax morale in smokers' behavior," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 653-673, October.
    7. Klaus Friesenbichler & George Clarke & Michael Wong, 2014. "Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 5-21, February.
    8. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Billur Aksoy & Christopher S. Carpenter & Dario Sansone, 2025. "Understanding Labor Market Discrimination Against Transgender People: Evidence from a Double List Experiment and a Survey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(1), pages 659-677, January.
    10. Vincenzo Galasso & Vincent Pons & Paola Profeta & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault, 2020. "Gender Differences in COVID-19 Related Attitudes and Behavior: Evidence from a Panel Survey in Eight OECD Countries," NBER Working Papers 27359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. John, Leslie K. & Loewenstein, George & Acquisti, Alessandro & Vosgerau, Joachim, 2018. "When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 101-123.
    12. Listo, Ariel & Muñoz, Ercio A. & Sansone, Dario, 2025. "Measuring the Sources of Taste-Based Discrimination Using List Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 17976, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. Charles E. Loeffler & Jordan Hyatt & Greg Ridgeway, 2019. "Measuring Self-Reported Wrongful Convictions Among Prisoners," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 259-286, June.
    14. Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique & Bontrager, Stephanie & Pickett, Justin T. & Kosloski, Anna E., 2019. "Estimating the sex buying behavior of adult males in the United States: List experiment and direct question estimates," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 41-48.
    15. La Forgia, Gerard & Raha, Shomikho & Shaik, Shabbeer & Maheshwari, Sunil Kumar & Ali, Rabia, 2014. "Parallel systems and human resource management in India's public health services : a view from the front lines," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6953, The World Bank.
    16. 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.
    17. Diana Dakhlallah, 2024. "Bribery in the Workplace: A Field Experiment on the Threat of Making Group Behavior Visible," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1203-1223, July.
    18. Peter Preisendörfer, 2008. "Heikle Fragen in mündlichen Interviews: Ergebnisse einer Methodenstudie im studentischen Milieu (Sensitive Questions in Face-to-Face Interviews: Findings of a Methodological Study with University Students)," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers 6, ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology.
    19. Adrian Hoffmann & Julia Meisters & Jochen Musch, 2021. "Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:csb:stintr:v:12:y:2011:i:2:p:331-344. 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: Beata Witek The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Beata Witek to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gusgvpl.html .

    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.