IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i22p3617-d1524724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Ratio Estimator for the Mean Using a Mixture Optional Enhance Trust (MOET) Randomized Response Model

Author

Listed:
  • Sat Gupta

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, UNC Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27413, USA)

  • Michael Parker

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, UNC Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27413, USA)

  • Sadia Khalil

    (Department of Statistics, Lahore College for Women University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan)

Abstract

When researchers conduct surveys seeking sensitive, socially stigmatized information, respondents, on average, modify their answers to represent themselves favorably. To overcome this issue, researchers may use Randomized Response Technique (RRT) models. Recently, Parker et al. proposed a model that incorporates some of the most critical recent quantitative RRT advancements—mixture, optionality, and enhanced trust—into a single model, which they called a Mixture Optional Enhanced (MOET) model. We now improve upon the MOET model by incorporating auxiliary information into the analysis. Positively correlated auxiliary information can improve the mean response estimation through use of a ratio estimator. In this study, we propose just such an estimator for the MOET model. Further, we investigate the conditions under which the ratio estimator outperforms the basic MOET estimator proposed by Parker et al. in 2024. We also consider the possibility that the collection of auxiliary information may compromise privacy; and we study the impact of privacy reduction on the overall model performance as assessed by the unified measure (UM) proposed by Gupta et al. in 2018.

Suggested Citation

  • Sat Gupta & Michael Parker & Sadia Khalil, 2024. "A Ratio Estimator for the Mean Using a Mixture Optional Enhance Trust (MOET) Randomized Response Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:22:p:3617-:d:1524724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/22/3617/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/22/3617/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2011. "A class of estimators for quantitative sensitive data," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 633-650, August.
    2. Graeme Blair & Kosuke Imai & Yang-Yang Zhou, 2015. "Design and Analysis of the Randomized Response Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 1304-1319, September.
    3. Samridhi Mehta & Priyanka Aggarwal, 2018. "Bayesian estimation of sensitivity level and population proportion of a sensitive characteristic in a binary optional unrelated question RRT model," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(16), pages 4021-4028, August.
    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. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2024. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 371-405, November.
    2. Mhairi A Gibson & Eshetu Gurmu & Beatriz Cobo & María M Rueda & Isabel M Scott, 2018. "Indirect questioning method reveals hidden support for female genital cutting in South Central Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, May.
    3. Lucio Barabesi & Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2013. "Design-based distribution function estimation for stigmatized populations," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 76(7), pages 919-935, October.
    4. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    5. Stanislao Maldonado, 2024. "Empowering women through multifaceted interventions: long-term evidence from a double matching design," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 1-44, March.
    6. Shen‐Ming Lee & Truong‐Nhat Le & Phuoc‐Loc Tran & Chin‐Shang Li, 2022. "Investigating the association of a sensitive attribute with a random variable using the Christofides generalised randomised response design and Bayesian methods," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(5), pages 1471-1502, November.
    7. Leng,Alyssa Amanda & Tandon,Sharad Alan, 2024. "Do Disasters Always Increase Intimate Partner Violence ? Evidence from the 2018 Earthquake in Papua New Guinea," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10799, The World Bank.
    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. Matthew J. Schneider & Dawn Iacobucci, 2020. "Protecting survey data on a consumer level," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 3-17, March.
    10. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Chu, Amanda M.Y. & Omori, Yasuhiro & So, Hing-yu & So, Mike K.P., 2023. "A Multivariate Randomized Response Model for Sensitive Binary Data," Econometrics and Statistics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 16-35.
    12. Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Truong-Nhat Le & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Prediction of a Sensitive Feature under Indirect Questioning via Warner’s Randomized Response Technique and Latent Class Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Sarah Brierley, 2020. "Unprincipled Principals: Co‐opted Bureaucrats and Corruption in Ghana," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(2), pages 209-222, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Marco Gregori & Martijn G. Jong & Rik Pieters, 2024. "The Crosswise Model for Surveys on Sensitive Topics: A General Framework for Item Selection and Statistical Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1007-1033, September.
    17. Lucio Barabesi & Giancarlo Diana & Pier Perri, 2015. "Gini index estimation in randomized response surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 99(1), pages 45-62, January.
    18. Balgobin Nandram & Yuan Yu, 2019. "Bayesian Analysis of Sparse Counts Obtained From the Unrelated Question Design," International Journal of Statistics and Probability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 66-84, September.
    19. Johanna Choumert-Nkolo & Pascale Phelinas, 2018. "New paradigms for household surveys in low and middle income countries [Nouveaux paradigmes d'élaboration des enquêtes ménages dans les pays du Sud]," CERDI Working papers halshs-01888609, HAL.
    20. Kim, Sahrok & Praveen Parboteeah, K. & Cullen, John B. & Jeong, Nara, 2022. "Social institutions approach to women’s firm ownership and firm bribery activity: A study of small-sized firms in emerging markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1333-1349.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:22:p:3617-:d:1524724. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.